New York - Miami - Los Angeles Tuesday, February 27, 2024
C-TPAT
  You are here:  Newsletter
 
Newsletters Minimize
 

16
Get Free At-home COVID-19 Tests This Winter - www.covid.gov/tests
Every U.S. household is eligible to order 4 free at-home COVID-⁠19 tests.
ORDER FREE AT-HOME TESTS
________________________________________________________________________________
Federal Register Notices:
• Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip (PET Film) From India: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2020
• Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Certain Large Vertical Shaft Engines Between 225cc and 999cc, and Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Rescission, in Part, of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2020-2022
• Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From India: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With the Final Results in the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; Notice of Amended Final Results
• Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Certain Power Inverters and Converters, Vehicles Containing the Same, and Components Thereof; Notice of a Commission Determination To Review in Part and, on Review, Affirm a Final Initial Determination Finding No Violation of Section 337; Termination of the Investigation
• Certain Marine Air Conditioning Systems, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same; Institution of Investigation
• Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Emulsion Styrene-Butadiene Rubber From Brazil, Mexico, Poland, and South Korea; Notice of Commission Determination To Conduct Full Five-Year Reviews
• Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Superabsorbent Polymers From South Korea Determination
• Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Finished Carbon Steel Flanges From India: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2020
• Glycine From India: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2020
• Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe From the United Arab Emirates: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With the Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; Notice of Amended Final Results
• Stainless Steel Wire Rod From the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Negative Determination of Circumvention of the Antidumping Order and Postponement of Final Determination
• Narrow Woven Ribbons With Woven Selvedge From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results of the 2016 Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; Notice of Amended Final Results
• Certain Vertical Shaft Engines Between 99cc and Up To 225cc, and Parts Thereof, From the People's Republic of China: Affirmative Final Determination of Circumvention of the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders-60cc Up To 99cc Engines
________________________________________________________________________________
New Orleans Field Office Seizes $29.5 Million Worth of Counterfeits - U.S. Customs & Border Protection
NEW ORLEANS — The New Orleans Field Office ports seized a total of $29,532,583 worth of counterfeit goods, had they been genuine, between Jan. 1 and Nov. 30.
The field office predominantly seizes counterfeits in the express consignment environment, with counterfeit luxury clothing and electronics making up the bulk of the seizures. While large express consignment operations can net large-valued seizures in single incidents, the majority of counterfeit seizures come in smaller, targeted operations.
For example, on Nov. 29 the CBP New Orleans Trade Enforcement Team, working with our Field Intelligence Operations Unit, identified a consignee near Alliance, Louisiana, with previous violations for importing counterfeit Louis Vuitton handbags, Gucci handbags, and Dior wallets totaling $101,832. The following day, at a New Orleans-area express consignment facility, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers conducted an intensive exam on a nearly 20 pound shipment manifested as “jackets” and valued at only $90. The package consisted of one box containing sixteen counterfeit bags; three Louis Vuitton backpacks, three Louis Vuitton handbags, three Louis Vuitton purses, three Gucci messenger bags, three Coach purses, and one Saint Laurent purse. The merchandise was shipped from China, a high source country for the manufacture and export of counterfeit merchandise. Based on the poor quality and circumstances surrounding the importation, the merchandise was detained for further review and ultimately determined to bear counterfeit trademarks.
“Counterfeit goods are poor quality products that cost U.S. businesses billions of dollars a year while robbing our country of jobs and tax revenues,” said Steven Stavinoha, New Orleans Director of Field Operations. “CBP officers throughout my field office remain committed to stopping counterfeit smuggling, taking profits from organized crime, and helping protect our communities from potentially hazardous knockoffs.”
CBP data indicates that handbags, wallets, apparel, footwear, watches, jewelry, and consumer electronics are at higher risk of being counterfeited. Counterfeit versions of popular brands are regularly sold in online marketplaces and flea markets. Not only are counterfeit goods produced in unregulated and potentially exploitative environments in foreign countries, but the profits from their sales provide a funding stream to organized crime.
Illicit manufacturers continue to exploit the rapid growth of e-commerce to sell counterfeit goods to unsuspecting consumers in the United States. In fiscal year 2021, CBP and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Homeland Security Investigation seized over 27,000 shipments containing goods that violated intellectual property rights. The total estimated manufacturer’s suggested retail price of the seized goods, had they been genuine, was $3.3 billion.
Counterfeit goods can often be spotted by their inferior quality. Peeling labels, low-quality ink or printing errors on the packaging, and loosely packed items in the box can be signs that the product you purchased may not be legitimate. Counterfeit apparel and handbags may feature poor or uneven stitching and improperly sized or designed logos. The performance of counterfeit electronics is often marked by short battery life and regular overheating.
Consumers can take simple steps to protect themselves and their families from counterfeit goods:
• Purchase goods directly from the trademark holder or from authorized retailers.
• When shopping online, read seller reviews and check for a working U.S. phone number and an address that can be used to contact the seller.
• Review CBP’s E-Commerce Counterfeit Awareness Guide for Consumers.
• Remember that if the price of a product seems too good to be true, it probably is.
• To report suspected counterfeits, visit CBP’s online e-Allegations portal or call 1-800-BE-ALERT. More information about counterfeit goods is available on CBP’s Fake Goods, Real Dangers website and StopFakes.gov.
B-roll of CBP cargo inspections is available here. Photos of counterfeit goods seized by CBP can be found Here.
________________________________________________________________________________
USITC Makes Determination in Five-Year (Sunset) Review Concerning Stainless Steel Wire Rod from India - U.S. International Trade Commission
The U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) today determined that revoking the existing antidumping duty order on imports of stainless steel wire rod from India would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.
As a result of the Commission’s affirmative determination, the existing order on imports of this product from India will remain in place.
Chairman David S. Johanson and Commissioners Rhonda K. Schmidtlein, Jason E. Kearns, Randolph J. Stayin, and Amy A. Karpel voted in the affirmative.
Today’s action comes under the five-year (sunset) review process required by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. See the attached page for background on these five-year (sunset) reviews.
The Commission’s public report Stainless Steel Wire Rod from India (Inv. No. 731-TA-638 (Fifth Review), USITC Publication 5396, December 2022) will contain the views of the Commission and information developed during the review.
The report will be available by January 17, 2023; when available, it may be accessed on the USITC website at: https://www.usitc.gov/commission_publications_library.
BACKGROUND
The Uruguay Round Agreements Act requires the Department of Commerce to revoke an antidumping or countervailing duty order, or terminate a suspension agreement, after five years unless the Department of Commerce and the USITC determine that revoking the order or terminating the suspension agreement would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping or subsidies (Commerce) and of material injury (USITC) within a reasonably foreseeable time.
The Commission’s institution notice in five-year reviews requests that interested parties file responses with the Commission concerning the likely effects of revoking the order under review as well as other information. Generally within 95 days from institution, the Commission will determine whether the responses it has received reflect an adequate or inadequate level of interest in a full review. If responses to the USITC’s notice of institution are adequate, or if other circumstances warrant a full review, the Commission conducts a full review, which includes a public hearing and issuance of questionnaires.
The Commission generally does not hold a hearing or conduct further investigative activities in expedited reviews. Commissioners base their injury determination in expedited reviews on the facts available, including the Commission’s prior injury and review determinations, responses received to its notice of institution, data collected by staff in connection with the review, and information provided by the Department of Commerce.
The five-year (sunset) review concerning Stainless Steel Wire Rod from India (Fifth Review) was instituted on May 2, 2022.
On August 5, 2022, the Commission voted to conduct an expedited review. Chairman David S. Johanson and Commissioners Rhonda K. Schmidtlein, Jason E. Kearns, Randolph J. Stayin, and Amy A. Karpel concluded that the domestic group response was adequate and the respondent group response was inadequate. Chairman Johanson voted for a full review. Commissioners Schmidtlein, Kearns, Stayin, and Karpel voted for an expedited review.
________________________________________________________________________________
WTO Circulates Dispute Panel Reports Regarding US Measures on Steel and Aluminum Products - World Trade Organization
On 9 December, the WTO circulated the panel reports in the cases brought by China, Norway, Switzerland and Türkiye in “United States — Certain Measures on Steel and Aluminium Products” (DS544, DS552, DS556 and DS564).
Panel Report
________________________________________________________________________________
What Proposed FTC Updates to the Eyeglass Rule Mean for You - Federal Trade Commission
The FTC enforces the Eyeglass Rule, which gives you the right to get your eyeglass prescription — whether you ask for it or not — and at no extra charge once your eye exam has been completed. Having a copy of your prescription lets you shop around and get the best deal. But based on public comments and consumer reports we’ve gotten, it’s clear that some eye doctors aren’t following the Rule.
To correct that and help the FTC enforce the law, the agency, in its notice of proposed rulemaking, wants eye doctors to not only get a signed confirmation when they release prescriptions to patients, but also to keep a record of that confirmation for at least three years. Eye doctors should already be requesting you sign a confirmation of prescription release when you receive your contact lens prescription.
The proposed updates also would clarify that your proof of insurance coverage is considered payment for services when determining when a prescription must be shared. It would also let your eye doctor give you a digital copy of your prescription, instead of a paper one, if you agree.
The FTC wants to know what you think about the proposed updates. The notice includes questions for public comment which will help the agency with its decision-making on the proposal. These include questions about provisions in the proposed rule, as well as questions related to the costs and benefits of the proposed rule to consumers and eye doctors. The notice will be published in the Federal Register in early January 2023. Once it’s there, please submit comments electronically or in writing for 60 days for agency consideration.
In the meantime, learn more about your existing rights at Buying Prescription Glasses or Contact Lenses: Your Rights. And if you think an eye care professional is violating the Eyeglass Rule, report it to the FTC at ReportFraud.ftc.gov.
________________________________________________________________________________
What to do if Your Online Order Never Arrives - Federal Trade Commission
We’ve all been there. During the holidays you order something online and anxiously await its arrival. But then your package doesn’t come when the seller said it would. And worse, you hear nothing. Your happy anticipation is turning to anger and frustration. So now what?
If you didn’t get your stuff:
• First, contact the seller. Most businesses will work with you to resolve the problem and keep you as a customer.
• If that doesn’t work, you still didn’t get your order and the charge shows up on your credit card statement, dispute the charge.
• If you paid by debit card, contact your debit card company (often your bank or credit union). Ask if they can help you. This sample letter for disputing debit card charges can help.
Sometimes, you can head problems off by doing some research before buying from an unfamiliar online store.
• Check out the company or product. Search online for the name plus words like “review,” “complaint,” or “scam.” See what other people say about it. And read the seller's description of the product carefully. If they offer name-brand goods at steeply discounted prices, they might be fakes.
• Pay by credit card. You’ll get protections under federal law, so you don’t have to pay for things you ordered but didn’t get.
A word on timing, as the holidays approach: online sellers have to ship when they (or their ads) say they will. (The law says so.) If they don’t ship then, they have to tell you (and give you a chance to cancel and get a full refund). If they don’t give a shipping date, they have 30 days to ship from the date of your order.
If you suspect a scam, report it to the FTC at ReportFraud.ftc.gov.
________________________________________________________________________________
FTC Seeks to Block Microsoft Corp.’s Acquisition of Activision Blizzard, Inc. - Federal Trade Commission
Agency alleges that maker of Xbox would gain control of top video game franchises, enabling it to harm competition in high-performance gaming consoles and subscription services by denying or degrading rivals’ access to its popular content
The Federal Trade Commission is seeking to block technology giant Microsoft Corp. from acquiring leading video game developer Activision Blizzard, Inc. and its blockbuster gaming franchises such as Call of Duty, alleging that the $69 billion deal, Microsoft’s largest ever and the largest ever in the video gaming industry, would enable Microsoft to suppress competitors to its Xbox gaming consoles and its rapidly growing subscription content and cloud-gaming business.
In a complaint issued today, the FTC pointed to Microsoft’s record of acquiring and using valuable gaming content to suppress competition from rival consoles, including its acquisition of ZeniMax, parent company of Bethesda Softworks (a well-known game developer). Microsoft decided to make several of Bethesda's titles including Starfield and Redfall Microsoft exclusives despite assurances it had given to European antitrust authorities that it had no incentive to withhold games from rival consoles.
“Microsoft has already shown that it can and will withhold content from its gaming rivals,” said Holly Vedova, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition. “Today we seek to stop Microsoft from gaining control over a leading independent game studio and using it to harm competition in multiple dynamic and fast-growing gaming markets.”
Microsoft’s Xbox Series S and Series X are one of only two types of high performance video game consoles. Importantly, Microsoft also offers a leading video game content subscription service called Xbox Game Pass, as well as a cutting-edge cloud-based video game streaming service, according to the complaint.
Activision is one of only a very small number of top video game developers in the world that create and publish high-quality video games for multiple devices, including video game consoles, PCs, and mobile devices. It produces some of the most iconic and popular video game titles, including Call of Duty, World of Warcraft, Diablo, and Overwatch, and has millions of monthly active users around the world, according to the FTC’s complaint. Activision currently has a strategy of offering its games on many devices regardless of producer.
But that could change if the deal is allowed to proceed. With control over Activision’s blockbuster franchises, Microsoft would have both the means and motive to harm competition by manipulating Activision’s pricing, degrading Activision’s game quality or player experience on rival consoles and gaming services, changing the terms and timing of access to Activision’s content, or withholding content from competitors entirely, resulting in harm to consumers.
The Commission vote to issue the complaint was 3-1, with Commissioner Christine S. Wilson voting no. A copy of the administrative complaint will be available shortly.
NOTE: The Commission issues an administrative complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. The issuance of the administrative complaint marks the beginning of a proceeding in which the allegations will be tried in a formal hearing before an administrative law judge.
 
  Copyright © 1997-2023 C-Air Privacy Statement | Terms Of Use