U.S. Department of Commerce Maintains Antidumping Duty Orders on Polyvinyl Alcohol from Japan and China Estimated reading time: 3–5 minutes The U.S. Department of Commerce recently released its final results on the expedited fourth sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders on polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) from Japan and China. These reviews were conducted by the International Trade Administration (ITA) under the Commerce Department. The main conclusion of these reviews is that revoking the antidumping duty orders on PVA from these countries would likely result in the continuation or recurrence of dumping. Dumping is when products are sold at less than fair value, making it hard for domestic producers to compete. Commerce first published the antidumping duty order on PVA from Japan on July 2, 2003, and from China on October 1, 2003. The most recent reviews started on March 2, 2026, in accordance with section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930. By March 17, 2026, domestic interested parties, meaning U.S. producers, expressed their intent to participate in the reviews. They provided the needed information within the necessary timeframe. However, no respondent, meaning no company or country that would be affected by the removal of the duties, provided comments or rebuttals. On April 1, 2026, domestic interested parties filed their substantive response, which is their detailed explanation and evidence on why these duties should stay. Since no companies from Japan or China responded, the Commerce Department proceeded with an expedited review. The final result says that removing the duties would likely lead to as much as 144.16% dumping from Japan and 97.86% from China. Therefore, the duties will remain to protect U.S. producers from unfair competition. For those handling confidential information related to this case, the Department reminds parties to follow rules about returning or destroying information appropriately. This decision underscores the ongoing vigilance by the U.S. Department of Commerce to maintain fair trading practices and protect domestic industries from unfair pricing by foreign competitors. Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
Twist Ties From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of the Expedited First Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order
Antidumping Duty Order on Twist Ties from China Remains in Effect Estimated reading time: 3–5 minutes The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) has completed its first sunset review of the antidumping duty (AD) order concerning twist ties from the People’s Republic of China. Commerce announced that revoking this order would likely lead to continued or renewed dumping. Dumping is when foreign producers sell goods in the U.S. at prices lower than the fair value. The determination was made on June 30, 2026. Commerce stated that the dumping margins could be as high as 72.96 percent if the order were revoked. Background of the Order Commerce first issued the antidumping order on April 14, 2021. The order was put in place to protect U.S. producers from unfair pricing by foreign companies. The review process ensures that the order is still needed. Review Process The review began with a notice of initiation on March 2, 2026. This was part of a routine five-year sunset review to check if the order should continue. Bedford Industries, Inc., a U.S. company, participated in the review. They argued that removing the order would harm U.S. producers. No foreign producers from China responded to the review. Conclusion of the Review Based on the review, Commerce decided that lifting the order would hurt U.S. businesses. The anticipated consequence would be the return of dumping practices by Chinese producers. Commerce is responsible for enforcing trade laws to ensure fair competition. This decision reflects their commitment to protecting domestic industries from unfair competition practices. What Happens Next? The order remains in place, continuing to impose duties on twist ties imported from China. These duties counteract the negative effects of dumping by ensuring that imported goods are priced fairly compared to domestic products. For more information, materials related to this decision can be accessed through the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS) at https://access.trade.gov. This move signifies a broader effort by the United States to maintain fair trade practices and protect local industries against unfair competition from foreign markets. Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
Phosphate Fertilizers From the Russian Federation: Final Results of the Expedited First Sunset Review of the Countervailing Duty Order
U.S. Upholds Subsidy Duties on Russian Phosphate Fertilizers Estimated reading time: 2–3 minutes The U.S. Department of Commerce has made an important decision regarding phosphate fertilizers from Russia. They have chosen to keep the countervailing duty (CVD) order in place. This action is based on findings that removing the order could lead to unfair subsidy practices continuing or restarting. Background Information In 2021, a CVD order was placed on phosphate fertilizers from Russia. This order was made to prevent unfair trading advantages due to subsidies. The government reviews such orders every five years to decide if they should continue. This review process is called a “sunset review.” Review and Responses The sunset review for this order began on March 2, 2026. The Mosaic Company and J.R. Simplot Company, two U.S. fertilizer producers, showed interest in this review. They argued that the CVD order should not be revoked. Their timely responses were part of the review procedure. However, neither the Russian government nor any Russian fertilizer producers responded adequately. Because of this, the review was fast-tracked, lasting only 120 days. Outcome of the Review The review concluded that canceling the CVD order could lead to the continuation of subsidies by Russian producers. Therefore, the Commerce Department decided to keep the order active. This decision aims to ensure fair competition. Subsidy Rates The review outlined specific subsidy rates for Russian producers if the order was to be revoked. EuroChem would have a rate of 24.11%, JSC Apatit at 14.64%, and all other producers at 16.64%. Next Steps This notice serves as a reminder for anyone involved in this case under the Administrative Protective Order (APO) to properly handle confidential information. The Department of Commerce emphasizes the importance of this regulation. In summary, the Department of Commerce has decided to maintain the CVD order on Russian phosphate fertilizers. This decision aims to protect the U.S. market from unfair trading and ensure a level playing field for all producers. Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
Silicon Metal From Australia: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value
U.S. Determines Silicon Metal from Australia Sold Below Fair Value Estimated reading time: 4–6 minutes The U.S. Department of Commerce has announced that silicon metal from Australia is being sold in the United States at less than fair value. This decision comes after a detailed investigation by the department’s International Trade Administration. The investigation looked at the period from April 1, 2024, to March 31, 2025. The final finding from the investigation was made on June 30, 2026, and says that the silicon metal imported from Australia is being sold for less than what it’s worth. Commerce’s thorough checks included examining the sales and cost information of Simcoa Operations Pty Ltd., the main producer involved. The information was verified following strict procedures. This included looking at the company’s sales records and original documents to ensure accuracy. The investigation also confirmed that no parties raised concerns about the scope, which describes that only non-semiconductor grade silicon metal is covered. The silicon must contain between 85.00 and 99.99 percent silicon. Silicon considered “semiconductor grade” is not part of this investigation. The final results of this investigation set a dumping margin of 6.16 percent. This means that the specific producer, Simcoa, as well as other producers not individually investigated, fall under this margin. All other producers and exporters will have this same margin applied. As a result of this finding, U.S. Customs and Border Protection will continue to hold off on finalizing the customs charges on these imports, keeping them in a temporary status. This applies to goods arriving after February 9, 2026, and will continue until new directions are issued. The U.S. International Trade Commission is also involved in this process. They will decide if the underpriced imports have harmed the domestic industry within 45 days of this determination. If they find no harm was done, the process will end, and any held funds will be returned. If they find the opposite, measures to counteract the unfair pricing will be reinforced. This decision and all related processes follow the guidelines and regulations in place for international trade. The detailed process aims to ensure fairness and protect domestic industry from unfair pricing practices. For detailed information on the scope of the investigation, one can refer to the scope appendices provided. These clearly define the measures and specific silicon types covered under this investigation. The enforcement of existing rules aims to maintain a fair market environment. It’s a vital part of ensuring that imported products are priced appropriately when entering the U.S. market. Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
Silicon Metal From Australia: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination
Commerce Finds Subsidies on Silicon Metal from Australia Estimated reading time: 4–7 minutes The U.S. Department of Commerce has made a final decision about silicon metal from Australia. They found that producers and exporters of silicon metal there receive subsidies. A subsidy is when the government helps by providing financial support or other aid. This investigation is an important step in understanding trade relations. Time Period of Investigation The investigation looked at how things were between January 1, 2024, and December 31, 2024. This time frame is called the period of investigation. Commerce wants to make sure that trade is fair and that no one is getting an unfair advantage. What is Silicon Metal? The investigation focuses on silicon metal from Australia. Silicon metal is used in many products, from electronics to solar panels. It contains at least 85.00 percent silicon but less than 99.99 percent. The investigation did not cover semiconductor grade silicon, which is even purer and used mainly in electronics and technology. Details of the Investigation Commerce began by issuing a preliminary decision in September 2025. They invited input and comments from interested parties. Then, they examined the situation further with responses and evidence taken from Simcoa Operations Pty, Ltd. This is the main company involved in the case. They verified all information provided by Simcoa and the Australian Government. Verification involves checking documents and making sure the information given is correct and trustworthy. Final Findings The investigation resulted in a finding that Simcoa receives a subsidy rate of 32.57 percent. This is the amount of financial aid or benefit measured compared to typical market conditions. Because Simcoa was the only company closely looked at, all other related companies will receive the same subsidy rate. Next Steps Commerce has informed the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) of its determination. The ITC will now decide if these subsidies harm or threaten to harm U.S. industries. Their decision will determine whether or not further actions, like tariffs, will be applied. Importance of Fair Trade This investigation is part of efforts to ensure that trade is fair between countries. Unfair subsidies can make it difficult for U.S. companies to compete. By finding these subsidies, Commerce can help protect industries and jobs in the United States. This ruling will have significant effects on trade relations and the companies involved. The investigation sheds light on how important and complex international trade can be. Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
Silicon Metal From Norway: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination
U.S. Department of Commerce Finds Subsidies for Silicon Metal from Norway Estimated reading time: 3–5 minutes Date: 2026-06-30 The U.S. Department of Commerce has announced a decision about silicon metal from Norway. They have found that producers in Norway are receiving countervailable subsidies. This means the U.S. believes that the Norwegian government is giving unfair financial support to these producers. The Department looked at the period from January 1, 2024, to December 31, 2024. They reviewed the situation thoroughly and decided that these subsidies are affecting the U.S. market. Elkem ASA, a major producer from Norway, was specifically investigated. They were found to have received subsidies at a rate of 17.27%. This rate will apply to all other producers/exporters from Norway as well. The Commerce Department follows a specific process to determine these subsidies. They check if there is a financial contribution by an authority that offers a benefit to the company receiving it. If this action is specific, it can be labeled as a countervailable subsidy. The investigation included several programs. The department also conducted verification visits to Norway. They looked at sales and accounting records to ensure accuracy. If no major changes occur, the U.S. will continue to impose duties on silicon metal from Norway. This is to make sure that the U.S. industry is protected from unfair competition. The International Trade Commission (ITC) will now make its own decision. They will decide if U.S. industry is being harmed by these subsidized imports. If they agree, there will be a formal order to impose duties. For now, cash deposits are being collected on products imported since September 26, 2025. These are held until the final decision is confirmed. If the ITC finds no harm, the process will be stopped, and duties will be refunded. In conclusion, the U.S. Department of Commerce is taking steps to address subsidies on silicon metal from Norway. They aim to ensure fair competition and protect U.S. producers. Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
Silicon Metal From Norway: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value
U.S. Finds Silicon Metal from Norway Sold Below Fair Value Estimated reading time: 1–7 minutes June 30, 2026 The U.S. Department of Commerce has made a significant announcement regarding silicon metal imported from Norway. They have determined that this product is being sold in the United States at less than fair value. This means that the prices at which it is being sold are lower than the regular market value, potentially hurting U.S. businesses. Background of the Investigation Back in February 2026, the Commerce Department started looking into the pricing of silicon metal from Norway. This investigation focused on sales from April 1, 2024, to March 31, 2025. They had initially found that Norwegian silicon metal was being sold at unfair prices, and now they have finalized this decision on June 24, 2026. Details of the Final Decision The investigation specifically looked at a company called Elkem ASA. They found that this company was selling silicon metal at a dumping margin of 2.47%. A dumping margin shows how much lower the selling price is compared to the normal market value. This same margin of 2.47% will apply to all other producers and exporters from Norway, as Elkem was the only company looked into in this process. What Happens Next Now, U.S. Customs and Border Protection will continue to hold off on finalizing sales (or suspend liquidation) of these products that were brought into the U.S. from February 2026 onwards. Importers will need to put down cash deposits to cover estimated antidumping duties, which are protections against unfairly low-priced imports. Role of the International Trade Commission The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) will now look at whether the U.S. industry is being harmed by these imports. They have 45 days from this final determination to make their decision. If they find no harm, then the duties won’t go into effect, and any deposits made will be refunded. However, if they do find harm, the Department of Commerce will ask Customs and Border Protection to officially apply the duties. This final step in the process helps ensure fair competition between imported products and those made domestically in the U.S., protecting local industries from being undercut by low-priced foreign goods. Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
Chlorinated Isocyanurates From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2023-2024; Correction
Correction Made to Antidumping Review by U.S. Department of Commerce Estimated reading time: 1–7 minutes The U.S. Department of Commerce has made a correction to its recent notice about antidumping duties. These duties concern chlorinated isocyanurates from China. On March 11, 2026, the Department published the final results of an antidumping duty review. The review looked at products from China between June 1, 2023, and May 31, 2024. But there was a mistake in the dates. The notice originally said that the review period ended on May 3, 2024. This was wrong. The correct end date is May 31, 2024. Antidumping duties are charges placed on goods sold below cost. They protect U.S. companies from unfair pricing by foreign countries. The correction was published in the Federal Register. It serves as an official update to the record. For more information, contact Dan Alexander at (202) 482-4313. He works in the AD/CVD Operations Office at the International Trade Administration. This update is issued under the Tariff Act of 1930. The notification is part of regular government procedures. It ensures that all interested parties have the correct information. The U.S. Department of Commerce is responsible for these notices. Christopher Abbott is the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Negotiations. He performed these duties related to the correction. For further official information, visit www.gpo.gov. This correction is now part of the permanent public record. It ensures the transparency and accuracy of trade actions. Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
Certain Photovoltaic Trunk Bus Cable Assemblies and Components Thereof; Notice of Final Determination Finding a Violation of Section 337; Issuance of a Limited Exclusion Order; Termination of Investigation
US International Trade Commission Finds Patent Violation by Voltage in Photovoltaic Cable Assemblies Case Estimated reading time: 5–7 minutes The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) has issued a final decision in the case against Voltage, LLC and Ningbo Voltage Smart Production Co. These companies were found to have violated Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930. This decision comes as a result of their actions involving certain photovoltaic trunk bus cable assemblies and components. The case was originally brought forward by Shoals Technologies Group, LLC. They claimed that Voltage infringed on U.S. Patent No. 12,015,375 and U.S. Patent No. 12,015,376. The ITC agreed with Shoals Technologies, finding that Voltage’s products unlawfully infringed specific claims of these patents. The ITC has ordered a limited exclusion order, or LEO, against Voltage’s infringing products. This means Voltage is prohibited from importing and selling these products in the United States. Alongside the LEO, the ITC has set a one hundred percent bond on importations of these products during the period of Presidential review. The investigation into this case began on February 18, 2025. Shoals alleged Voltage’s products infringed multiple claims of the two patents in question. During the process, Voltage attempted to argue that the patents were not enforceable. However, the ITC affirmed that Voltage did not prove these arguments. The Commission’s Final Initial Determination (FID) supported Shoals’ stance that they satisfied the requirements to protect the patents. In particular, they met the criteria related to the technology covered by the patents and demonstrated economic significance within the U.S. While Voltage sought to challenge these findings and proposed alternate designs they claimed were non-infringing, the ITC did not find these arguments convincing. The Commission decided that some of Voltage’s alternate designs still infringed upon Shoals’ patents. Multiple public interest statements were submitted during the case. These came from U.S. Senators, a Representative, and the Tennessee Chamber of Commerce. Despite these opinions, the Commission decided the public interest did not prevent issuing the exclusion order. Voltage filed a motion requesting a review based on a related court case opinion. However, the ITC did not modify their decision based on this motion. The ITC’s decision concludes this investigation, taking a significant step to protect patent holders’ rights in the U.S. Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission, issued the order on June 25, 2026, reaffirming the ITC’s commitment to upholding fair trade regulations. Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
Certain Heavy Machinery and Components Thereof; Notice of Institution of Investigation
U.S. International Trade Commission Starts New Investigation Estimated reading time: 5–7 minutes A new investigation has begun by the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC). This investigation was announced on June 30, 2026, in the Federal Register. It is about certain heavy machinery and the parts used in them. Who Made the Complaint? The complaint was filed by Caterpillar Inc. This company is based in Irving, Texas. They filed the complaint on May 26, 2026. They also gave more information on June 11, 2026. Why Was the Complaint Filed? Caterpillar Inc. says there is a violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930. They claim this violation is due to the importation and sale of certain heavy machinery and parts. These actions are said to infringe on several U.S. patents. The Patents Involved U.S. Patent No. 8,515,637 U.S. Patent No. 9,133,837 U.S. Patent No. 9,347,554 U.S. Patent No. 10,059,341 What Is Caterpillar Asking For? Caterpillar wants the ITC to issue an investigation. They hope that after the investigation, a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders will be made. Scope of the Investigation The investigation will look into if there was a violation in importing and selling certain products in the U.S. These products are telehandlers, excavators, loaders, and their parts. Who Is Named in the Investigation? Doosan Bobcat Inc. in South Korea. Doosan Bobcat North America, Inc. in North Dakota, USA. Doosan Bobcat Mexico Monterrey in Mexico. Doosan Bobcat EMEA S.R.O. in Czech Republic. Doosan Bobcat France S.A.S. in France. Doosan Bobcat India Private Ltd. in India. What Must The Respondents Do? These companies need to respond to the complaint. They have 20 days to respond after getting the notice. If they do not respond on time, they may lose the right to contest the complaint. It could lead to an exclusion order or a cease and desist order against them. Who Do You Contact for More Info? For more information, Susan Orndoff at the Office of the Secretary can be contacted. Her phone number is (202) 205-1802. Conclusion The investigation started because of serious claims from Caterpillar Inc. The ITC will investigate to see if the laws have been broken. The outcome could have important effects on international trade. Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
Certain Disposable and Other Closed-System Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems (ENDS); Devices and Components Thereof; Notice of a Commission Determination Not To Review an Initial Determination Amending the Complaint and Notice of Investigation To Add Proposed Respondents
U.S. International Trade Commission Moves Forward in ENDS Investigation Estimated reading time: 1–7 minutes The U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) is continuing its investigation into certain electronic nicotine delivery systems, also known as ENDS. These systems include both disposable and other closed-system devices. The investigation looks at the impact of these devices on U.S. industries. On June 26, 2026, the USITC decided not to review an initial determination. This decision was made by the administrative law judge. The decision involved granting a motion to amend the complaint. This means new companies, called respondents, are added to the investigation. The new companies are Nevera (HK) Limited, Wonder Ladies Limited, Sailing South Limited, Palma Terra Limited, and Marea Morada Limited. The investigation began after a complaint by R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and other affiliated companies. They are concerned about how some ENDS devices are being imported and sold in the U.S. The complaint says these actions may harm industries in the U.S. The original list of companies being investigated is long. It includes companies from both the U.S. and other countries, like China. Some of these companies are D&A Distribution, LLC from Georgia and Shenzhen Geekvape Technology Co., Ltd from Shenzhen, China. The Commission voted to amend the complaint to add the new companies on June 26, 2026. This decision is part of their continued effort to protect U.S. industries. The authority for this investigation comes from the Tariff Act of 1930. This investigation shows the ongoing efforts of the USITC to look into unfair trade practices. The Commission is responsible for ensuring that imported goods do not harm U.S businesses. Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
Standard Steel Welded Wire Mesh From Mexico; Scheduling of Expedited Five-Year Reviews
US International Trade Commission to Conduct Expedited Reviews on Steel Mesh Imports from Mexico Estimated reading time: 3–5 minutes The United States International Trade Commission (ITC) has announced the scheduling of expedited reviews on standard steel welded wire mesh imports from Mexico. This decision is under the Tariff Act of 1930. These reviews will help determine if removing antidumping and countervailing duty orders on this product would likely cause harm to the U.S. industry. The ITC is tasked with assessing this potential impact within a foreseeable future. The decision was made on June 5, 2026. The ITC found that the response from U.S. producers to their initial notice was adequate, but the response from Mexican producers was not. Therefore, the ITC decided to proceed with expedited reviews. A staff report about this case will be available in August 2026 for those with access to the Commission’s Administrative Protective Order service. This report will contain details about the mesh imports and their impact on the U.S. market. Parties involved in the case can submit their comments by August 27, 2026. These comments should not include new factual information. If the Department of Commerce extends their review period, this deadline may change. The ITC has determined that this case is complex. It may take extra time to complete the review, allowing up to 90 additional days. This procedure is in accordance with the Tariff Act of 1930. Essentially, the ITC is working to ensure that U.S. industries are not unfairly affected by these imports. The reviews are a critical part of this effort. For more information, you can visit the ITC’s website or contact Alec Resch with the Office of Investigations. Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Continuation of Antidumping Duty Order
Continuation of Antidumping Duty Order on Frozen Fish Fillets from Vietnam Estimated reading time: 2–3 minutes The U.S. Department of Commerce and the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) have decided to continue the antidumping duty order on frozen fish fillets from Vietnam. This decision is based on findings that removing the duty would likely result in dumping and harm U.S. industries. The antidumping duty order was first published on August 12, 2003. On December 1, 2025, a fourth review began. The review aimed to decide if the duty should stay. Commerce and the ITC found that getting rid of the order could cause problems like dumping and material injury to U.S. industries. The frozen fish fillets covered by the order are from the species Pangasius, known as “basa” and “tra” in Vietnam. The products involved include regular and shank fillets, whether breaded or marinated. However, the order does not include whole fish, steaks, or belly-flap nuggets. Customs and Border Protection will keep collecting cash deposits at current rates for these products. The order’s continuation is effective from June 24, 2026. Commerce plans to start another review of this order before its five-year anniversary. This order helps protect U.S. industries by making sure imported products are sold at fair prices. The process of reviewing these orders follows strict legal guidelines to ensure U.S. industries remain competitive. Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
Commodity Matchbooks From India: Continuation of Antidumping Duty Order and Countervailing Duty Order
U.S. Keeps Tariffs on Matchbooks from India Estimated reading time: 1–7 minutes The U.S. Department of Commerce has announced it will continue to impose duties on commodity matchbooks from India. This decision follows findings from both the Department of Commerce and the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC). They both believe that removing the current duties would probably lead to more dumping, or unfairly low prices, and subsidies, which are unfair financial benefits from foreign governments. Keeping these duties in place will help protect the U.S. matchbook industry from injury. The duties in question have been in effect since December 11, 2009. The ITC and the Commerce Department recently completed a third review of these orders. This review is known as a “sunset review,” and it takes place every five years. The latest review began on October 1, 2025, and finished with a decision that the duties should remain in place to prevent any harm. The matchbooks affected by this order are the simple kind, often called “commodity matchbooks.” These are the book matches you can find in ordinary stores, like supermarkets and convenience stores. They are made from materials such as paperboard. They sometimes have printing on them, like a simple “Thank You” message, but they don’t include promotional matchbooks from places like hotels or restaurants. Those promotional items are not covered by this order. The decision to maintain the duties took effect on June 15, 2026. It means the U.S. Customs and Border Protection will continue collecting the existing duties when these matchbooks are imported. The Department of Commerce will begin another review of this decision five years from now to decide if the duties should still continue. This decision shows the U.S. is committed to protecting local industries from unfair trade practices by continuing to monitor and enforce trade laws. Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
Raw Honey From Brazil: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2023-2024; Correction
Correction Made to Raw Honey Antidumping Review from Brazil Estimated reading time: 2 minutes The U.S. Department of Commerce has made an important correction regarding the antidumping duty on raw honey from Brazil. In a notice published on June 3, 2026, the Department listed a company under the wrong name. The company was listed as Breyer & Via Ltda. This was a mistake. The correct name of the company is Breyer & Cia Ltda. This correction was published on June 29, 2026. The information was published to ensure accuracy in the Federal Register, Volume 91, Issue 123. The correction appears in the Federal Register on page 39071. The correction relates to the final results of the 2023-2024 administrative review of the antidumping duty order. The review is important for ensuring fair trade practices. The name correction ensures that all involved parties have the right information. The Department of Commerce is committed to accuracy. They encourage interested parties to note this correction. For more details, contact Braeden Lowe at the U.S. Department of Commerce. His phone number is (202) 482-9124. This correction is issued under the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5). The notice was prepared by Scot Fullerton. He is the Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations. The correction is part of official records. It will help maintain the integrity of the trade review process. This announcement aims to keep all documents accurate and up to date. Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
Steel Propane Cylinders From Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2023-2024
U.S. Finds Dumped Steel Propane Cylinders from Thailand Estimated reading time: 2–4 minutes The United States Department of Commerce (Commerce) has completed its review of steel propane cylinders imported from Thailand. An administrative review for the period of August 1, 2023, to July 31, 2024, was conducted. Florida-based company, Sahamitr Pressure Container Public Company Limited (SMPC), was involved in this case. Commerce discovered that SMPC sold steel propane cylinders to the United States at unfairly low prices. The review process began with preliminary results announced on February 10, 2026. Further comments were invited, and the final results were released on June 17, 2026. The conclusion showed that Sahamitr Pressure Container Public Company Limited had a dumping margin of 1.01 percent. A dumping margin is the difference between the price in the U.S. and the normal value. Commerce plans to tell U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) how much antidumping duty to charge. These charges will apply to all covered entries during the specified period. Importers who have entries during this period should be aware. There is a responsibility to file a certificate about the reimbursement of antidumping duties. Not complying could lead to double duties. The new cash deposit requirements will be enforced. Importers will pay based on these requirements. The rate for all producers and exporters, not specifically covered, will remain at 10.77 percent. These measures will stay in place to ensure fair pricing in the market. The review was overseen by Christopher Abbott, who is the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Negotiations. This action helps keep a fair trade environment in the U.S. Thank you for reading this report on Commerce’s actions concerning steel propane cylinders from Thailand. Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
Twist Ties From China; Notice of Commission Determination To Conduct Full Five-Year Reviews
International Trade Commission to Review Twist Ties from China Estimated reading time: 2–3 minutes Date: 2026-06-23 The United States International Trade Commission (USITC) has announced that it will conduct full five-year reviews on twist ties from China. These reviews are to assess if removing countervailing and antidumping duties would harm U.S. industries. The countervailing and antidumping duties are rules put in place to protect U.S. manufacturers. They stop cheap imports from hurting local businesses. The review will determine if removing these duties will hurt U.S. industries in the future. The Commission decided on this review process on June 5, 2026. A schedule for these reviews will be shared soon. Kristina Lara of the Office of Investigations is the point of contact for more information. She is based in Washington, DC, and can be reached at 202-205-3386. The hearing-impaired can call 202-205-1810 for assistance. Those needing special help to access the Commission can call 202-205-2000. The public can also find details on the USITC website: https://www.usitc.gov. The electronic docket can be viewed at https://edis.usitc.gov. The reviews are conducted under the Tariff Act of 1930 and follow specific rules. The domestic interested party group response was considered adequate by the USITC, while the respondent interested party group response was inadequate. Commissioners Johanson and Kearns voted for full reviews. Chair Karpel voted for expedited reviews. The decisions are part of the records available from the Office of the Secretary and on the Commission’s website. Lisa Barton, the Secretary to the Commission, issued this notice on June 17, 2026. Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
Notice of Receipt of Complaint; Solicitation of Comments Relating to the Public Interest
U.S. International Trade Commission Receives Complaint on Battery Anode Materials Estimated reading time: 3–5 minutes The U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint about certain anode materials. These materials are used in battery cells and batteries. The complaint was submitted by Sila Nanotechnologies, Inc. and Georgia Tech Research Corporation. The complaint alleges that section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 has been violated. This section deals with the importation and sale of infringing products in the United States. Details of the Complaint The complaint was filed on June 18, 2026. It lists several companies as respondents. These companies are Carbon ONE New Energy Group Co., Ltd., Carbon One New Energy (Hangzhou) Co., Ltd., and Zhejiang Lichen New Material Technology Co., Ltd. All are based in China. The complaint requests the Commission to issue certain orders. These include a limited exclusion order and cease-and-desist orders. A bond is also requested on the respondents’ products during a 60-day Presidential review period. Public Interest Considerations The Commission is seeking public comments on this complaint. Public interest issues such as public health and welfare, competitive conditions, and effects on U.S. consumers should be addressed. Comments can be submitted by proposed respondents, interested parties, and government agencies. The Commission wants to understand how these anode materials are used in the United States. They also seek information on any public health, safety, or welfare concerns. The public should also comment on whether similar products are made in the United States. The capacity of U.S. companies to replace the imports is under consideration. Submissions Any written submissions must be filed within eight calendar days after this notice. Replies to these submissions must be filed within three days. All documents must be submitted electronically via the Commission’s Electronic Document Information System at https://edis.usitc.gov. Requests for confidential treatment must be directed to the Secretary to the Commission. All nonconfidential submissions will be available for public viewing. The Commission’s action is based on section 337 of the Tariff Act and specific rules of practice and procedure. This notice was ordered by the Commission and issued on June 18, 2026. Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 From India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2023-2024
U.S. Department of Commerce Concludes Antidumping Review on Indian Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 Date: 2026-06-22 Estimated reading time: 2 minutes The U.S. Department of Commerce has published the final results of its antidumping duty administrative review of Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 (CVP-23) imported from India. This review covers the period from December 1, 2023, to November 30, 2024. The review focused on Western Chemical Industries P Limited (Western Chemical), a producer and exporter of CVP-23 in India. The Department found that Western Chemical did not sell CVP-23 at prices below the normal value in the United States during the specified period. Therefore, the company’s dumping margin was determined to be 0.00 percent. Because the results did not change from the preliminary findings announced on February 13, 2026, there is no accompanying decision memorandum. No parties contested the preliminary findings. The Department’s review was conducted under section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. The scope of the order includes CVP-23 in any form. The Department conducts these reviews to ensure fair trade practices are followed. Since no changes were made, there are no new calculations to disclose. The Department has confirmed with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) that duties will be assessed according to these final results. Entries will be liquidated without additional antidumping duties due to the zero margin for Western Chemical. Those involved in importing merchandise during the period should note that if they were unaware their products would enter the U.S., CBP may assess duties at the “all-others” rate from the original investigation, set at 27.48 percent. Cash deposit requirements for future imports will reflect these results. If a company-specific rate is 0.00 percent, no cash deposit will be required. If a company was not reviewed but was included in an earlier segment with a specific rate, that rate will apply. Otherwise, the “all-others” rate of 27.48 percent will be used. Importers must remember to file certificates regarding the reimbursement of duties as required by U.S. laws. Failure to do so may lead to the presumption of reimbursement and result in double duties or increased antidumping duties. All parties under an Administrative Protective Order (APO) must manage their responsibilities regarding APO materials, including their return or destruction. Failure to comply with APO rules could lead to sanctions. This notice is published in accordance with U.S. law and the Department’s regulations. The Department ensures fair and equitable trade practices by conducting thorough reviews. Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
Certain Activated Carbon From the People’s Republic of China: Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2023-2024; Correction
Correction in Antidumping Duty Review on Activated Carbon from China Estimated reading time: 2 minutes Published: 2026-06-22 The U.S. Department of Commerce has published a correction in the Federal Register. The correction is related to the antidumping duty review on activated carbon from China for the years 2023-2024. This review determines if companies from China sold activated carbon in the U.S. at prices below fair value. Originally, the notice published on June 2, 2026, listed companies that should not have been included. It also missed one company that should have been on the list. Now, the correct list of companies receiving a separate rate is as follows: Beijing Pacific Activated Carbon Products Co., Ltd. Bengbu Modern Environmental Co. Ltd. Carbon Activated Tianjin Co., Ltd. Ningxia Mineral & Chemical Limited Shanxi Industry Technology Trading Co., Ltd. Shanxi Sincere Industrial Co., Ltd. Tancarb Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. Companies listed here are given special attention in the review. This is important for fair trade practices. The Public Notice was updated with this correction on June 16, 2026. This correction follows rules in sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act. For more information, contact Andrew Hart at the U.S. Department of Commerce. This update helps provide accurate information about trade rules and regulations. It is essential for fair trade between the U.S. and China. Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand From Spain: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2024-2025
Department of Commerce Finds Dumping of Steel Wire from Spain Estimated reading time: 3 minutes The U.S. Department of Commerce has announced preliminary results in an important trade review. The department is looking at prestressed concrete steel wire strand from Spain. They are concerned that this wire is being sold in the U.S. at less than its normal value. This could be unfair to U.S. companies. What Did They Find? From June 1, 2024, to May 31, 2025, a Spanish company called Global Special Steel Products S.A.U., also known as Trenzas y Cables de Acero PSC, S.L. (TYCSA), was investigated. The Department of Commerce found that TYCSA sold their products in the U.S. at prices lower than in Spain. This is called “dumping,” and it can hurt American businesses. The dumping margin for TYCSA was found to be 13.57%. Why Is This Important? Dumping can harm U.S. companies because it allows foreign companies to sell their products at a much lower price. This makes it hard for U.S. companies to compete. The Department of Commerce is tracking these sales to ensure fair competition. Next Steps for TYCSA TYCSA must comment on these findings. They can send briefs or written comments to the Department of Commerce. They have 21 days from the date of the announcement to do so. Other companies can also send comments, but they must do so five days after TYCSA. Assessment and Cash Deposit Changes Once the review is finalized, the Department will calculate the duties TYCSA must pay. If the final review shows a dumping margin not less than 0.50%, the company will have to pay antidumping duties. This could mean paying extra fees on their products to make up for the low prices at which they were sold. For now, the Department of Commerce plans to adjust cash deposit requirements. This will affect how much TYCSA and others must deposit when they sell these products in the U.S. What If There’s No Dumping? If in the final review, the margin is found to be zero or very small, TYCSA may not need to pay extra duties. Their products can be imported without additional costs. Final Thoughts The Department of Commerce takes these issues seriously. Ensuring fair trade helps protect American jobs and companies. This review is part of ongoing efforts to keep the playing field level between U.S. and foreign businesses. Stay tuned for updates on this case as the Department of Commerce reviews comments and issues its final decision. Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
1,1,1,2- Tetrafluoroethane (R-134a) From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2024-2025
Commerce Department Finalizes Antidumping Review on R-134a from China Estimated reading time: 2–3 minutes On June 22, 2026, the U.S. Department of Commerce announced the final results of its antidumping duty administrative review concerning 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane (R-134a) imported from the People’s Republic of China. This review covers the period from April 1, 2024, to March 31, 2025. Background The Department of Commerce had previously released preliminary results on March 12, 2026. They invited interested parties to comment on those results, but no comments were received. Therefore, the findings remain unchanged from the preliminary stage. Key Findings The Commerce Department determined that Zhejiang Sanmei Chemical Industry Co., Ltd., Jiangsu Sanmei Chemicals Co., Ltd., and Fujian Qingliu Dongying Chemical Industry Co., Ltd. (combined as “Sanmei”) did not qualify for separate rates. Alongside Sanmei, 23 other companies also failed to qualify for separate rates. This determination means they are all part of the China-wide entity. China-Wide Entity All companies under review that could not demonstrate eligibility for separate rates are treated as part of the China-wide entity. The assigned weighted-average dumping margin for the China-wide entity remains at 167.02%. Assessment Rates The Commerce Department will soon instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection on the appropriate antidumping duties for this review period. Companies that did not receive a separate rate will be subject to the China-wide entity rate. Assessment instructions are expected no earlier than 35 days after this announcement. Cash Deposit Requirements New cash deposit requirements will be applied to shipments of R-134a entering the U.S. from China. The cash deposit rate for exporters that couldn’t secure separate rates will match the China-wide rate of 167.02%. These rates will remain effective until further notice. Reminder to Importers Importers are reminded of their duty to submit certifications regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties, in compliance with federal regulations. These decisions were made in line with U.S. trade laws, aiming to ensure fair competition between domestic and foreign products. The results of this review reflect the efforts to address any unfair pricing practices from foreign manufacturers. Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
Revisions to User Fees for Export and Investment Promotion Services/Events
ITA Implements New User Fees for Export and Investment Promotion Estimated reading time: 3–5 minutes The International Trade Administration (ITA) is making big changes to its fees for export and investment promotion services. Starting July 22, 2026, ITA will have a new User Fee Schedule to help recover the costs of these special services. The ITA offers services to U.S. companies to help them grow their business overseas. This includes small and medium-sized businesses, which are encouraged to export more goods and services. ITA is also focused on attracting foreign investment into the U.S. New Fee Structure The ITA recently did a cost study and found out it was not recovering the full costs of its services. To fix this, ITA will now follow guidelines from the Office of Management and Budget. These guidelines are in Circular A-25, which says that federal agencies should recover their costs when offering special services. The ITA will no longer offer fee discounts for small and medium businesses. This means that fees for standardized services will be adjusted to fully recover costs. The new fees will charge for ITA staff time and any extra costs like travel or venue rental. New Services The ITA is also adding new services to its offerings: Trade Missions: These will have a non-standard fee. Rural Export Center (REC) Services: There will be new services like Matrix, One Country Report, Potential Partner List, and REC Check. Services for Trade Show Organizers: This includes the Trade Event Partnership Program (TEPP) and the Trade Event Menu of Services (TEMS). The ITA aims to provide better services at trade shows and events, including matchmaking and market counseling. Fee Changes Explained There are two main reasons for these fee changes: Full Cost Recovery: The ITA wants to make sure it covers all its costs. Adjustments: The ITA took into account the actual level of effort needed for their services, which was higher than before. The ITA held an independent study to check their costs and is now applying these findings to the new fee structure. Request for Comments ITA is asking for public comments about how the new fees will affect their clients. They want to understand how businesses will adapt to these changes. Comments can be sent by email or through the Federal eRulemaking Portal. The ITA wants these fees to help promote U.S. exports and investments efficiently. They will reassess the fee schedule one year after implementation and then every two years. This change aims to provide fair and sustainable financial support for the services that help U.S. businesses succeed globally. Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
Notice of Receipt of Complaint; Solicitation of Comments Relating to the Public Interest
U.S. International Trade Commission Receives Complaint on DRAM Imports Estimated reading time: 3–5 minutes On June 16, 2026, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) received a new complaint. The complaint is about certain Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM) devices. This includes products containing DRAM and components. The complaint was filed by a company named Netlist, Inc. Netlist, Inc. claims there are violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930. This law helps the U.S. control imports. The complaint says some DRAM devices are being imported and sold in ways that break this law. Netlist, Inc. wants the Commission to take action to stop these imports. The complaint lists Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. from South Korea. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Semiconductor, Inc. are also named. These companies are based in Plano, Texas. Other companies listed are Google LLC from Mountain View, California, Super Micro Computer, Inc. from San Jose, California, NVIDIA Corp. from Santa Clara, California, and Broadcom Inc. from Palo Alto, California. Netlist, Inc. wants the Commission to issue orders. These orders would stop or limit the import and sale of the DRAM devices. They also want a bond placed on the accused products during a 60-day review period. This is according to another section of the Tariff Act. The Commission is asking for comments from the public. It wants to know if stopping these imports would affect the U.S. economy. Comments should say if the actions would impact U.S. health, safety, or jobs. The Commission also wants to know if other products made in the U.S. could replace the DRAM devices. Comments should be submitted by eight days after the notice was published. Companies and people can file their comments online. Replies to these comments should be filed within three days after the original comment deadline. The ITC requires all documents to be submitted electronically. No paper documents will be accepted. If someone wants to keep their information private, they must request it. The Commission will keep these documents private if requested. The public can view non-confidential information on the ITC’s website. The Commission will continue to work under the rules of the Tariff Act and its own rules. Lisa Barton is the Secretary to the Commission. She issued the notice under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act. The notice was filed on June 18, 2026. The ITC uses these notices to keep the public informed of trade investigations and actions. Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
Notice of Receipt of Complaint; Solicitation of Comments Relating to the Public Interest
U.S. International Trade Commission Receives Complaint on Foundry Coke Estimated reading time: 2–3 minutes Washington, DC – The U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) announced it has received a complaint regarding Certain Foundry Coke, labeled as Docket Number 3914. The complaint was filed by SunCoke Technology and Development LLC along with Jewell Coke Company L.P. on June 15, 2026. The complaint alleges that there have been violations of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930. These violations pertain to the importation, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain foundry coke products. The named respondents in the complaint include: MTX CZ, a.s. of Czech Republic OKK Koksovny, a.s. of Czech Republic METALIMEX a.s. of Czech Republic METALIMEX Deutschland GmbH of Germany AMEX Coal Sp. z o.o. of Poland Italiana Coke S.r.l. of Italy Terminal Alti Fondali Savona S.r.l. of Italy The complaint requests that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order against the respondents. It also asks for cease and desist orders, as well as a bond on the respondents’ allegedly infringing articles during a 60-day Presidential review period as per 19 U.S.C. 1337(j). The Commission is asking for comments from the public, interested parties, and government agencies. They want feedback on public interest issues related to the complaint. Comments should address whether the requested relief would impact public health and welfare, competitive conditions in the U.S. economy, or U.S. consumers. The Commission specifically wants comments on: How the potentially affected articles are used in the United States. Any public health, safety, or welfare concerns related to the orders. Identification of similar or directly competitive articles made in the U.S. The ability of parties in the U.S. to replace these articles in a reasonable time. The impact of the orders on U.S. consumers. Comments must be submitted by the close of business, eight calendar days after the notice is published in the Federal Register. Complainants can reply to comments three days after initial submissions are due. Comments should be filed electronically and must reference Docket Number 3914. Due to current procedures, only electronic submissions will be accepted. For more information, contact Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission, at (202) 205-2000, or visit the Commission’s site at www.usitc.gov. Issued on June 16, 2026, by the order of Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission. [Reference: Federal Register Volume 91, Number 118] Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
Finished Carbon Steel Flanges From India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2023-2024
Commerce Department Confirms Dumping of Finished Carbon Steel Flanges from India Estimated reading time: 4–5 minutes The U.S. Department of Commerce has announced the final results of the antidumping duty review for finished carbon steel flanges imported from India. The review covered the period from August 1, 2023, through July 31, 2024. According to the Department, these products were sold in the United States at prices less than their normal value. The Commerce Department conducted an administrative review of the antidumping duty order first published on August 24, 2017. The review was part of its ongoing efforts to ensure fair competition and compliance with international trade laws. Norma Group, comprised of companies including Norma (India) Limited, USK Exports Private Limited, Uma Shanker Khandelwal & Co., and Bansidhar Chiranjilal, was a primary subject of this review. The Department determined a weighted-average dumping margin of 0.82% for this group. R. N. Gupta & Company Limited, another significant exporter, was determined to have a weighted-average dumping margin of 2.65%. For companies not individually examined, a rate of 1.94% was assigned based on the performance of the reviewed companies. An important development in this review was the successor-in-interest determination for Munish Forge Limited. The company underwent a name change from Munish Forge Private Limited. The Department found that the structure, operations, and management remained largely unchanged. Therefore, Munish Forge Limited is considered the same entity as its predecessor for the purposes of the antidumping duty order. The Commerce Department has outlined assessment rates for importers of the subject merchandise. These rates will be used by U.S. Customs and Border Protection to assess duties on entries during the review period. New cash deposit requirements, effective upon publication of these results, will apply to future shipments. The establishment of these antidumping duties underscores the Department’s commitment to protecting domestic industries from unfair trade practices while fostering a level playing field for U.S. businesses. Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
Raw Honey from India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2023-2024
U.S. Sets New Import Duties on Raw Honey from India Estimated reading time: 3–5 minutes The U.S. Department of Commerce has announced new findings regarding the import of raw honey from India. After a thorough investigation, it was determined that India sold raw honey in the United States at prices lower than usual during the period from June 1, 2023, to May 31, 2024. The decision was made official on June 18, 2026. The review looked into companies like Indocan Honey Private Limited and Shakti Apifoods Pvt., Ltd. These companies were found to have sold their honey at a dumping margin. This means they sold honey at unfairly low prices. The margins, or differences in price, were calculated and released. Indocan Honey Private Limited had a dumping margin of 6.98%. Shakti Apifoods Pvt., Ltd. had a margin of 1.11%. Other companies were assigned a margin of 3.99%. The U.S. government will now apply duties, or taxes, on these honey imports. This is to ensure fair competition within the U.S. market. Duties help to level the playing field for local producers. Importers must now pay cash deposits when bringing in honey from India. These deposits are based on the calculated dumping margins. The goal is to prevent unfairly cheap products from hurting U.S. industries. The cash deposit rate for companies not reviewed individually will be 3.99%. For companies previously investigated, the rate will reflect past findings. If a company has not been investigated and the producer has been, the producer’s rate will apply. For others, a standard rate of 5.87% will remain in effect. U.S. Customs and Border Protection has been instructed to assess and collect these duties. If an importer does not fulfill its duty to report reimbursements, double duties may be enforced. This decision reflects the U.S. government’s commitment to fair trade practices. It ensures that American honey producers can compete justly in the market. The American public benefits from fair competition and quality products. This notice serves to inform importers about their responsibility to adhere to these new regulations. It is important for importers to remain in compliance to avoid additional penalties. Duties and regulations like these are set to protect U.S. industries from unfair trade practices by foreign companies. It ensures that the trade remains fair for everyone involved. Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
Certain Chassis and Subassemblies Thereof From Mexico and Thailand: Countervailing Duty Orders
U.S. Department of Commerce Issues New Import Duties on Chassis from Mexico and Thailand Estimated reading time: 3–5 minutes The U.S. Department of Commerce has announced new countervailing duties on certain chassis and parts from Mexico and Thailand. This decision follows a confirmation by both the Department of Commerce and the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) that American industries have been hurt by the subsidized imports of these products. What Are Chassis and Subassemblies? The products affected by these new duties are chassis and their parts. Chassis are frames that can carry containers or other loads. They are used for road, marine, and rail transport. They usually include wheels, brakes, and lighting systems, among other components. Important Dates and Contact Information The new duties come into effect starting June 18, 2026. Any unprocessed entries of these products that have been brought in for consumption will be subject to these duties. For further details, interested parties can contact Jose Rivera for issues related to Mexico at (202) 482-0842, and Caroline Carroll for issues related to Thailand at (202) 482-4948. They are both from the Enforcement and Compliance division of the International Trade Administration. How Will This Affect Import Procedures? Due to the new duties, U.S. Customs and Border Protection will now assess a cash deposit equal to the calculated subsidy rates when these products are imported. The purpose is to help offset the unfair benefit given to these products by their home countries through subsidies, which harm U.S. industries. Subsidy Rates The countervailing duty rates for each company affected are noted in the Federal Register. For Mexico, companies like Hyundai de Mexico S.A. and Fruehauf de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. have a subsidy rate of 76.91%. For Thailand, the rate varies little between companies. Dee Siam Manufacturing Co., Ltd., for instance, has a rate of 10.72%, and Panus Assembly Co., Ltd. is at 9.65%. Leveraging Legal Frameworks These actions are in accordance with sections 705 and 706 of the Tariff Act of 1930. The U.S. Department of Commerce is using these legal measures to protect U.S. industries from the damage caused by unfair import practices. Next Steps for Interested Parties The Department of Commerce allows interested parties to be added to an annual inquiry list to receive updates. This service list will be updated every year. Any party wishing to be added to this list must submit their details within 30 days of the order’s publication. Exclusions in the Order Certain products are excluded from these duties. These include dry van trailers, refrigerated van trailers, and flatbed trailers. Individual chassis parts sold by themselves are not included in this probe, but when these parts come with a chassis, they fall under the order. Conclusion With these new countervailing duties, the Department of Commerce aims to even the playing field for U.S. manufacturers and protect them from the effects of these subsidized imports. Detailed information can be accessed via the Federal Register publication, under document number 2026-12329. Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
Certain Chassis and Subassemblies Thereof From Mexico, Thailand, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Antidumping Duty Orders
U.S. Puts Antidumping Duties on Chassis from Mexico, Thailand, and Vietnam Estimated reading time: 4–6 minutes On June 18, 2026, the U.S. Department of Commerce put antidumping duties on chassis from Mexico, Thailand, and Vietnam. This decision comes after finding that these countries sold chassis in the United States at less-than-fair-value prices. This means they were sold for less than it costs to make them. Commerce’s Determinations The Department of Commerce found that many companies were selling chassis for prices that hurt U.S. businesses. They published these findings on April 23, 2026. This was a part of a bigger investigation on whether trading practices were fair. International Trade Commission Involvement On June 8, 2026, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) agreed with the Commerce Department. They said the U.S. industry was being hurt by cheap chassis coming from these countries. This allowed the Commerce Department to set up duties or extra taxes on these products. Details of the Chassis Orders Chassis are frames or trailers used to carry containers. They can be used on roads, ships, or trains. This decision covers all chassis coming from Mexico, Thailand, and Vietnam, whether finished or not. Implementation Dates Antidumping duties affect chassis entries that were brought into the U.S. after September 29, 2025. The duties can now be assessed on any chassis that is still in customs or has not been settled yet. Rates of Duties Different companies in Mexico, Thailand, and Vietnam will have different duty rates. For example, in Thailand, Dee Siam Manufacturing Co., Ltd. will face duties of 72.85%. Companies from Mexico have a general rate of 32.37%. For Vietnam, all concerned exporters must pay a 186.84% duty. Custom Procedures The Department of Commerce will direct the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to collect these extra taxes. They need to keep a watch on the entries until further notice. For some time, starting from March 28, 2026, some imports were not charged duties, but that has now changed after this release. Annual Inquiry Service Lists The Department of Commerce will maintain a list each year of all parties interested in these orders. People who want to be on this list must sign up within 30 days of the order being published. This helps ensure everyone follows the new rules effectively. Final Details This step is a significant move to protect U.S. businesses from unfair competition. By applying these duties, the U.S. aims to ensure fair trading and to support its industries. The rules will affect how companies bring chassis into the country from Mexico, Thailand, and Vietnam. The order and all its details can be found published in the Federal Register under Volume 91, Number 117. This measure shows a strong commitment to maintaining a level playing field for U.S. companies and ensuring fair prices in the market. Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Procedures for Submissions by Certain Steel and Aluminum Producers Committing to New U.S. Steel or Aluminum Production to Obtain Tariff Adjustments Under Proclamation 10984
U.S. Department of Commerce Seeks Public Comments on Steel and Aluminum Tariff Adjustments Process Estimated reading time: 1–3 minutes The U.S. Department of Commerce is asking for public opinions on a new information collection about steel and aluminum tariffs. They want people to share their thoughts before they send the collection plan to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval. This is important to make sure the process is useful and not too hard for people to do. Deadline for Comments The deadline for sending in comments is August 17, 2026. People can write to Emily Davis at the International Trade Administration with their feedback. They should use the OMB Control Number 0625-0285 when they send their comments. Background on Tariffs Last year, on October 17, 2025, the President made a decision to change how medium- and heavy-duty vehicles and parts from other countries are brought into the United States. This change was to protect U.S. national security. The President decided that new tariffs were needed for these imports. How Tariffs are Adjusted Proclamation 10984 was made to allow changes in how much tariff companies pay when they bring in steel and aluminum from other countries. If certain companies in Canada or Mexico make commitments to produce more steel or aluminum in the U.S., they could pay less in tariffs. The tariffs cannot go below 25 percent. The aim is to boost U.S. steel and aluminum production, which in turn supports the making of important items like vehicles in the U.S. For example, automobile parts and vehicle parts are key products. Public Participation and Collection Process The plan under discussion is meant to help the Department of Commerce figure out the best way to implement these tariffs. Information such as location, production details, and investment plans from companies can help in this process. Companies in Canada and Mexico that want reduced tariffs will provide this information. Call for Comments and Participation The Department of Commerce is encouraging public comments to improve their process. They want to know if the proposed collection makes sense and is useful. This feedback will help them evaluate if the process can be simpler and better for businesses. Comments from the public will become a part of the official record. All personal details shared in comments, like names and addresses, might become public too. Sheleen Dumas, the Departmental PRA Compliance Officer, shared this important notice from the Commerce Department. Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
Certain Motorized Self-Balancing Vehicles; Notice of a Commission Determination To Review in Part a Final Initial Determination Finding a Violation of Section 337; Request for Written Submissions on the Issues Under Review and on Remedy, the Public Interest, and Bonding
The U.S. International Trade Commission to Review Decision on Motorized Self-Balancing Vehicles Estimated reading time: 4–6 minutes The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) announced it will review a decision regarding motorized self-balancing vehicles. This decision was made by an administrative law judge who found that certain companies violated Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930. The companies involved include Gotrax and Tao Motor from China. The case started after a complaint was filed by Razor USA LLC and Shane Chen. They claimed that the companies imported and sold products that infringed on their patents. The patents involved are U.S. Patent No. RE46,964 and U.S. Patent No. RE49,608. The ITC is asking for written submissions on specific issues. They want to hear from the parties involved in the case. They also want input from government agencies and the public. The ITC is focusing on whether the products affected a domestic industry in the U.S. This involves checking economic investments made by Razor USA LLC. The ITC has several questions about the investments and industry activities. They want detailed answers about manufacturing and product development. The law allows the ITC to issue orders to prevent unfair imports. They can issue an exclusion order, stopping products from entering the U.S. They can also issue cease and desist orders, preventing further sales of infringing products. The ITC must also consider the public interest before making a decision. This includes looking at the effect of any orders on public health, competition, and consumer choices. If the ITC makes an order, the U.S. Trade Representative has 60 days to review or change it. During this time, products may enter the U.S. under a bond. The ITC is inviting written submissions about what kind of remedy should be ordered. They need submissions by June 29, 2026, and replies by July 6, 2026. Submissions are limited in page length. Anyone submitting documents must follow specific procedures. Confidential documents should be clearly marked and handled accordingly. This review by the ITC shows the importance of fair trade practices and protection of intellectual property. The outcome could impact how certain electronic products are sold and imported into the U.S. Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
Certain Laptops, Routers and Gateways, and Components Thereof; Notice of a Commission Determination To Review in Part an Initial Determination Granting Complainant’s Motion To Amend the Complaint and, on Review, Affirm With Modification To Also Amend the Notice of Investigation
USITC to Review ALJ Decision on Patent Infringement Case Estimated reading time: 3–5 minutes The U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) has announced a significant decision in an ongoing investigation. The investigation, identified as No. 337-TA-1489, concerns certain laptops, routers, gateways, and their components. The Commission has chosen to review part of an initial determination by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). This decision involves amending an existing complaint. The complaint was initially filed by AX Wireless, LLC, a company based in Austin, Texas. The company alleges that several respondents have infringed on specific claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,917,272, known as the ‘272 patent. The respondents include ASUSTeK Computer Inc., ASUS Computer International, Inc., TP-Link Systems Inc., and Ubiquiti Inc. On June 12, 2026, the Commission voted to affirm the ALJ’s decision, with a modification. This modification amends both the complaint and the notice of investigation. The amendment adds allegations of infringement concerning additional claims of the ‘272 patent. These claims are numbered 7, 9, 10, and 20. Previously, on April 23, 2026, AX Wireless had filed a motion to amend the complaint to include these dependent claims. The respondents and the Office of Unfair Import Investigations opposed this motion, suggesting more time is needed for the new claims. The ALJ granted the motion on May 19, 2026. The ALJ found good cause for including all relevant claims in one investigation. The investigation is still early, as the evidentiary hearing is ten months away. Thus, there is no prejudice to the respondents. The USITC has amended the documents to reflect these changes. This decision is made under authority provided by section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 and the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. For further details, Houda Morad, Esq. at the USITC can be contacted. Non-confidential documents related to this investigation are available online. The USITC’s TDD terminal can provide more information for hearing-impaired individuals. Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
Van-Type Trailers and Subassemblies From Canada, China, and Mexico; Scheduling of the Final Phase of Countervailing Duty and Antidumping Duty Investigations
US International Trade Commission Schedules Investigation on Van-Type Trailers Estimated reading time: 3–5 minutes The United States International Trade Commission (USITC) has announced the final phase schedule for its investigation into van-type trailers and their subassemblies from Canada, China, and Mexico. The investigation, numbered 701-TA-781-782 and 731-TA-1767-1769, seeks to determine if US industries are harmed by these imports. It is also to check if these imports are sold cheaper than they should be. The investigation will review if trailers from Canada, China, and Mexico are supported by subsidies, making them cheaper in the US market. The US Department of Commerce found that China and Mexico may be giving subsidies to their exporters. But, the investigation for Canada was stopped. For the case, the USITC defines van-type trailers as those with a large closed space to carry goods. They usually have a front section, side walls, a floor, a roof, and connection systems for towing. Subassemblies like frames, walls, doors, and parts for towing and braking are all part of the investigation. Even if any of these parts are missing, the trailer is still part of this case. Some parts, especially from China covered under another investigation, are not part of this one. The USITC investigation started after a petition from the American Trailer Manufacturers Coalition in November 2025. Members include Great Dane LLC, Stoughton Trailers LLC, and Wabash National Corporation. Those wanting more details, or to participate in the case, can check the USITC’s rules. Key dates include a hearing on August 20, 2026, and deadlines for legal submissions in August 2026. Further information for the public is available electronically through the USITC’s systems and their website. Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
Notice of Receipt of Complaint; Solicitation of Comments Relating to the Public Interest
U.S. International Trade Commission Receives Complaint Estimated reading time: 3–5 minutes The U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) has received a new complaint. It is about certain convertible child highchairs. The complaint was filed by Kids2, LLC on June 12, 2026. Details of the Complaint The complaint mentions violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930. It accuses some companies of importing and selling certain highchairs into the United States. These activities are considered unlawful if they violate section 337. The companies named in the complaint are: Graco Children’s Products Inc. of Atlanta, GA. Newell Brands Distribution LLC of Newville, PA. Newell Brands Inc. of Atlanta, GA. Newell Brands Canada ULC of Canada. Baby Trend, Inc. of Fontana, CA. Kids2, LLC wants the USITC to stop these companies. They are asking for a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders. They also want a bond imposed on the companies’ products during the review period by the President. Public Comments Requested The USITC is asking for public comments. They want to learn about any public interest issues related to the complaint. These comments will help them make the right decision. Comments should focus on: How the highchairs are used in the United States. Any concerns about public health, safety, or welfare. Other products made in the U.S. that could replace the highchairs. Whether Kids2, LLC and others can make enough highchairs to meet demand. The effect on U.S. consumers if the highchairs are not available. People and organizations have eight days to send their comments after this notice is published. This is important for those interested in the case. Submission Guidelines Comments should not be longer than five pages. They should mention “Docket No. 3913” clearly. The comments must be filed electronically through the Commission’s system, EDIS. No paper documents will be accepted. Instructions on how to file electronically are available in the Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures. Confidential Information If someone wants to send confidential information, they need to ask for special treatment. The request must explain why confidentiality is needed. Next Steps There will be more chances to comment after a decision is made. The USITC will continue investigating until a final decision is reached. This action follows the rules of the Tariff Act of 1930 and the USITC’s own rules. The Secretary to the Commission, Lisa Barton, issued this notice on June 15, 2026. Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
Van-Type Trailers and Subassemblies From Canada; Termination of investigation
Termination of Investigation on Van-Type Trailers from Canada Estimated reading time: 3–5 minutes On June 5, 2026, the U.S. Department of Commerce decided to end its investigation into van-type trailers and subassemblies from Canada. This happened after the petitioner withdrew the complaint on May 27, 2026. The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) has now also ended its own investigation. This investigation was labeled as No. 701-TA-780 (Final). Both of these decisions mean that there will be no countervailing duties placed on these trailers from Canada. The public can view this decision on the ITC’s website. They can also access the electronic docket for more details. If anyone needs help or special assistance, they can contact the Office of the Secretary. The authority for this decision comes from the Tariff Act of 1930. It also follows the Commission’s rules and procedures. Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission, signed the official order. For further information, people can contact Peter Stebbins at the U.S. International Trade Commission. Hearing-impaired individuals can use the TDD terminal. This decision was officially filed on June 16, 2026, under Billing Code 7020-02-P. Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
Phosphate Fertilizers From Morocco and Russia; Notice of Commission Determination To Conduct Full Five-Year Reviews
U.S. International Trade Commission Reviews Phosphate Fertilizers Estimated reading time: 1–3 minutes What is Happening? The United States International Trade Commission (USITC) has made an important announcement. The agency decided to conduct full reviews on phosphate fertilizers. These fertilizers come from Morocco and Russia. The USITC will look into whether removing certain duties, called countervailing duty orders, would cause harm. These duties are on phosphate fertilizers from Morocco and Russia. The commission wants to see if this change could hurt the U.S. industry. What is Countervailing Duty? A countervailing duty is a tax on imports. This tax helps to level the playing field for domestic producers against foreign producers who get government help. If the commission cancels these duties, they must check if it hurts the U.S. producers. Important Dates The review process was announced on June 5, 2026. The USITC will set a schedule for the reviews. People interested should look out for this information. Who to Contact? For more details, you can contact Camille Bryan at the USITC. The phone number is 202-205-2811. If you have trouble hearing, there is help on 202-205-1810. More Information The commission’s rules and practices can be seen online. You can visit their website at www.usitc.gov. Public records are available at their electronic docket, EDIS, which you can access at edis.usitc.gov. Conclusion The USITC’s decision is important for both domestic and international producers. The reviews will help decide whether the U.S. market needs the protection of these duties. The USITC aims to maintain fair trade practices. Issued By This update is issued by Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission. The announcement was made on June 15, 2026. For more information, keep an eye on official notices from the USITC. Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
Chromium Trioxide From the Republic of Türkiye: Postponement of Final Determination of Sales at Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation and Extension of Provisional Measures
Commerce Delays Decision on Chromium Trioxide Investigation Estimated reading time: 1–7 minutes The U.S. Department of Commerce is delaying its final decision on the chromium trioxide investigation. This decision means that the final finding will be made on October 5, 2026. This is part of an investigation into whether chromium trioxide from Türkiye is being sold for less than it is worth. The decision to delay was made because the investigation is complicated. The investigation started on January 5, 2026, and looks at a period from July 1, 2024, to June 30, 2025. On May 22, 2026, a preliminary decision was made. This decision hinted that chromium trioxide from Türkiye might be sold at unfair prices. The company Türkiye Şişe ve Cam Fabrikaları A.Ş., also known as Şişecam, asked for the delay. The company is a major exporter involved in the investigation. By law, a request from such a significant exporter cannot be ignored without a good reason. The request also included extending provisional measures. This means certain rules will now last not four months but up to six months. If the investigation finds that chromium trioxide is priced unfairly, it may affect how this product is traded between countries. This means there could be new tariffs or rules to balance the pricing difference. This update comes from Christopher Abbott, who is responsible for policy and negotiations at the Department of Commerce. This investigation and decision follow specific rules. These rules are from the Tariff Act of 1930. The goal is to make sure trade between countries is fair. The public is alerted and informed through such notices. This information is published under regulation sections of federal law, which keeps processes transparent and open. For those interested, further details can be found on the official U.S. Government Publishing Office website. Following these processes helps ensure a fair trading environment for everyone involved. Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
Monosodium Glutamate From the People’s Republic China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2023-2024
Final Results of Antidumping Review on Monosodium Glutamate from China Announced Estimated reading time: 1–7 minutes Date: 2026-06-16 Location: Washington, DC The U.S. Department of Commerce has announced the final results of its administrative review of the antidumping duty order on monosodium glutamate (MSG) from the People’s Republic of China. This review covers the period from November 1, 2023, to October 31, 2024. The review found that Ajinoriki MSG (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd (Ajinoriki) has not qualified for a separate rate. As such, Ajinoriki will be considered part of the China-wide entity. During the review, it was corrected from the preliminary results that Ajinoriki is subject to a dumping margin rate for the China-wide entity, which is 56.54 percent. This rate was established based on findings from the prior 2017-2018 administrative review. The Department of Commerce published the preliminary results in February 2026 and allowed interested parties to submit comments. The petitioner, Ajinomoto Health & Nutrition North America, Inc, discovered an error in the preliminary report that listed the China-wide rate incorrectly as 40.41 percent. The correct rate is, and remains, 56.54 percent. Commerce has affirmed the petitioner’s comment, and no other comments were submitted. Therefore, no additional decision memoranda accompany this notice. The Department also explained that there are no calculations to disclose for these final results. This is because Ajinoriki, being part of the China-wide entity which was not under review, means there were no separate calculations needed. Merchants need to be aware of their responsibility for duties. The Department of Commerce will work with the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess duties. CBP will follow Commerce’s instructions on assessing the antidumping duties on MSG imported from China. The cash deposit rate for shipments of subject merchandise from China will continue as currently set. For those not receiving a separate rate, the China-wide rate of 56.54 percent applies. Importers are reminded to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties. This is crucial before CBP liquidates relevant entries. The notice reiterates the importance of compliance with duties and legal requirements for all merchants dealing with MSG imports from China. Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
Certain Steel Nails From Taiwan: Preliminary Results and Rescission, in Part, of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2024-2025
Commerce Department Finds Low Prices on Steel Nails from Taiwan Estimated reading time: 3 minutes The U.S. Department of Commerce has made an important announcement about steel nails from Taiwan. The department found that two companies from Taiwan sold nails in the United States at prices lower than normal. These companies are Faithful Engineering Products Co., Ltd. and Top Forever Screws Co., Ltd. They sold the nails between July 1, 2024, and June 30, 2025. The review checked if companies followed fair trade rules. The results showed Faithful Engineering and Top Forever did not. They did not respond to important questions or provide needed information. As a result, the Department of Commerce decided to apply a high dumping rate of 78.17% to these companies. Twenty other companies were also reviewed. But, for these companies, the review has been stopped. This is because there were no sales that could be checked. The Commerce Department said it will give the final results soon. They also mentioned how people can send comments about these findings. All comments must be filed online. After the final check, the Commerce Department will tell the U.S. Customs and Border Protection about the results. The customs department will use the new rates to collect duties. Finally, everyone who imports nails should know about this change. This is important because it affects how much tax they need to pay. This development marks an important step in maintaining fair trade and making sure that products are sold at proper prices. Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
Glycine From India: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2023
U.S. Department of Commerce Finds Subsidies for Indian Glycine Producers Estimated reading time: 3–5 minutes The U.S. Department of Commerce has released its final results on the countervailing duty investigation for producers and exporters of glycine from India. The review covered the period from January 1, 2023, to December 31, 2023. Findings reveal that companies like Kumar Industries, India, received financial help, known as subsidies, from the Indian government. This help makes their products cheaper and helps them compete in the U.S. market. Such assistance is termed “countervailable” when a government gives financial aid to producers or exporters in a way that affects international trade. Between late 2025 and early 2026, the Department of Commerce faced many challenges, including a government shutdown. This delayed their investigation. They extended deadlines several times, leading to the final announcement on June 8, 2026. The investigation was about “Countervailable Subsidies,” which means checking if the help the Indian companies received was against U.S. trade rules. The Department followed the laws from the Tariff Act of 1930. Kumar Industries was the main company checked in this investigation. Bajaj Healthcare Limited, another company in review, did not get separate scrutiny but was assigned the same duty rate as Kumar Industries. The duty rate is 45.33 percent, the same for both Kumar and Bajaj. This means when these companies export glycine to the U.S., they have to pay this percentage as a duty to make things fair for U.S. competitors. The Commerce Department has also instructed the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to collect these duties on shipments that arrived after the date of this announcement. This action ensures a level playing field for U.S. producers against imported goods that might be priced unfairly low due to subsidies. The Department has asked those who have access to any confidential data from the investigation to handle it responsibly, as per their duties under legal agreements. Failure to comply can result in penalties. The results ensure that U.S. domestic industries are protected from unfair foreign competition while maintaining fair trade practices. Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
Environmental Technologies Trade Advisory Committee
U.S. Department of Commerce Seeks Members for Environmental Technologies Trade Advisory Committee Estimated reading time: 3–5 minutes Committee’s Role and Importance The ETTAC gives important advice to the Environmental Trade Promotion Working Group. This group is part of the Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee. The committee helps in making programs that enhance U.S. exports of technologies and goods related to the environment. These goods and services help the U.S. meet environmental and safety requirements. Environmental technologies include solutions for water, waste treatment, and air quality monitoring. These technologies are crucial for building infrastructure and supporting U.S. manufacturing. They help the U.S. achieve economic and national security goals by promoting fair trade, manufacturing competitiveness, and strong supply chains. Every year, the U.S. exports about $60 billion worth of environmental technology goods and services. This sector employs nearly 1.9 million Americans. How to Nominate Someone Those who wish to nominate someone for ETTAC membership must do so by 5:00 p.m. on August 7, 2026. Applications can be submitted through the Environmental Technologies Trade Advisory Committee web page. After applying, nominees will receive an email asking for more documents. Any questions about the process can be sent to [email protected]. Nominations should be submitted through the ITA’s ETTAC web page. After submitting a nomination, nominees need to provide additional documents via an automated email. The Department of Commerce may reach out for more information. Eligibility and Selection ETTAC will have between 30 to 45 members. Members can come from different sectors, including environmental technology companies, trade associations, and civil society groups. They will represent various U.S. interests and contribute to the committee’s goals. To be eligible, nominees must be U.S. citizens. They must not be registered as foreign agents. They should represent U.S. entities in the environmental sector involved in international trade. Responsibilities and Criteria Committee members are expected to attend about eight meetings during the term, with at least four meetings in person. They will discuss topics openly in public settings. Members should also be able to handle additional tasks like conference calls and drafting recommendations. Applicants must submit several documents, including: A sponsor letter explaining why the nominee should be considered. A biography of the nominee. Details about the company, association, or organization’s business activities. Information on the organization’s ownership if applicable. Final Selection The Secretary of Commerce will consider applications based on their ability to represent different U.S. environmental technology sectors. Selection will consider viewpoints, industry subsectors, and geography. Nominees will be informed of their selection via email. The Department of Commerce aims to ensure that the ETTAC is diverse, balanced, and able to promote U.S. environmental technology exports effectively. Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
Van-Type Trailers and Subassemblies Thereof From the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value
U.S. Government Finds Van-Type Trailers from China Sold at Low Prices Estimated reading time: 3 minutes The U.S. Department of Commerce has made a preliminary decision. It says that van-type trailers from China are being sold in the U.S. at prices lower than what they are worth. This practice is called “less than fair value” or LTFV. These trailers are generally big and used to transport goods. They are different from smaller trailers you may see on the highway. The investigation looks at the timeframe from April 1, 2025, to September 30, 2025. The Department of Commerce is inviting people to comment on its decision. This is a chance for interested parties to share their thoughts. Important Details What Are Van-Type Trailers?: These are trailers with a cover on top. They are usually rectangular in shape. Covered Parts: The investigation also includes trailer parts. These parts are included whether they are put together or not. Specific Features: These trailers weigh more than 26,000 pounds. They are big and can carry heavy loads. Impact and Actions The U.S. plans to charge more money, called a “cash deposit,” for these trailers. This will happen every time trailers from China enter the U.S. after June 15, 2026. The cash deposit rate is set at 130.86%. This means that the trailers from China could cost much more. Chinese trailers with Chinese parts that are brought through other countries are also affected. For example, trailers that come through Canada are still subject to U.S. rules. Next Steps The Department of Commerce will make a final decision later. If confirmed, these measures could change. The U.S. International Trade Commission will also look at the decision. They will see if U.S. trailer companies are harmed by the low prices. By doing this, the U.S. aims to protect its own companies. It wants to make sure they are not harmed by unfair pricing from other countries. Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
Fiberglass Door Panels From the People’s Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination
U.S. Department of Commerce Finds Subsidies for Fiberglass Door Panels from China Estimated reading time: 3 minutes The U.S. Department of Commerce has announced its final decision regarding fiberglass door panels from China. This follows extensive investigation and analysis by the Commerce Department. Investigation Overview The investigation covered fiberglass door panels, including sidelites, from January 1, 2024, through December 31, 2024. The Commerce Department found that producers and exporters in China received government subsidies for these products. Key Details The final decision was made after gathering and analyzing information from various parties. The decision follows a preliminary finding reported on August 21, 2025. The final determination aligns with other related investigations on less-than-fair-value practices. Subsidy Rates Determined Various subsidy rates were determined for different Chinese companies. The rates were calculated based on the evidence collected: Dalian Capstone Engineering Co., Ltd.: 66.22% Jiangxi Fangda Tech Co., Ltd.: 58.50% Other named companies, which did not respond to requests for information, received a rate of 186.46%. All other companies received a rate of 60.64%. Scope of the Investigation The investigation focused on fiberglass door panels from China. These panels may include fiberglass sidelites and come in various forms, such as finished, unfinished, assembled, or unassembled. The investigation covers these panels whether or not they are part of a complete door system. Outcome and Next Steps Commerce’s findings will be forwarded to the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC). The ITC will decide if these imports harm U.S. industries. If the ITC agrees, duties will be applied on future imports to level the playing field for U.S. producers. If not, the investigation ends, and all deposits collected during the process will be refunded. Conclusion The United States is focused on fair trade practices. This investigation underlines the commitment of the Department of Commerce to ensure U.S. industries get a fair chance in the global market. Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
Fiberglass Door Panels From People’s Republic of China: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value
U.S. Finds Fiberglass Door Panels from China Sold at Unfair Prices Estimated reading time: 2–4 minutes The U.S. Department of Commerce has determined that fiberglass door panels from China are being sold in the United States at unfair prices. This is called selling at less than fair value (LTFV). The decision from the Department was published on June 15, 2026. The period during which this unfair pricing was investigated ran from July 1, 2024, to December 31, 2024. This means Commerce has been looking into the pricing practices for six months to understand the situation with these imports. The Department had initially made a preliminary determination about this issue in January 2026. They found signs of unfair pricing and decided to look deeper. This final decision confirms their earlier findings. The door panels being reviewed are made from fiberglass. Fiberglass is a durable material often used for doors because it can withstand tough weather. The Department worked with Dalian Capstone Engineering Co., Ltd., and Jiangxi Fangda Tech Co., Ltd., among other companies, to ensure correct sales records were examined. They checked sales and production records closely. This process is called “verification.” The final rates of unfair pricing, called “dumping margins,” have been published. These rates indicate how much lower these products were sold in the U.S. compared to their normal value. Besides the primary determination, the Department also looked at specific issues companies brought up during the review. These included adjustments to various freight expenses and financial calculations. The U.S. intends to keep a close watch on these imports and has announced plans to continue special rules. These rules require importers to pay extra fees when they bring such products into the U.S. This aims to prevent further harm to U.S. businesses. The Department of Commerce will also inform the International Trade Commission. This body will check if the U.S. industries have been harmed by these unfair trade practices. If they find U.S. businesses hurt, further actions will be taken. This determination is a crucial step in maintaining fair trade practices and protecting U.S. industries from unfair foreign competition. The U.S. Commerce Department is committed to ensuring fair market conditions. Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
Welded Line Pipe From the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results and Rescission, in Part, of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2023-2024
U.S. Department of Commerce Preliminary Review on Welded Line Pipe from Korea Estimated reading time: 3–5 minutes The U.S. Department of Commerce has released preliminary findings regarding welded line pipe imported from the Republic of Korea. These findings relate to an administrative review conducted for the period from December 1, 2023, to November 30, 2024. Commerce preliminarily determines that some producers and exporters from Korea sold welded line pipe at prices below what is known as the “normal value.” This means they may have been selling this pipe at a lower price than usual in the United States, a practice which can harm domestic manufacturers. Companies Involved The review focused on two main companies: Hyundai Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. and SeAH Steel Corporation. Hyundai Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. faced a weighted-average dumping margin of 1.86%. On the other hand, SeAH Steel Corporation did not have a significant margin, indicated by the 0.00% rate assigned to them. Additionally, five other companies involved in the case—AJU Besteel Co., Ltd., EEW Korea Co., Ltd., Husteel Co., Ltd., Kumkang Kind Co., Ltd., and NEXTEEL Co., Ltd.—were granted the same rate as Hyundai Steel Pipe Co., Ltd., which is 1.86%. Review and Rescission During the review, the Commerce department also looked at entries from 26 companies which are now being rescinded from the review. The reason for this is that there were no suspended entries of welded line pipe from these companies during the period of review. Verification and Comments A verification of SeAH Steel Corporation’s information has been conducted as part of the review process. Interested parties in the case are invited to comment on the preliminary results of the review. These comments are part of the Department’s efforts to ensure a fair trade environment. Next Steps Commerce aims to release the final results of the review by October 2026. These final results will dictate the actions taken regarding the assessment of duties on specific import entries of welded line pipe. These findings emphasize the department’s continuous commitment to reviewing trade practices and enforcing antidumping laws to support fair competition within the U.S. market. Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
Certain TOPCon Solar Cells, Modules, Panels, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same; Notice of a Commission Determination Not To Review an Initial Determination Granting Tesla, Inc.’s Motion To Intervene
Tesla Gets Approval to Join Solar Cell Trade Investigation Estimated reading time: 3–5 minutes On June 15, 2026, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) made an important decision. Tesla, Inc. is now allowed to join an investigation. This investigation is about certain TOPCon solar cells and other related products. What is the Investigation About? The investigation is looking into products that might be breaking U.S. trade laws. These products are being brought into the U.S. and sold. The ITC wants to find out if they are copying a U.S. patent. Who Started the Investigation? First Solar, Inc., a company from Phoenix, Arizona, started this investigation. They believe that some companies are infringing on a U.S. patent. This patent is for certain kinds of solar cells and panels. Who Are the Companies Involved? Many companies from different countries are involved in this investigation. Some are from the U.S., China, Canada, Germany, and other places. They make and sell solar products that might be using the patent without permission. Tesla’s Role in the Investigation Tesla wanted to join the investigation. They asked the ITC if they could be part of it. On April 28, 2026, Tesla filed a request. They wanted to help look into these solar products. What Did the ITC Decide? The ITC agreed to let Tesla join the investigation. This decision was made by the administrative law judge on May 11, 2026. No one disagreed with this decision. Other Details The ITC’s rules and the Tariff Act of 1930 guide this investigation. These rules help make sure companies follow U.S. trade laws. The ITC made this decision official on June 10, 2026. What Happens Next? Now that Tesla can join the investigation, the ITC will continue its work. They will look closely at the solar products in question. They want to see if any laws have been broken. This investigation is important for protecting U.S. inventions. It ensures that companies do not use ideas without permission. The ITC will keep working to find the truth in this case. Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
Certain NAND and DRAM Memory Chips and Products Containing the Same; Notice of Institution of Investigation
U.S. International Trade Commission Starts Investigation on Memory Chips Estimated reading time: 3–5 minutes The U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) has begun an investigation. This is related to certain NAND and DRAM memory chips and products that have these chips. The investigation was started because of a complaint by MonolithIC 3D Inc. from Allen, Texas. The complaint was filed on May 11, 2026. MonolithIC 3D Inc. says that some companies are breaking the rules. They claim these companies are bringing memory chips into the United States that infringe on their patents. A patent is a government license that gives a person or company the right to stop others from making or selling an invention. The complaint mentions several specific U.S. patents. These are U.S. Patent No. 12,250,830; U.S. Patent No. 12,362,330; U.S. Patent No. 12,400,961; U.S. Patent No. 12,464,734; and U.S. Patent No. 12,564,006. The USITC wants to check if these patents are being violated. The investigation will look at whether the accused products are being brought into the United States, sold for importation, or sold in the U.S. after they have been imported. The investigation started on June 10, 2026. The investigation will also check if there is an industry in the U.S. being harmed or just getting started because of this issue. The accused products mainly include 3D NAND memory chips and HBM DRAM memory chips. These chips are used in products like SSDs and flash memory products. The companies that are being investigated include KIOXIA Holdings Corporation and its related branches in the U.S., Japan, and Taiwan. SK hynix Inc. and its branches in the U.S. and Korea are also being investigated. These companies have to respond to the complaint within 20 days. If they don’t respond, they might lose the right to defend themselves. This could result in orders that stop them from bringing or selling their products in the U.S. The Chief Administrative Law Judge will pick a judge to oversee the investigation. This is an important investigation. It involves technology companies and memory chips that are used in many devices today. The USITC is acting to make sure that patent laws are not being broken. The information on this case can be found online. It is publicly available for those who want to learn more. Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
Certain Cold-Drawn Mechanical Tubing of Carbon and Alloy Steel From India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2023-2024
Page Not Found on GovInfo Estimated reading time: 3 minutes A recent error on the GovInfo website resulted in a “Page Not Found” message. Users trying to access certain information on the site were unable to do so. This has caused inconvenience for those seeking government documents and resources. Details of the Error The error message displayed reads: “Error occurred. The page you requested cannot be found.” This message indicates that the specific page the user tried to access does not exist or cannot be located on the server. The cause of this error could range from a mistyped URL to the page being moved or deleted. What to Do If You Encounter This Error Report the Error: If you come across this error, the GovInfo team requests that you report it to askGPO, which is their help service. Provide Information: When reporting, include the URL of the page you were trying to access, the steps you took when you encountered the error, any specific search terms used, and a screenshot if possible. Visit the Homepage: The error page provides a link to return to the GovInfo homepage. From there, you can try navigating to the desired information through different paths. View Search Tips: A link is also provided to search tips that might assist in locating the needed documents through more efficient search techniques. GovInfo’s Commitment GovInfo assures users that they are actively working to resolve the issue. They appreciate the users’ patience and cooperation in reporting these errors to enhance the website’s functionality. For any further assistance, users are encouraged to reach out to GovInfo’s contact support. Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
Glycine From India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2023-2024
Page Not Found on GovInfo Estimated reading time: 1–3 minutes A recent attempt to access certain pages on the government information website, GovInfo, resulted in a “Page Not Found” error. This can cause inconvenience for users seeking specific information. Error Occurrence The error message appears when users try to access content via specific URLs. The message indicates that the requested page could not be found on the server. What to Do The GovInfo website suggests steps to help resolve this error. Users are encouraged to report the error to askGPO. When reporting, users should provide the URL of the page they tried to access, and describe the steps they took that led to the error. They can also include specific search terms used or a screenshot showing the error. Assistance and Resources For those needing help, the website offers several resources: Users can visit the Help section for assistance. There is additional guidance on the homepage for those looking for more information or tips on searching the site. Importance of Reporting By reporting errors, users can aid in improving the website’s functionality. Prompt reporting contributes to quicker resolutions and the overall enhancement of user experience. If you experience this issue, following these steps may assist in resolving the problem effectively. Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
Non-Oriented Electrical Steel From Japan: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2023-2024
U.S. Department of Commerce’s Preliminary Antidumping Results for Japanese Steel Estimated reading time: 1–7 minutes The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) has announced preliminary findings of its latest review concerning antidumping duties on non-oriented electrical steel (NOES) imported from Japan. The review specifically focuses on the sales conducted by Nippon Steel Corporation (NSC) during the period from December 1, 2023, to November 30, 2024. Summary of Findings Commerce preliminarily determined that NSC did not sell NOES at less than its normal value during this period. This means that NSC did not sell the steel in the U.S. at unfairly low prices. As a result, NSC’s weighted-average dumping margin for this period is 0.00 percent. This outcome suggests that NSC has complied with the rules and is not subject to additional antidumping duties. Background and Process The review was initiated on January 27, 2025, following requests in accordance with applicable regulations. Initially, Commerce aimed to complete its work by the end of 2025. However, due to a U.S. Federal Government shutdown and a backlog in processing documents, deadlines were extended. The review process included sending a detailed questionnaire to NSC and evaluating their responses. Methodology and Calculation The review used sections 772 and 773 of the Tariff Act of 1930 to calculate the constructed export price and normal value respectively. This ensures a fair comparison between the domestic price of steel in Japan and the price at which it was sold in the U.S. Next Steps Commerce will disclose its calculations to the parties involved and intends to verify the findings before the final results. Interested parties have the opportunity to comment on these preliminary results. They can submit case briefs within seven days after the last verification report and rebuttal briefs within five days after that. Potential Impact If the final results confirm the preliminary findings, NSC will not face extra tariffs on its steel exports to the United States for the reviewed period. Commerce will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection on how to assess entries of steel during this time, based on the final outcome. Upcoming Hearing and Comments Interested parties may request a hearing to discuss the issues further. Written requests must be submitted within 30 days from the notice’s publication date. Conclusion The preliminary results highlight the ongoing commitment of the U.S. Department of Commerce to maintain fair trading practices and protect domestic industries from unfairly priced foreign imports. Stakeholders are encouraged to participate in the review process to ensure robust trade policies continue. Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.


