DEA Denies Registration Application of Dr. Ali Elhorr Estimated reading time: 4–6 minutes On October 20, 2025, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) published a decision to deny Dr. Ali Elhorr’s application for a DEA Certificate of Registration. Dr. Elhorr is a physician from Dearborn, Michigan. Reasons for Denial Dr. Elhorr’s application was denied for two main reasons: Mandatory Exclusion from Federal Health Programs: Dr. Elhorr was found to be excluded from Medicare, Medicaid, and all Federal health care programs. This exclusion began on February 20, 2017, for a minimum of 15 years. The exclusion was issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, after Dr. Elhorr pled guilty to health care fraud in 2016. Material Falsification of DEA Application: On October 19, 2022, Dr. Elhorr applied for a DEA registration to prescribe controlled substances. The application asked if he had ever been excluded from Medicare or state health programs. Dr. Elhorr answered “No.” At the time, he was already excluded from these programs. The DEA found this to be a false statement and a violation of the Controlled Substances Act. Procedural Details Dr. Elhorr was personally served an Order to Show Cause (OSC) on June 3, 2025. He was informed that he could request a hearing. The DEA did not receive any response or request for a hearing from Dr. Elhorr. This counted as a default, meaning Dr. Elhorr was found to admit to all facts in the OSC. Legal Findings The DEA reviewed all evidence. The agency decided that Dr. Elhorr: Was mandatorily excluded from federal programs. Falsified his DEA application when he answered “No” to being excluded. Did not accept responsibility for these actions since he did not respond to the OSC. Each of these reasons, by themselves, was enough for the DEA to deny his application. Importance of Compliance The DEA stated that strict rules are important for controlling drugs and fighting drug abuse. Allowing someone who did not follow the rules to receive a registration would send a wrong message. Final Order The DEA denied Dr. Elhorr’s application for DEA registration, as well as any other pending applications in Michigan. This order is effective as of November 19, 2025. Official Signatures The document was signed by Administrator Terrance Cole on October 9, 2025. The notice was officially published by the Federal Register Liaison Officer of the DEA, Heather Achbach. References This news post is based on Federal Register Volume 90, Number 200 (Monday, October 20, 2025), pages 48375-48378. 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.
Chantal F. Nouvellon, D.O.; Decision and Order
DEA Revokes Registrations of Dr. Chantal F. Nouvellon, D.O. Estimated reading time: 4 minutes The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has revoked the Certificates of Registration for Dr. Chantal F. Nouvellon, D.O. The decision was announced in the Federal Register on October 20, 2025. On April 2, 2025, the DEA issued an Order to Show Cause to Dr. Nouvellon. The DEA proposed revoking her DEA registrations, BN5595775 and FN5439016. The reason was that Dr. Nouvellon no longer had authority to handle controlled substances in Massachusetts and New Hampshire. These are the states where she was registered with the DEA. The Order to Show Cause told Dr. Nouvellon she could ask for a hearing. She did not request a hearing. The DEA decided she was in default. By regulation, default means she gave up her right to a hearing and admitted the facts in the DEA’s order. The DEA served the order by email to Dr. Nouvellon’s attorney and later directly to her. Dr. Nouvellon responded by saying she was not prescribing since her suspension. There was no further response from her. According to the DEA, Dr. Nouvellon’s Massachusetts medical license was suspended on October 17, 2024. Online records show her Massachusetts license is still suspended. The DEA also found that her New Hampshire license was suspended on December 20, 2024, and it remains suspended. Because Dr. Nouvellon is not licensed in either state, she cannot practice medicine or handle controlled substances there. The rules say a doctor must have state authority to handle controlled substances. Without a valid state license, a doctor cannot have a DEA registration. Massachusetts law defines a “practitioner” as a person registered to handle controlled substances in the state. New Hampshire law says that only a properly licensed practitioner may prescribe, administer, or dispense controlled drugs. With both state licenses suspended, Dr. Nouvellon is not allowed to handle controlled substances in either state. As a result, her DEA registrations for those states have been revoked. The order, signed by DEA Administrator Terrance Cole, also denies any pending applications for Dr. Nouvellon to renew or change her DEA registrations. It also denies any new applications for registration in Massachusetts or New Hampshire. The order takes effect on November 19, 2025. The order was processed according to DEA procedures and published for official record. Source: Federal Register, Volume 90, Number 200, October 20, 2025, Pages 48378-48379. 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.
Grace S. Joanita, N.P.; Decision and Order
DEA Revokes Registration of Cincinnati Nurse Practitioner for False Fee Exemption Claim Estimated reading time: 3–5 minutes The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has revoked the DEA registration for Grace S. Joanita, N.P., a nurse practitioner based in Cincinnati, Ohio. The action was taken after Ms. Joanita was found to have provided false information on her DEA registration renewal application. Background on the Case On December 7, 2021, Ms. Joanita submitted a renewal application for her DEA registration number MJ5209677. The application included questions about whether she qualified for an exemption from paying the registration fee. On the form, Ms. Joanita listed a certifying official and claimed a fee exemption. An investigation found that Ms. Joanita had not worked for the named certifying official since November 20, 2019. This meant that her claim for fee exemption was false at the time she filed her renewal application. Because of her answers on the application, her registration was renewed without payment of the required fee. Opportunities to Correct the Filing The DEA contacted Ms. Joanita in December 2021, January 2022, and August 2022. They provided her the opportunity to pay the required registration fee and to fill out a form regarding any changes to her fee exemption status. At the time the Order to Show Cause (OSC) was issued, Ms. Joanita had neither paid the fee nor submitted the required update form. Legal Process and Default On February 6, 2023, the DEA sent Ms. Joanita an Order to Show Cause, proposing to revoke her DEA registration. She was informed of her right to request a hearing and answer the allegations. Ms. Joanita did not request a hearing, file an answer, or respond to the OSC in any way. The DEA determined that Ms. Joanita was therefore in default and that she had admitted to the factual allegations made in the OSC. The facts in the OSC were accepted as the basis for the Agency’s decision. Findings The DEA found that Ms. Joanita: Submitted a false statement on her renewal application by naming a certifying official she no longer worked for. Claimed fee exemption status when she was not entitled to it. Did not pay her registration fee as required by law and regulations. Did not respond to written requests or correct her application when given a chance. Material Falsification The DEA explained that providing false information on a renewal application is a serious violation. False statements about fee exemption are considered material because they affect the DEA’s decision to grant or renew a registration. The government’s evidence was found to be clear and convincing. The Agency decided it met the legal standard needed to prove that Ms. Joanita materially falsified her application. Sanctions and Final Order When someone is found to have submitted a materially false application, the burden shifts to them to show they can be trusted with DEA registration. Ms. Joanita did not respond or accept responsibility for the violation. The DEA stated that allowing a registrant to keep their registration after making false statements would send the wrong message. The Agency said that they must enforce the laws and require honest applications. As a result, the DEA issued an order: Revoking DEA Certificate of Registration No. MJ5209677 for Grace S. Joanita, N.P. Denying any pending applications for renewal or modification of this registration. Denying any other pending applications for additional registration in Ohio from Ms. Joanita. Order Effective Date This order is effective November 17, 2025. The order was signed by Administrator Terrance Cole of the Drug Enforcement Administration on October 1, 2025. The document was published in the Federal Register by Heather Achbach, DEA Federal Register Liaison Officer. 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.
Shannon Wagner, D.O.; Decision and Order
DEA Grants Registration to Dr. Shannon Wagner After Review Estimated reading time: 7–9 minutes On October 17, 2025, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) announced its decision in the case of Dr. Shannon Wagner, D.O., from Green Bay, Wisconsin. Dr. Wagner had applied for a DEA Certificate of Registration, which allows doctors to prescribe certain medicines. The Government had given Dr. Wagner an Order to Show Cause on August 13, 2024. This means the government asked Dr. Wagner to explain why they should not deny her application. The Government said Dr. Wagner had been excluded from all federal health care programs, like Medicare and Medicaid, under 42 U.S.C. 1320a-7(a). There was a hearing before DEA Administrative Law Judge Teresa A. Wallbaum. She gave her decision on February 21, 2025, and said Dr. Wagner’s application should be granted. The DEA reviewed the whole record and agreed with the judge. Background and Events On August 21, 2014, in a Michigan federal court, Dr. Wagner pleaded guilty to conspiracy to pay and receive health care kickbacks and to filing a false tax return. Based on these crimes, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) excluded her from all federal health care programs for 13 years, starting from December 18, 2014. This exclusion will end in 2027. The DEA found clear proof that Dr. Wagner is currently excluded from these programs. The law lets the DEA deny a registration if the person is excluded from federal health care programs. Dr. Wagner’s Response Dr. Wagner admitted to her mistakes. She said her actions were wrong and took the blame for her crimes. She said she should have stopped the illegal activity and accepted responsibility for everything, including not stopping her husband’s actions when he managed their business. Dr. Wagner also said she learned important lessons while in prison and working other jobs after her release. She worked as a waitress, delivery driver, cleaner, and more. She said these jobs humbled her and made her understand how important her medical license was. To get her medical license back in Wisconsin, Dr. Wagner worked under a limited license for a year with regular reports to the Wisconsin Medical Board. After that, she got her full license. She also took about 240 hours of continuing medical education credits, much more than the state’s minimum. Dr. Wagner is making monthly restitution payments and intends to pay off the full amount of $270,000. Remedial Measures Dr. Wagner is not married to her co-conspirator anymore. The ALJ and the DEA said that this and her actions after prison showed she took steps to make sure her crimes would not happen again. She now plans to use her medical skills to help people in prison. Other Factors The DEA said Dr. Wagner’s crimes were very serious. She was part of a seven-year health care fraud conspiracy and filed a false tax return. She spent 17 months in prison, served supervised release, lost property, and has been making consistent restitution payments. Her criminal conduct ended over 13 years ago. The DEA said Dr. Wagner’s punishment and state licensing actions were enough to prevent her from doing wrong again and to deter others. The DEA said denying her application was not needed as more punishment. Final Decision The DEA found that Dr. Wagner could be trusted with a DEA registration. She accepted responsibility, took real steps to correct her behavior, and showed insight into her past crimes. The DEA granted her application for a DEA Certificate of Registration. This order is effective immediately. The decision was signed by DEA Administrator Terrance Cole on October 1, 2025, and published in the Federal Register. 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.
Hovic Pharmacy; Decision and Order
DEA Revokes Hovic Pharmacy’s Controlled Substance Registration After Violations Estimated reading time: 5–7 minutes Background On October 20, 2021, the DEA issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) against Hovic Pharmacy. The DEA wanted to revoke the pharmacy’s registration number FH5569112. The DEA said that Hovic’s continued registration would not be in the public interest. The case focused on Hovic Pharmacy’s filling of controlled substance prescriptions. The prescriptions were often filled outside the usual course of pharmacy practice. The pharmacy did not follow its “corresponding responsibility” under federal rules and Texas law. Investigations and Findings DEA presented evidence from an independent pharmacy expert and several declarations. The expert found multiple “red flags” in prescription data. These red flags showed a risk of drug abuse and diversion for illegal street sales. A person known as “Recruiter” was at the center of the scheme. Recruiter pled guilty to conspiracy to dispense and distribute hydrocodone. Recruiter’s declaration showed that the scheme ran from at least 2017 to 2020. Recruiter recruited others to act as patients. They got controlled substance prescriptions from doctors, then filled them at Hovic. Recruiter picked up the drugs, forging patient signatures or signing their own name. The drugs were then sold on the street. Hovic Pharmacy’s staff rarely questioned the prescriptions. The staff did not ask for identification or proof of authority for pick-up. Hovic’s pharmacists even told Recruiter how to pick up drugs for others and suggested signing the signature log with fake or real names. One pharmacist lent Recruiter up to $800 to pay for doctor visits, expecting to be repaid after street sales. Expert Review Dr. Diane Ginsburg, a registered pharmacist and expert, reviewed the government’s evidence. She explained that pharmacy law requires pharmacists to catch and resolve red flags before filling prescriptions for dangerous drugs. These drugs included hydrocodone, alprazolam, carisoprodol, and promethazine with codeine. Dr. Ginsburg found that Hovic’s staff did not try to resolve red flags and did not document consultations as required by law. Hovic Pharmacy filled about 138 prescriptions with combinations of these drugs, called “cocktails.” These cocktails are known to be high-risk for abuse. The pharmacy also filled monthly or repeated prescriptions for promethazine with codeine for three people, which is a red flag for abuse. The pharmacy filled many prescriptions from doctors who issued the same or similar prescriptions to different people, known as “pattern prescribing.” Hovic filled these without investigating the red flags. Some individuals also used “pharmacy shopping,” getting controlled substances at multiple pharmacies, including Hovic. Again, Hovic failed to resolve the red flags. Over eighteen months, Hovic Pharmacy released about 13,135 controlled substance tablets and about a 3,478 days’ supply of promethazine with codeine into the community. These drugs are commonly abused and frequently diverted. Legal Standards and Violations Federal law says a prescription for a controlled substance must be for a legitimate medical purpose. Both the prescribing doctor and the pharmacist have responsibilities. Texas law also sets standards and requires pharmacists to identify and resolve red flags. Written records are required for consultations with doctors about prescriptions. The DEA determined that Hovic Pharmacy broke both federal and Texas laws. The pharmacy failed to resolve questions about prescriptions and released large amounts of dangerous drugs into the community. This included filling prescriptions for known street dealers, filling prescriptions for others based on forged signatures, and failing to follow professional standards. Sanction Hovic Pharmacy did not show up for its scheduled hearing and presented no evidence in its defense. The DEA found that Hovic did not show any responsibility for its actions or offer any plan to prevent future issues. The DEA found that allowing Hovic to keep its registration would not protect the public. Based on the evidence, the DEA revoked Hovic Pharmacy’s certificate of registration. The DEA also denied any pending application by Hovic for renewal or modification of registration in Texas. The revocation takes effect on November 17, 2025. The DEA stressed the need to maintain trust and safety in the pharmacy community. The decision aims to deter similar conduct by others. 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.
David S. Pecora, P.A.; Decision and Order
DEA Denies Registration Application of David S. Pecora, P.A. Estimated reading time: 3–5 minutes On October 17, 2025, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) announced the denial of an application for DEA controlled substances registration submitted by David S. Pecora, P.A., of Bemidji, Minnesota. The application control number was W23054133M. Reasons for Denial The DEA denied Mr. Pecora’s application because he was found to have made false statements on five DEA registration applications, including the most recent application in May 2023. The agency also found that granting registration to Mr. Pecora would not be in the public interest. Default in Proceedings Mr. Pecora was notified of the allegations and given a chance to respond. He did not request a hearing, submit an answer, or respond. Because of this, the DEA determined he was in default. By default, he was also considered to have admitted to the facts stated in the notice. Materially False Applications The DEA determined that Mr. Pecora submitted applications with answers that were false or incomplete. On earlier applications, he answered “no” to questions about past suspensions or denials of state professional licenses, when in fact: In July 2007, his West Virginia registered nursing license was suspended. In October 2008, his Florida registered nursing license was suspended. In July 2012, his application for a physician assistant license in North Dakota was denied. His Minnesota physician assistant license was suspended and reinstated several times between 2014 and 2023. He also failed to truthfully report if he ever surrendered a DEA registration for cause. Repeated False Answers On his applications from January 2012, October 2013, January 2016, February 2020 (renewal), and May 2023, Mr. Pecora did not disclose all adverse actions taken against his medical and nursing licenses or his previous surrenders of DEA registrations. The DEA found these omissions and false statements to be material, which means they were important for making a decision on whether to grant or deny a registration. Findings About Controlled Substance Abuse and Diversion The DEA record shows: In 2007, Mr. Pecora was addicted to zolpidem, a controlled substance, and underwent addiction treatment. In 2013, while being monitored for drug abuse, he wrote prescriptions for carisoprodol (Soma) for two volleyball teammates, in return for some of the pills for his own use. He ordered carisoprodol online for personal use while in addiction treatment. He tested positive without a prescription for carisoprodol. In November 2020, Mr. Pecora stole propofol, another controlled substance, from an operating room for personal use. Public Safety and DEA Standards The DEA found that Mr. Pecora’s actions included diverting controlled substances for himself by fraudulent prescriptions and theft. He demonstrated a lengthy history of substance abuse and failed to comply with controlled substances laws. Under the Controlled Substances Act, the DEA must deny a registration if granting it would not be in the public interest. The agency found Mr. Pecora’s conduct threatened public health and safety. Sanction and Final Decision Mr. Pecora’s failure to respond was considered a lack of acceptance of responsibility for his actions. The DEA concluded he could not be trusted with a DEA registration. Therefore, the DEA denied his application for registration. The denial also affects any other pending applications from Mr. Pecora for registration in Minnesota. The order is effective as of November 17, 2025. Document Signed This decision was signed by DEA Administrator Terrance Cole on October 1, 2025. Heather Achbach, Federal Register Liaison Officer, confirmed the publication. 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 Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-OpenGMSL Association
Department of Justice Receives Membership Update from OpenGMSL Association Estimated reading time: 3–5 minutes The U.S. Department of Justice has announced an update related to the OpenGMSL Association. This update was published in the Federal Register on October 3, 2025. On September 22, 2025, OpenGMSL Association filed written notifications with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission. These notifications are required under Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993. This law helps limit the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages in certain situations. The update lists new members that have joined the OpenGMSL Association. The new members are: Alfamation, an InTest Company, Lissone, Italy Analog Devices Inc., Wilmington, MA ASTRODESIGN, Inc., Tokyo, Japan Beijing ESWIN Computing Technology Co., Ltd., Beijing, People’s Republic of China Core Microelectronics, Sariyer, Turkey Granite River Labs, Santa Clara, CA Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd., Kyoto, Japan Qualcomm Incorporated, San Diego, CA ROHM Co., Ltd., Kyoto, Japan Rsemi Zhiyuan (Hangzhou) Semiconductor Science and Technology Limited Company, Hangzhou City, People’s Republic of China Samsung Electronics, Hwaseong-si, Republic of Korea SmartSens Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., Shanghai, People’s Republic of China TDK Corporation, Tokyo, Japan Valeo Comfort and Driving Assistance, Creteil, France No other changes have been made to the group’s membership or planned activities. The OpenGMSL Association states that membership remains open. The association plans to file more notifications for any future changes in membership. The original notification about this group was filed on June 30, 2025. It was published in the Federal Register on August 13, 2025, under entry 90 FR 38998. This update was formally published by Suzanne Morris, Deputy Director for Civil Enforcement Operations at the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice. 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.
URAL Airlines JSC, Utrenniy Lane 1-g, Yekaterinburg, Russia 620025; Order Renewing Temporary Denial of Export Privileges
U.S. Extends Export Restrictions on Ural Airlines JSC Estimated reading time: 3–5 minutes On October 3, 2025, the U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) announced a renewed order to deny export privileges to Ural Airlines JSC of Russia. The decision extends the current temporary denial order (TDO) for one year. The order aims to stop possible violations of U.S. export rules. Background of the Export Ban The first TDO against Ural Airlines was signed on October 13, 2022. It lasted for 180 days and was designed to prevent violations of U.S. export laws. The original order was made because Ural Airlines flew aircraft that were subject to U.S. regulations into Russia without the required licenses. This TDO has been renewed several times: April 10, 2023 October 6, 2023 October 4, 2024 In each case, BIS explained that the renewal was needed to protect the public interest and prevent violations of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR). Rules About Exporting and the EAR Under the EAR, an order like this can be put in place if there is evidence of a likely or ongoing violation. A violation is called “imminent” if it might happen soon or is very likely. The TDO blocks a company and its partners from using U.S. exports or U.S. technology without special permission. For Ural Airlines, the only exception is if it relates directly to flight safety. How Ural Airlines Violated the Rules U.S. officials have been tracking how Ural Airlines uses its planes. After Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the U.S. made strict rules to block Russia from getting certain technology, especially items for airplanes and related parts. These rules were meant to limit Russia’s military and economic abilities. Since March 2, 2022, airplanes and parts on a special U.S. control list could not go to Russia without a U.S. license. Ural Airlines is accused of flying U.S.-controlled planes into Russia and within Russia, without such a license. The BIS provided examples of flights showing Ural Airlines using airplanes listed in the EAR, both before and after the first denial order. Recent Evidence The most recent evidence submitted by BIS on September 9, 2025, shows Ural Airlines continued to fly these airplanes, in violation of the existing ban. Flight records from January through September 2025 show many trips by Ural Airlines using Airbus A320 and A321 aircraft. These flights included travel from places like: Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan to Yekaterinburg, Russia Dushanbe, Tajikistan to Samara, Russia Khujand, Tajikistan to Yekaterinburg, Russia Osh, Kyrgyzstan to Moscow, Russia There were also several flights within Russia, such as from Kaliningrad to Yekaterinburg and from Moscow to Omsk. Order Details With this renewed order, the following rules apply to Ural Airlines JSC: Ural Airlines and anyone working on its behalf cannot take part in transactions involving U.S. goods, technology, or software. This includes applying for licenses (unless it concerns flight safety), buying, selling, using, or shipping U.S.-controlled goods or services. Other people or companies cannot sell, supply, or help Ural Airlines get U.S.-controlled items, except for what is directly needed for flight safety. No one can service Ural Airlines’ planes using U.S. items, unless it is directly related to safety of flight. Related companies or individuals linked to Ural Airlines may also become subject to the same ban after an official process. What Ural Airlines Can Do Ural Airlines can appeal the renewed ban by filing a statement with the U.S. Administrative Law Judge. The company can also oppose future renewals by sending a written response before the order’s expiration date. Effective Date This renewed order is effective immediately and lasts for one year, starting October 3, 2025. Official Source The full text of the order was published in the U.S. Federal Register, Volume 90, Number 190, on October 3, 2025. The order was signed by Ross Kennedy, Senior Advisor at the Bureau of Industry and Security. 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.
Barium Carbonate From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Sunset Review and Revocation of Antidumping Duty Order
U.S. Revokes Antidumping Duty Order on Barium Carbonate from China Estimated reading time: 3 minutes On October 3, 2025, the U.S. Department of Commerce announced it is ending the Antidumping Duty (AD) Order on barium carbonate from the People’s Republic of China. The Department of Commerce started the fourth review of the AD Order on July 1, 2025. This “sunset review” looked at whether the duty order should continue. In these cases, U.S. law allows for review every five years. No company or party in the United States responded to Commerce’s notice about this review. According to section 751(c)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, if no one responds, the Department of Commerce must revoke the order after 90 days. Barium carbonate is covered by this order, no matter what form or grade it is. Its tariff code is 2836.60.0000 under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States. The written description of the product matches the legal definition given in the order. Because no U.S. parties responded, the Department of Commerce is revoking the AD Order. This means the order will no longer apply starting from August 20, 2025. Entries of barium carbonate made before this date will still have to follow the earlier rules. The Department of Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to lift all suspensions for the period after August 20, 2025. Any requests for reviews about imports before August 20, 2025, may still be considered. Details of this decision are published in Federal Register Volume 90, Number 190, on October 3, 2025. For more information, you may contact David De Falco of the Trade Agreements Policy and Negotiations team at the U.S. Department of Commerce. His phone number is (202) 482-2178. 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.
Calcium Hypochlorite From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of the Second Expedited Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order
United States Keeps Antidumping Duties on Calcium Hypochlorite from China Estimated reading time: 3–5 minutes Background The U.S. Department of Commerce has announced the results of its second expedited sunset review of the antidumping duty order on calcium hypochlorite from the People’s Republic of China. The Department found that ending the antidumping duty order would likely cause dumping from China to continue or happen again. The dumping margins could be as high as 210.52 percent. On January 30, 2015, the Department of Commerce put an antidumping duty order on calcium hypochlorite from China. On June 2, 2025, the Department started the second sunset review, as required by law. Innovative Water Care, LLC (IWC), a company in the U.S., showed support for keeping the duties. IWC sent a notice of intent to participate by June 17, 2025. IWC is a domestic producer of a similar product. The Department gave notice to the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) that there was support from a domestic interested party. This notice went to the ITC on July 1, 2025. IWC sent its full response by July 2, 2025, staying within the 30-day deadline. There were no responses from any parties in China. No hearing was requested. On July 21, 2025, the Department again notified the ITC that no responses were received from any Chinese parties. Since only the U.S. party responded, the Department conducted an expedited (120-day) sunset review. Scope of the Order The order covers calcium hypochlorite from China. Details on the product scope are listed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, available at http://access.trade.gov. Analysis and Final Results All issues brought up in the sunset review were discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. This document is public and can be found on the Enforcement and Compliance’s Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). The Department has decided that ending the antidumping order would likely let dumping continue or happen again. Dumping margins could be up to 210.52 percent. Administrative Protective Orders This notice reminds interested parties who are under an Administrative Protective Order (APO) to follow the rules on handling information, as stated in 19 CFR 351.305. Publication These results and this notice are issued and published under sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, and related regulations. The notice is dated 2025-09-26, and signed by Christopher Abbott, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Negotiations. For more details, readers can review the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 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 Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From India, Indonesia, the People’s Republic of China, Taiwan, Thailand, and Ukraine: Continuation of Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Orders
U.S. Continues Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel from Six Countries Estimated reading time: 7 minutes On September 23, 2025, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) and the Department of Commerce announced the continuation of antidumping duty (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) orders on certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products. The countries affected are India, Indonesia, the People’s Republic of China (China), Taiwan, Thailand, and Ukraine. Why Did This Happen? The ITC and the Department of Commerce found that removing these duties would likely lead to more dumping and subsidies. This could hurt industries in the United States. Because of these findings, the duties will stay in place. What Are These Duties About? Antidumping duties are extra taxes on foreign products sold at unfairly low prices. Countervailing duties are extra taxes on goods that get unfair help from foreign governments. These duties help U.S. companies compete fairly. History of These Orders The duties on these steel products started between November 29 and December 3, 2001. Since then, the government reviews whether to keep these orders every five years. The most recent reviews, called “sunset reviews,” began on July 1, 2024. In these reviews, both the Commerce Department and the ITC agreed that ending the orders would hurt U.S. businesses. Scope of the Orders The steel products covered include hot-rolled flat-rolled carbon-quality steel in rectangular shapes. These are at least 0.5 inch wide and less than 4.75 mm thick. The steel must also meet certain chemical requirements, such as having low amounts of manganese, silicon, copper, and other elements. Some steel products are excluded, like: Alloy hot-rolled steel with higher levels of certain elements Steel grades SAE/AISI 2300 and up Ball bearing steel Tool steel Silicon electrical steel with high silicon Some specialty and abrasion-resistant steels The affected steel is mainly listed under certain tariff codes in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). What Happens Next? U.S. Customs and Border Protection will keep collecting the AD and CVD cash deposits on these steel imports. The effective date for this continuation is September 23, 2025. The Department of Commerce will review these orders again within five years. Legal References This decision is based on sections 751(c) and 751(d)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as well as related federal regulations. For More Information For details, contact: Yang Jin Chun (AD India, Indonesia, China, Taiwan, Thailand, and Ukraine): (202) 482-5760 Peter Zukowski (CVD India and Indonesia): (202) 482-0189 Thomas Cloyd (CVD Thailand): (202) 482-1246 End of Notice 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: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2023-2024
U.S. Department of Commerce Releases Preliminary Results in Review of Chinese Chlorinated Isocyanurates Estimated reading time: 3–5 minutes The U.S. Department of Commerce, through its International Trade Administration, has released the preliminary results of its antidumping duty administrative review on chlorinated isocyanurates from the People’s Republic of China. This review covers shipments during the period June 1, 2023, through May 31, 2024. Who Is Involved The review covers two producers and exporters from China: Heze Huayi Chemical Co., Ltd. Juancheng Kangtai Chemical Co., Ltd. These companies applied for “separate rate” status, which means they requested to be treated individually in the review instead of as part of the “China-wide entity.” What Was Found Commerce made preliminary findings that both Heze Huayi and Kangtai sold chlorinated isocyanurates in the U.S. for less than normal value, which is the basis for determining dumping. The following dumping margins were calculated: Heze Huayi Chemical Co., Ltd.: 18.39% Juancheng Kangtai Chemical Co., Ltd.: 4.77% The China-wide rate remains 285.63% because no party requested a review of the China-wide entity. How the Review Was Done Commerce used data and methods based on U.S. law, using specific sections from the Tariff Act of 1930. China is considered a “non-market economy,” so special rules are used to calculate the normal value of products. The review looked at prices, sales, and other records provided by the companies. Product Details The products covered are called chlorinated isocyanurates. These chemicals are derivatives of cyanuric acid and are also known as chlorinated s-triazine triones. They are used for purposes like disinfectants and are identified under certain codes in the U.S. tariff schedule. Next Steps and Public Comments Interested parties can submit written comments or case briefs on these preliminary results. The deadlines are set at 21 days after the publication of the notice for main comments and 5 days later for rebuttal comments. Parties are asked to include a summary at the start of their briefs. If anyone wants a public hearing about these results, a written request must be submitted within 30 days of the notice’s publication. Assessment and Cash Deposit Requirements After the final results, Commerce and U.S. Customs and Border Protection will assess duties on the entries reviewed. If the company-specific rates are not zero or very low (de minimis), duties will be collected at those rates. If margins are very low or zero, the entries will not have duties collected. New cash deposit rates will be set for future imports as follows: For companies getting a separate rate, the new cash deposit rate will be based on the final review results. Companies not reviewed or without a separate rate will keep their current rates, including the higher China-wide rate of 285.63%. Importer Responsibilities Importers must file certificates stating whether they were reimbursed for antidumping or countervailing duties. Not doing so can lead to the assumption that reimbursement happened, resulting in doubled duties. When Results Become Final Final results are expected within 120 days after this notice. All procedures follow U.S. law as cited in the Federal Register notice. Official Contacts Questions about this review can be directed to Brian Warnes at the U.S. Department of Commerce, at (202) 482-0028. These results were signed by Christopher Abbott, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Negotiations, on September 29, 2025. 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 Non-Refillable Steel Cylinders From the People’s Republic of China: Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2024
U.S. Department of Commerce Rescinds Review of Countervailing Duties on Certain Steel Cylinders from China Estimated reading time: 4–6 minutes On October 3, 2025, the U.S. Department of Commerce published a notice in the Federal Register. The notice announces that the Department is rescinding its administrative review of countervailing duties (CVD) on certain non-refillable steel cylinders from the People’s Republic of China. The review would have covered the period from January 1, 2024, through December 31, 2024. Sanjiang Kai Yuan Co., Ltd. (SKY) had requested the review on May 22, 2025. No other requests for a review were received. On June 25, 2025, Commerce started the review process. On July 9, 2025, Commerce checked data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) about shipments of the subject merchandise by SKY during the review period. The data showed there were no such shipments. Commerce informed interested parties of its intent to rescind the review and allowed them to comment. No comments were submitted. According to Commerce rules, an administrative review of a CVD order is only done when there are entries of the subject merchandise during the review period for which liquidation is suspended. In this case, there were no entries from SKY, so there was nothing to review. Because of this, Commerce is ending the review completely, in line with federal regulations. There will be no change to the cash deposit rates because of this rescission. The current cash deposit requirements will stay the same until Commerce issues further notice. Commerce will instruct CBP to assess duties at the cash deposit rates that were required at the time of entry, as stated in the federal regulations. These instructions will be issued at least 35 days after the date of publication of this notice. The notice also reminds parties who are under an Administrative Protective Order (APO) of their responsibility to return or destroy any protected information according to Commerce’s regulations. Failure to do so could result in sanctions. This notice is issued under sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(l) of the Tariff Act of 1930, and Commerce regulations. The notice was signed by Scot Fullerton, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations. 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.
Electrolytic Manganese Dioxide From China; Scheduling of an Expedited Five-Year Review
U.S. International Trade Commission Schedules Expedited Review of Electrolytic Manganese Dioxide from China Estimated reading time: 3–5 minutes The United States International Trade Commission (USITC) has announced that it will conduct an expedited five-year review of the antidumping duty order on electrolytic manganese dioxide imported from China. The review is being done under the Tariff Act of 1930. This is to decide if removing the antidumping duty would lead to more injury to U.S. businesses in the near future. Important Dates The schedule began on September 5, 2025. A report about the investigation will be shared with approved parties on October 30, 2025. The public version of the report will be released later. Parties who are part of this review and have responded correctly can send their written comments to the Commission. These comments are due by 5:15 p.m. on November 5, 2025. The comments must not have any new facts. Anyone who is not a party in this case can also send a short written statement by November 5, 2025. These statements also cannot contain new facts. Who Is Involved The Commission said the domestic interested parties’ responses were enough. It noted that the responses from the opposing parties were not enough. Because of this, the Commission is moving forward with an expedited review instead of a full review. The companies, EMD Acquisition LLC d/b/a Borman Specialty Materials and Vibrantz Technologies Inc., were found to have provided sufficient responses. Comments from other interested parties will not be accepted. Filing Procedures If anyone files documents for the review, a certificate of service must be included. This means that each filing must also be sent to all other parties in the review. If the Department of Commerce takes more time to finish its part of the review, the deadline for comments will shift. In this case, comments would be due three business days after Commerce’s results. More rules about this are in the Commission’s Handbook on Filing Procedures, which can be found on the USITC website. Extended Timeline The Commission has decided that this is an extraordinarily complicated review. Because of this, the review period may be extended for up to 90 more days, as allowed by law. Contact and Additional Information For more information, contact Laurel Schwartz at 202-205-2398. The public record is available at https://edis.usitc.gov. This review is being held under the authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930. The notice was published as required by Section 207.62 of the Commission’s rules. This order was issued by Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission, on September 30, 2025. 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.
Designation of P2P Methyl Glycidic Acid as a List I Chemical
DEA Proposes to Regulate P2P Methyl Glycidic Acid as a List I Chemical Estimated reading time: 4–8 minutes The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has proposed a new rule. The rule would make P2P methyl glycidic acid, also called 2-methyl-3-phenyloxirane-2-carboxylic acid or BMK glycidic acid, a List I chemical. This chemical and its different forms are used to make illegal drugs such as methamphetamine and amphetamine. Background of the Chemical P2P methyl glycidic acid is an important chemical for making schedule II drugs like phenyl-2-propanone (P2P), methamphetamine, and amphetamine. People in illegal labs use this chemical to make these drugs. The DEA has found that this chemical does not have any legal or industrial use, other than for research or laboratory tests in small amounts. Reports have shown that large amounts of P2P methyl glycidic acid and its salts are being made and shipped internationally, mainly from China and mostly seized in the Netherlands. Over 47 metric tons of the sodium salt and 51 metric tons of the acid have been seized since 2012. Reason for the Rule The United Nations added P2P methyl glycidic acid and its esters to its international drug control list in 2024. This means the United States is required to take action to control this chemical. By creating this rule, the DEA is meeting its obligations under the 1988 United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. Details of the Proposed Rule All forms of P2P methyl glycidic acid will be regulated, including its: Esters Optical and geometric isomers Salts Salts of its isomers and esters Any chemical mixture containing even a small amount of P2P methyl glycidic acid will be controlled. There will be no set minimum amount (threshold) for regulation. All amounts will be covered by the rules. Registration and Compliance Anyone who handles this chemical—manufacturers, distributors, importers, or exporters—must register with the DEA. Separate registrations are needed for different activities and locations. There is a process for temporary exemption while registration is being processed, as long as an application is submitted within 30 days after the final rule is published. Warehouses that only store the chemical for DEA-registered businesses do not need to register, but they cannot distribute the chemical to others without registration. Recordkeeping and Reporting DEA registrants must keep records and make reports of every transaction involving P2P methyl glycidic acid. These records must be kept for two years. Bulk manufacturers must file annual reports on manufacturing, inventory, and use. Any strange or suspicious transactions, losses, or thefts must be reported to the DEA. Import and Export Controls Importing and exporting P2P methyl glycidic acid will require following DEA rules and regulations. Security and Inspections Registrants must provide security to prevent theft or diversion of the chemical. The DEA can inspect places where the chemical is handled or stored. Impact and Costs The DEA states there is little to no legal use for P2P methyl glycidic acid in the United States. Any possible costs will be only for registration fees, mainly for businesses who choose to keep handling the chemical. Nine businesses have been found to offer the chemical, but actual sales likely are small. Costs to these businesses are expected to be minimal. Public Comments The DEA is asking for public comments. Comments must be submitted by November 3, 2025. Comments can be made online at https://www.regulations.gov by looking up Docket No. DEA-1395. Legal References If the rule becomes final, handling P2P methyl glycidic acid without DEA approval will be illegal. Civil, criminal, and administrative penalties can apply. How to Learn More For more information or questions, people can contact Terrence L. Boos at the DEA’s Drug and Chemical Evaluation Section by phone at (571) 362-3249. The full proposed rule is available at http://www.regulations.gov. 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 China and Indonesia; Institution of Five-Year Reviews
U.S. Reviews Antidumping Orders on MSG from China and Indonesia Estimated reading time: 3–5 minutes The United States International Trade Commission (USITC) has started a new review. This is the second five-year review of antidumping duty orders on monosodium glutamate (MSG) from China and Indonesia. The main question is if removing the orders would harm U.S. companies again. Key Dates for the Review The review began on October 1, 2025. Anyone interested must send their responses by October 31, 2025. Comments about whether responses are good enough must be filed by December 11, 2025. What Is Being Reviewed MSG is the product under review. MSG is mainly produced in the U.S. by Ajinomoto North America, Inc. Imports from China and Indonesia are being checked. The USITC wants to know if ending duties would bring back problems for U.S. producers. Who Can Take Part Any person or group who uses, sells, or produces MSG can join. This includes industrial users, sellers, and consumer groups. To join, they must file an entry within 21 days after October 1, 2025. What Is Needed From Participants Participants must give specific details. This includes: Their name, address, and contact details. If they are an “interested party” under U.S. trade law. If they will help in the review. How removing the duties might affect them or the entire U.S. industry. A list of all U.S. MSG makers and related parties. A list of all U.S. importers and export firms since 2019. Names and contacts of big U.S. buyers. Places to find info on MSG prices. Data about their operations with MSG during 2024, including production, capacity, sales, and profits. Special Rules for Submissions Every document must be filed electronically at EDIS. No paper filings are allowed now. Any data sent must be certified as correct. If a party cannot give all information, they must explain why, or the Commission might assume the worst (“adverse inference”). Some sensitive business information can be given under a protective order. Definitions Subject Merchandise: MSG covered in the review. Subject Countries: China and Indonesia. Domestic Like Product: All MSG made in the U.S. Domestic Industry: U.S. companies making MSG, mainly Ajinomoto North America, Inc. Importer: Companies that bring MSG from China or Indonesia into the U.S. Confidential Information Sensitive details can be protected if the company asks within 21 days of the notice. Only authorized people will see it. Burden Estimate The average reporting time is 15 hours per response. The deadline for this is June 30, 2026. Cost and Business Changes Parties are asked if there have been big supply or demand changes for MSG since 2019, and what future changes might happen. Authority This review is under Title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930. The official notice was published by Secretary Lisa Barton on September 24, 2025. For more information, contact Rachel Devenney at the USITC, or visit usitc.gov. End of Notice 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.
Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol From China; Institution of a Five-Year Review
U.S. Reviews Duties on Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol from China Estimated reading time: 5–7 minutes The United States International Trade Commission (USITC) has started a five-year review of the antidumping duty order on tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol from China. This review will decide if ending the antidumping duties would likely hurt U.S. industry again. The USITC first put duties on imports of tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol from China in August 2004. Since then, the order has been kept in place after three other five-year reviews, with the most recent update made in November 2020. The fourth review started on October 1, 2025. The USITC wants interested parties to send detailed information for its decision. Responses are due by October 31, 2025. Comments on these responses are due by December 11, 2025. Tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol is the product being reviewed. The country involved is China. The USITC will look at if the U.S. industry making tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol will be hurt if the duties are removed. Anyone who wants to be a party in this review must file an entry of appearance within 21 days after this notice. The USITC keeps a list of all parties. People who worked for the Commission in the past can take part in this review, even if they worked on earlier reviews or the original investigation. Business proprietary information can be shared under an administrative protective order if requests are made in time. All information submitted must be certified as complete and accurate. The USITC has asked all interested parties to give specific data, including: Name and contact information of the company or person responding. If the company is a U.S. producer, importer, exporter, or related party. Willingness to provide information for this review. How removing the duties would affect the U.S. industry and the company. Lists of U.S. producers, importers, and Chinese producers of tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol. Names of main U.S. buyers and known price sources. Detailed production, sales, and financial data for the year 2024. Lists of important supply and demand changes since 2019. Information must be sent electronically through the USITC’s Electronic Document Information System (EDIS). No paper filings are accepted. All detailed requirements for filing can be found in the USITC’s filing handbook online. Firms that cannot provide all the requested information should explain why and suggest alternative details. This review is being done under Title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. For more information, contact Alec Resch in the USITC Office of Investigations at 202-708-1448 or visit https://www.usitc.gov. The notice was signed by Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission, on September 24, 2025. 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.
Expansion of End-User Controls To Cover Affiliates of Certain Listed Entities
U.S. Updates Export Rules: Affiliate Companies Now Covered by Entity List Restrictions Estimated reading time: 8–9 minutes The U.S. Department of Commerce Has Changed the Export Administration Regulations On September 30, 2025, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) announced new rules for the Export Administration Regulations (EAR). The changes apply strict export controls to companies owned by parties on the Entity List and certain other restricted lists. This new rule is called the “Affiliates rule.” Who Is Affected by the New Rule? Any company owned 50% or more by one or more parties on the Entity List is now automatically covered by the same restrictions as those parties. This applies whether the ownership is direct or indirect, and whether it is all from one listed company or spread across several. The same rule now also covers: Companies 50% or more owned by parties on the “Military End-User” (MEU) List. Companies 50% or more owned by parties who are Specially Designated Nationals (SDNs) under certain sanctions. What Is the Entity List? The Entity List is a record of organizations and people that the U.S. government thinks could harm national security or foreign policy. Businesses on this list need special licenses to receive certain exports, imports, or technologies from U.S. companies. What Has Changed? Before this rule, only companies listed by name on the Entity List were covered. Now, any foreign company owned 50% or more by one or more listed parties is also covered. This aligns the BIS rules with those already used by the Department of Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). What Are Businesses Required to Do? Businesses that export, reexport, or transfer items controlled by the EAR must: Check if another party in their transaction is 50% or more owned by one or more parties on the Entity List, the MEU List, or is a certain SDN. Do due diligence to figure out the ownership structure of their partners. Resolve any “Red Flags” — warnings in the regulations that mean a business must do more checking before shipping. If they cannot tell if a business partner meets the 50% threshold, exporters must apply for a license or find a valid exception before moving forward. If different owners have different restrictions, the strictest rule applies. Details About the 50% Rule The rule covers both direct and indirect ownership. The 50% can come from multiple owners. For example: If two separate Entity List companies each own 25% of another company, that company is covered. The rule does not apply to U.S. companies, only to foreign companies. Temporary General License (TGL) for Some Affiliates A Temporary General License allows certain exports to or within specific countries that meet control group requirements, even if the recipient is now covered under the new Affiliates rule. This TGL will expire on December 1, 2025. Red Flags and Due Diligence A new “Red Flag 29” has been added to compliance guidance. If an exporter knows or suspects that a business they are dealing with has a listed owner, they must: Check ownership percentages. If unsure or missing information, apply for a license or identify a valid license exception. Process for Removal or Modification If a foreign company is now covered because it is 50% or more owned by a listed entity, it may request removal or a change to its listing by writing to BIS and providing reasons. FDP Rule Changes Foreign-Direct Product (FDP) rules are also updated. When a company is 50% or more owned by listed parties, the rules for foreign-produced products made with U.S. technology may also apply to them. Penalties Exporters can be held strictly liable if they export to a now-restricted affiliate without the proper checks and permissions, even if they didn’t know about the ownership. Summary Table Provided A detailed table in the official rule helps businesses understand how the new rule applies in different types of cases. Effective Dates and Comments The rule takes effect on September 29, 2025. The temporary general license runs until December 1, 2025. Comments on the rule are due by October 29, 2025. Where to Find More Information For detailed information and the official text, visit regulations.gov or the Federal Register. Businesses with questions can contact the Chair, End-User Review Committee at the Bureau of Industry and Security, phone: (202) 482-5991, or by email as provided in the rule. Conclusion The U.S. now restricts exports to any foreign business that is 50% or more owned by companies on certain restricted lists. Companies must check ownership carefully before shipping. The change aims to improve national security by stopping restricted parties from evading export controls through affiliates. 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.
Thermoformed Molded Fiber Products From the People’s Republic of China: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value
U.S. Finds Thermoformed Molded Fiber Products From China Are Sold Below Fair Value Estimated reading time: 4–6 minutes The U.S. Department of Commerce has made its final decision about thermoformed molded fiber products from China. The Department found that these products are being sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). This covers sales from April 1, 2025, to September 30, 2025. What Are Thermoformed Molded Fiber Products? These are items made from cellulose fibers using heated molds. They include plates, bowls, clamshells, trays, lids, food packaging, and more. They can be made from any kind of cellulose fiber and may be colored, printed, or have special treatments. The U.S. government looks at these products under special tariff codes for customs. Investigation Details On May 12, 2025, the Department published a preliminary decision that these products were sold below fair value. People affected by the decision had a chance to comment. Some companies claimed there were errors in the decision, but after further checks and changes, the Department moved forward. The Department followed normal procedures. This included reviewing records and checking information given by important companies in China. The team looked at how much it cost to make the products and how much they were sold for. Scope of the Investigation The products included are all types of thermoformed molded fiber items. This includes anything made with this method, no matter the size, color, or shape. Some products are not included, such as certain paper plates and items used only to package other merchandise for sale. Final Dumping Margins The Department found that many companies made these products and exported them to the U.S. at prices below their fair value. The margins, or percentages by which prices were lowered, are as follows: Guangxi Firstpak Environmental Technology Co., Ltd.: 49.08 percent Zhejiang Zhongxin Environmental Protection Technology Group Co., Ltd. (and its related companies): 283.89 percent Several other companies: 214.73 percent China-wide entity: 477.97 percent (for companies not assigned a separate rate) A full list of companies and their rates is included in the official notice. Customs Instructions U.S. Customs and Border Protection will continue to “suspend liquidation.” This means they will continue to hold off on making the final decision about the amount of duties owed until the process is complete. Importers must pay cash deposits equal to the dumping margin listed next to their producer-exporter combination in the table. These instructions are in effect until further notice. Export Subsidies Some companies received export subsidies. The Department adjusted the dumping margins to account for these. More adjustments could happen if the International Trade Commission (ITC) makes a final positive finding about injury to U.S. industry. Next Steps The Department will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC). The ITC will decide if the U.S. industry was hurt by these imports within 45 days. If there is no injury, all deposits will be refunded and duties will not be collected. If there is injury, antidumping orders will be issued. Official Information These results are in Federal Register Notice 2025-18891. More details, like the list of companies and discussion topics, are available through official government websites. Contact For more information, parties can contact the Department of Commerce, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, at (202) 482-5973 or (202) 482-7976. Appendix: Scope Description Thermoformed molded fiber products from China include many kinds of packaging and serving items made with heated molds from cellulose fibers. The products are covered whether alone or combined with other items, unless specifically excluded. Official: Dated 2025-09-24Christopher Abbott, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Negotiations, U.S. Department of Commerce 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.
Thermoformed Molded Fiber Products From the People’s Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination
U.S. Announces Final Countervailing Duty Determination on Chinese Thermoformed Molded Fiber Products Estimated reading time: 3–5 minutes On September 30, 2025, the U.S. Department of Commerce published its final results in the countervailing duty (CVD) investigation of thermoformed molded fiber products from the People’s Republic of China. The Department found that Chinese producers and exporters received countervailable subsidies during the period from January 1, 2023, to December 31, 2023. Summary of the Investigation The investigation covered certain molded fiber products made in China. These products are made from cellulose fibers using heated molds. They are used as plates, bowls, trays, lids, and packaging. The Department looked at many kinds of these products, in any shape, color, or size. The U.S. Department of Commerce used verification methods to check information from Chinese companies. Two main companies were investigated: Guangxi Firstpak Environmental Technology Co., Ltd. (Firstpak), and Zhejiang Zhongxin Environmental Protection Technology Group Co., Ltd. (Zhejiang Zhongxin). Final Subsidy Rates The Department found the following estimated subsidy rates: Guangxi Firstpak Environmental Technology Co., Ltd.: 7.56% Zhejiang Zhongxin Environmental Protection Technology Group Co., Ltd. (and cross-owned companies): 97.82% Shaoneng Group Guangdong Luzhou Paper Mould Packing Products Co., Ltd.: 319.92% (rate based on adverse facts available) All other Chinese producers/exporters: 62.66% Scope of Investigation Thermoformed molded fiber products included in the investigation are made from virgin or recycled cellulose fibers and are formed using heat. They have smooth surfaces and can have any design, color, or function. They may include additives to improve usefulness, such as making them heat-resistant or waterproof. Items excluded are some packaging materials and any products already covered by earlier antidumping or countervailing duty orders. Suspension of Liquidation Because of the earlier preliminary determination, the Department had already ordered U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to collect cash deposits and suspend liquidation of entries from China, starting March 14, 2025. Imports entered or withdrawn from warehouse after July 11, 2025, are not under suspension, but any entered before that date remain suspended. If the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) finds that these imports injure U.S. industry, the Department will issue a CVD order. If not, the proceeding will end and any cash deposits will be refunded. Next Steps The Department will share its findings with the ITC. The ITC will decide in 45 days whether U.S. industry has been harmed by these imports from China. If the ITC rules there is no injury, all deposits will be returned. If it finds injury, countervailing duties will be put in place on all such products from China. Full Details Available The Department’s full memoranda, calculations, and all related documents are available via the Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS) at https://access.trade.gov. Contact Information Questions about this investigation can be directed to Allison Hollander at the International Trade Administration: (202) 482-2805. Published September 30, 2025 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.
Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People’s Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With the Results of Antidumping Administrative Review; Notice of Amended Final Results
Court Decision Changes Antidumping Duties for Chinese Wood Flooring Company Estimated reading time: 5–7 minutes On September 15, 2025, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) made a final decision about duties on multilayered wood flooring from China. The case is called Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co. et al. v. United States, Court No. 22-00190. This case is about how much extra tax, or “antidumping duty,” should be added to certain wood flooring from China. The review covered products imported between December 1, 2019, and November 30, 2020. The Department of Commerce had first set a dumping margin of 39.27 percent for Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co., Ltd. Commerce used Malaysian data for certain types of logs and Brazilian data for other materials. For plywood, Commerce used adjusted Brazilian import data. Jiangsu Senmao and others challenged this decision in court. The CIT told Commerce to review and better explain the data choices three separate times. The court’s main concerns were: Commerce did not clearly explain why Brazilian data was not good enough. Commerce did not follow usual rules by using data from two countries. Commerce did not put all used documents on the record. Commerce needed to check and use the most accurate data for plywood. During three remand rounds, Commerce had to adjust and explain its calculations: First Remand: Commerce gave more documents and reasons for using different data sources. Second Remand: Commerce provided more explanation about using data from more than one country. Third Remand: Commerce changed its method and used Malaysian data for plywood, replacing the Brazilian data. After these changes, Commerce revised Jiangsu Senmao’s dumping margin to 14.35 percent. On September 15, 2025, the CIT agreed with Commerce’s new margin. This final court judgement is not in harmony with Commerce’s original decision. As a result, the Department of Commerce is now officially changing its earlier decision. The new weighted-average dumping margin for Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co., Ltd. is 14.35 percent. Cash Deposit and Liquidation Details Jiangsu Senmao already has a new cash deposit rate from a review after this case, so Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will not get new deposit instructions. The current cash deposit rate will not change. The Department of Commerce is still ordered by the court not to liquidate (finalize) certain wood flooring entries for Jiangsu Senmao imported between December 1, 2019, and November 30, 2020. This hold will remain while any further court appeals happen. If there are no more appeals, or if an appeal is unsuccessful, Commerce will tell CBP to use the new antidumping rate to calculate duties on the affected flooring imports. If the final rate for certain imports is zero or too small to count, CBP will not collect any duties for those. Official Information This change is announced under sections 516A(c) and (e) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act. Dated: September 25, 2025. Christopher Abbott, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Negotiations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. 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.
Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From the People’s Republic of China: Initiation and Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances Reviews and Intent To Revoke the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, in Part
U.S. Moves to Partly End Duties on Some Solar Products from China Estimated reading time: 4–6 minutes The U.S. Department of Commerce said it may take away some trade duties on certain solar cell products from China. This comes after a request by Nextracker LLC, an importer of solar cells. The government shared its early plan on September 30, 2025. People and companies can comment on this plan. Background The U.S. put special taxes on solar cells from China in December 2012. Nextracker asked for a review of these taxes in June 2025. The company wants the government to stop the duties on certain products. Nextracker says it is an interested party because it brings these solar cells into the country. Other groups and companies involved in making solar cells in the U.S. said they do NOT oppose Nextracker’s request. The following groups sent letters of no opposition: The American Alliance for Solar Manufacturing Bila Solar, Inc. Sunspark Group Jinko Solar Canadian Solar Current Scope of Duties The rules right now cover: Crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells. Modules, panels, and laminates with these cells. Parts for final solar products, even if assembled after shipment. Some items are NOT included. These are: Thin film solar made from amorphous silicon, cadmium telluride, or copper indium gallium selenide. Tiny solar cells (10,000mm² or less) built into consumer goods that use the power for their function. Modules and panels made outside China from Chinese cells ARE included. Modules and panels assembled in China from third-country cells are NOT included. What Products Are Part of the Proposed Change? The U.S. may remove duties for “off-grid” solar cell panels that: Have a glass cover. Have an aluminum frame. Output 140 watts or less per panel. Are long and skinny (the long side is at least 3.5 times the short side). Are less than 8,200 cm² in area. Connect using 12-16 AWG wires, 1200-1310 mm long. Do not include a built-in inverter. Nextracker says these products are used: As a controller for panel tilt and tracker position. As a weather sensor to protect from extreme weather. These items are smaller and less powerful than normal solar panels. They are used only to power Nextracker parts, not to compete with other solar products. Why the Change May Happen The law lets Commerce change or cancel duties if most U.S. makers of these goods agree. If these makers show they no longer want the duties, the government can end them in part or whole. The Commerce Department says that at least 85% of U.S. makers must agree. For these reviews, almost all the main U.S. solar cell makers said they do NOT oppose Nextracker’s plan. The Commerce Department says this shows there is enough support for the change. Next Steps Anyone interested can send written arguments by 14 days after this notice. Replies can be sent five days after that. These documents must include a summary of each point, limited to 450 words per topic. If Commerce decides to go forward, duties would be ended on the special off-grid solar cell panels. This change would apply only to solar panels that entered the U.S. after January 1, 2024 (for one order) and December 1, 2024 (for the other). If the rules are changed, Customs will not collect the duties and will give refunds for deposits made on these products after those dates. The review should finish within 270 days, or 45 days if all parties agree. More Details You can read the full notice and updates at the Federal Register or at access.trade.gov. Contact For questions, contact Maureen Shaheen at the U.S. Department of Commerce, phone (202) 482-3004. 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.
Sol Gel Alumina-Based Ceramic Abrasive Grains From the People’s Republic of China: Antidumping Duty Order and Countervailing Duty Order
U.S. Issues New Duties on Sol Gel Alumina-Based Ceramic Abrasive Grains From China Estimated reading time: 2–4 minutes What Is Covered The orders cover sol gel alumina-based ceramic abrasive grains made with at least 94% aluminum oxide. These grains may also have other materials like titanium dioxide or silicon dioxide. They come in sizes from 0.85 mm to 0.0395 mm. Shapes can include angular, blocky, round, and more. The grains are extremely hard and can be various colors like blue or white. These grains are included in the duties whether imported in bulk or already made into products like abrasive papers or grinding wheels. However, only the ceramic grains inside the finished products are covered, not the entire product. Duties for Dumping The U.S. determined that ceramic abrasive grains from China were sold below fair value. Importers must pay antidumping duties at a weighted-average dumping margin of 88.32 percent. This rate applies to all producers from China and is based on facts available with adverse inferences. Duties for Subsidies The investigation found that Chinese companies producing these grains received unfair government support. Countervailing duties were set at a subsidy rate of 165.05 percent. This rate applies to several named companies and all others not listed. How Duties Are Applied U.S. Customs and Border Protection must collect cash deposits for these duties on imports from China. For antidumping duties, this started for products entered or withdrawn for consumption on or after June 2, 2025. For countervailing duties, this started for products entered on or after May 22, 2025. There was a temporary pause for the subsidy duties after September 18, 2025, until publication of the final injury determination. Duties collection resumed with the new order. Legal Process and Ongoing Requirements The orders were put in place after both Commerce and the International Trade Commission found that dumped and subsidized grains from China hurt the U.S. industry. These rules are upheld under the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. The orders also include instructions about how interested parties and lawyers can be added to annual inquiry service lists to receive updates and take part in future matters related to the orders. Special instructions apply for both U.S. petitioners and the Government of China. A full list of affected Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) codes is provided in the orders, with the written description taking priority over any classification. Where to Find More Information The notice was signed by Christopher Abbott, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Negotiations. The full list of existing antidumping and countervailing duty orders is available at https://enforcement.trade.gov/stats/iastats1.html. These new duties are effective as of September 29, 2025. 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; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Revision of a Previously Approved Collection
Federal Bureau of Investigation Seeks Comments on ViCAP National Crime Database Information Collection Estimated reading time: 5–10 minutes The Department of Justice (DOJ), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Critical Incident Response Group (CIRG), is submitting an information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This request is in line with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Comments are being accepted for 30 days, until October 27, 2025. If you have comments about the time it will take to respond, how the collection is done, or suggestions to improve it, you can contact Nathan Graham, Program Manager at the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia. The phone number is (703) 632-4309. The proposed collection was previously published for a 60-day comment period on September 17, 2025. The FBI welcomes written comments and suggestions on: If the collection of information is necessary. The accuracy of the estimated burden to the public. How to improve the quality and clarity of the information. Ways to reduce the burden, including electronic methods. Written comments and recommendations should be submitted within 30 days of the notice. They must be submitted at www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Use “Currently under 30-day Review—Open for Public Comments” or search “OMB Control Number 1110-0011” to find the request. The DOJ seeks approval for this information collection for three years. OMB cannot authorize for more than three years without another review. Details about the Collection ViCAP is a unit of the FBI that analyzes serial violent and sexual crimes. The ViCAP National Crime Database is the largest collection of major violent crime case data in the United States. It gathers data about the following: Homicides (and attempts) believed to be part of a series, random, or sexually oriented. Sexual assaults suspected to be part of a series or committed by a stranger. Missing persons cases that suggest foul play and the person is still missing. Unidentified human remains where the death is known or suspected to be homicide. Overview of the Information Collection This is a revision of a previously approved collection. The collection is named “ViCAP National Crime Database.” There is no specific agency form number. The respondents are state, local, and tribal governments. Participation is voluntary. There are an estimated 5,700 respondents. The estimated time per respondent is 20 minutes. Users decide how often to respond, but for calculation, it is counted as once per year. The total estimated annual time burden is 1,900 hours. There are no other annual costs. For more information, contact Darwin Arceo at the Department of Justice, at 145 N Street NE, 4W-218, Washington, DC 20530. This information was published in the Federal Register on September 26, 2025. 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 Request for Public Comments on Section 232 National Security Investigation of Imports of Personal Protective Equipment, Medical Consumables, and Medical Equipment, Including Devices
U.S. Commerce Department Announces Investigation on Medical Imports Estimated reading time: 4–7 minutes On September 2, 2025, the Secretary of Commerce started an investigation. The investigation will look at how importing personal protective equipment (PPE), medical consumables, and medical equipment, including devices, affects U.S. national security. This investigation is under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) will run this investigation. They invite the public and interested parties to send in written comments, data, or other information. The deadline to submit comments is October 17, 2025. What Is Being Investigated? The investigation covers: PPE used in health care settings, like surgical masks, N95 respirators, gloves, and gowns. Medical consumables, which are single-use or short-term-use items, such as syringes, needles, IV pumps, IV bags, catheters, bandages, gauze, sutures, and laboratory reagents. It does not include pharmaceuticals like drugs, which are part of another investigation. Medical equipment, which means durable equipment and tools, like wheelchairs, hospital beds, and crutches. Medical devices, such as pacemakers, insulin pumps, coronary stents, hearing aids, prosthetics, blood glucose monitors, MRI machines, ventilators, and x-ray machines. How to Submit Comments Comments can be sent through the Federal rulemaking portal at www.regulations.gov. The regulations.gov ID is BIS-2025-0258. Use XRIN 0694-XC134 in all comments. If you send business confidential information, mark those pages “BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL.” Also give a non-confidential version marked “PUBLIC.” File names should start with “BC” for confidential and “P” for public. Comments sent without these markers will be made public. Main Issues BIS Wants Comments On The Department is looking for information especially on: The current and future demand for PPE, medical consumables, and equipment in the U.S. How much domestic production can meet this demand. The role of foreign supply chains, especially major exporters, in supplying these goods. If many U.S. imports come from only a few foreign countries and if this is a risk. The impact of foreign government subsidies and unfair trade practices on U.S. manufacturers. The economic impact of low prices caused by unfair foreign trade or overproduction. If foreign countries could restrict exports or control supplies, and if this could be used against the U.S. Whether it is possible to increase domestic manufacturing to use fewer imports. The impact of current trade policies and if tariffs or quotas are needed for national security. Whether foreign countries could control or exploit supply chains. If foreign-made PPE, consumables, or equipment could be used to harm the U.S. Any other relevant factors. Confidentiality and Contact Business confidential comments will be protected as required by the law. Comments from U.S. Government agencies will not be made public. The BIS website has information and resources at https://efoia.bis.doc.gov/. For help, call (202) 482-0795. For any more information, contact Stephen Astle, Director, Defense Industrial Base Division, Office of Strategic Industries and Economic Security, BIS, at (202) 482-4506, or visit www.bis.doc.gov/232. Signed, Julia A. Khersonsky, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Strategic Trade Federal Register Vol. 90, No. 185 (September 26, 2025) 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 Request for Public Comments on Section 232 National Security Investigation of Imports of Robotics and Industrial Machinery
U.S. Commerce Department Seeks Public Comments on Risks From Imported Robotics and Industrial Machines Estimated reading time: 3–5 minutes On September 2, 2025, the United States Department of Commerce started a national security investigation. The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) is leading this work. The focus is on imports of robotics and industrial machinery. The Department wants to know how these imports may affect United States national security. The investigation is under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. The public can send comments and data. The deadline to submit is October 17, 2025. Robotics and industrial machinery in this investigation include robots and mechanical systems run by computers. It also covers CNC machines, turning and milling machines, grinding equipment, and stamping and pressing machines. Other types include automatic tool changers, jigs, fixtures, and machine tools for cutting, welding, or handling work pieces. It also covers metalworking equipment like autoclaves, industrial ovens, and laser or water-cutting tools. This investigation does not look at unmanned aircraft systems. Those are studied in a different review. The Department wants comments on many issues, including: How much demand there is in the United States for robotics and industrial machinery now, in the future, and in the best case. How much of this demand can be met by makers in the United States. The role of foreign supply chains, especially from top exporting countries. How much U.S. imports come from only a few suppliers or countries. Also, any risks because of this. The impact of money or support from foreign governments that could hurt U.S. makers. If foreign countries keep prices low on purpose or make too much, hurting U.S. jobs or businesses. The chance that foreign countries could limit exports or use control over supplies for harm. If it is possible to increase U.S. capacity to depend less on other countries. How current trade rules affect U.S. makers, and if more steps are needed, like tariffs or limits on imports. Effects on U.S. jobs from using, or not using, robotics and industrial machines. If foreign countries or people could control or misuse the supply chain. The risk that foreign-built machines or parts could be misused. The future importance of robotics and industrial machines for U.S. national security items or work. Any other points the public thinks matter. The BIS will accept business confidential information, if marked as required. Public comments will be posted unless marked as confidential. The Department will not make U.S. government communications public. Instructions for submitting comments and for business confidential information are listed in the official notice. Anyone with questions can contact Stephen Astle, Director at the Defense Industrial Base Division, Office of Strategic Industries and Economic Security, at (202) 482-4506. More information is available at www.bis.doc.gov/232. Records connected to this investigation can also be found at https://efoia.bis.doc.gov/. The Department of Commerce asks all interested parties to share their views and information by October 17, 2025. The official responsible for this notice is Julia A. Khersonsky, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Strategic 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.
Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Domestic and International Client Export Services and Customized Forms Revision
Department of Commerce Requests Comments on Export Services Forms Estimated reading time: 3–5 minutes Department of Commerce Requests Comments on Export Services Forms The U.S. Department of Commerce has announced a request for public comments on its revised information collection for export services forms. This review is being conducted by the International Trade Administration (ITA). The request was published in the Federal Register on September 26, 2025. The ITA helps U.S. businesses by providing services that make it easier to export goods and work in markets outside the country. Details of the Information Collection The form is known as “Domestic and International Clients Export Services & Customized Forms.” It is being revised and needs new approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The OMB control number for this collection is 0625-0143. There are no specific form numbers. The total number of expected respondents is 100,020. Each response is expected to take about 10 minutes. The yearly burden is estimated to be 34,133 hours. Purpose and Use of Collected Information Congress requires ITA to help more U.S. companies export and to encourage foreign companies to invest in the United States. The ITA offers help to U.S. companies, such as finding business partners in other countries, setting up meetings, and preparing reports on possible foreign partners. Some ITA services are customized for unique business needs. These forms help ITA know how to assist each business. Information can be shared and collected online or by paper. U.S. companies can show interest through forms on the ITA website, web-based surveys, or paper forms. Who Can Respond The affected groups are: Businesses or for-profit organizations Not-for-profit institutions State, local, or tribal governments Submitting these forms is voluntary and only needed when a business wants ITA’s help. Legal Authority The legal authority for this information collection comes from Public Law 15 U.S.C. et seq and 15 U.S.C. 171 et seq. How to Comment The public can view the request and submit comments at www.reginfo.gov. Go to “Currently under 30-day Review–Open for Public Comments” or search for the form using its title or OMB control number (0625-0143). Comments and recommendations must be submitted within 30 days from the date of the notice. Sheleen Dumas, Departmental PRA Compliance Officer, Office of the Under Secretary for Economic Affairs, Commerce Department, is listed as the contact for this request. Reference Federal Register Volume 90, Number 185, September 26, 2025. Document Number: 2025-18765. 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.
Methylene Diphenyl Diisocyanate (MDI) From China; Scheduling of the Final Phase of an Antidumping Duty Investigation
U.S. Launches Final Phase of Investigation on Chinese Chemical Imports Estimated reading time: 3–5 minutes The United States International Trade Commission (ITC) has started the final phase of its antidumping investigation on methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI) from China. This chemical is used in many products and industries. The notice was published in the Federal Register on September 25, 2025. About the Investigation The case is called Investigation No. 731-TA-1733 (Final). The investigation checks if imports of MDI from China are hurting U.S. companies. The ITC is acting under the Tariff Act of 1930. MDI from China is said to be sold in the United States at less-than-fair-value prices. The Department of Commerce has already made a “preliminary determination” about these imports. The ITC must now decide if U.S. companies are injured or threatened by these imports. What is MDI? MDI stands for methylene diphenyl diisocyanate. It is an aromatic chemical used in many goods. Its other names include Polymeric MDI, Monomeric MDI, and Modified MDI. MDI is made of two or more isocyanate groups attached to benzene rings, joined by methylene bridges. It has many Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) numbers. The most common numbers are 9016-87-9 and 101-68-8. MDI can be a liquid or a solid. It is included under various Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTSUS) numbers like 2929.10.80 and 3909.31.00. If a mixture contains less than 40% MDI by weight, it is not covered by this case. Some partially reacted forms of MDI are not included if their NCO content is under 10% by weight. MDI Products and Processing MDI may have additives such as catalysts, plasticizers, or fire retardants. MDI processed in another country but matching the description is still covered. This includes blending or adding additives. Blends with MDI from countries not under investigation are covered, but only the Chinese MDI in the mix is subject. Background of the Case This full investigation started after BASF Corporation and The Dow Chemical Company filed a complaint as the MDI Fair Trade Coalition on February 12, 2025. Both companies are large chemical producers in the United States. How to Participate The ITC has set out rules for those wanting to take part. Anyone who wants to have a say in the investigation must file an “entry of appearance” 21 days before the hearing. The staff report will be ready on January 12, 2026. The public hearing is on January 27, 2026, starting at 9:30 a.m. in Washington, DC. Requests to join the hearing must be filed by January 21, 2026. There are rules for appearing by videoconference, especially if someone is sick. Written submissions, including statements for or against the petition, must be sent by February 3, 2026. The final date for responding to released information is February 24, 2026. No paper filings will be accepted; everything must be sent electronically. Access to Information Business confidential information will be protected and handled under special orders. Parties must apply to see this information 21 days before the hearing. Who Is In Charge? The notice is issued by Sharon Bellamy, Supervisory Hearings and Information Officer at the ITC. Legal Basis The investigation follows Section 735(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)). All procedures are described in parts 201 and 207 of the ITC’s rules. Contact Information Questions can be directed to Lawrence Jones at the ITC Office of Investigations, (202) 205-3358. Learn More Full details and updates for the case can be found on the ITC’s website: https://www.usitc.gov. For the public record, see https://edis.usitc.gov. Key Dates to Remember: Prehearing staff report: January 12, 2026 Deadline to appear at hearing: January 21, 2026 Public hearing: January 27, 2026 Final written statements: February 3, 2026 Final comments on released information: February 24, 2026 This investigation may affect the imports of MDI from China and could impact U.S. chemical companies and industries that use MDI. 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 Scope Ruling Applications Filed in Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings
U.S. Department of Commerce Lists Scope Ruling Applications for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders Estimated reading time: 3–5 minutes The U.S. Department of Commerce has published a list of applications for scope rulings in antidumping (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) proceedings. These applications were filed in August 2025. Scope rulings help decide if certain products are covered by existing AD or CVD orders. Details of Scope Ruling Applications Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tires From China Order Codes: A-570-016, C-570-017 Product: New pneumatic light truck tires made of rubber with a “LT” marking. Sizes are not listed in the 2023–2025 Tire and Rim Association Year Books. These tires have an outer diameter of 31 to 39 inches, section widths of 11.5 to 15.5 inches, radial construction, and inner diameters of 17 to 26 inches. They have ply ratings from 10 to 12, load indices from 100 to 128, and speed ratings of Q, P, or S. Producer/Exporter: China Applicant: Transamerica Tire Co., Ltd. (Transamerica) Date Filed: August 25, 2025 ACCESS Segment: “Transamerica” Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet From China Order Codes: A-570-073, C-570-074 Product: Aluminum composite panels (also called aluminum composite materials). These panels include a low-density polyethylene (LDPE) core, bonded between two aluminum sheets of the 3003-H24 series. Adhesive film coats both sides of the LDPE. The top and bottom aluminum sheets are painted different colors, and the top sheet has a protective film. The total thickness is 3mm. The top aluminum sheet is 0.5mm or 0.3mm thick, and the bottom sheet is 0.3mm thick. Producer/Exporter: China Applicant: Hong Kong Harbour Company Limited (HKH) Date Filed: August 28, 2025 ACCESS Segment: “HKH Aluminum Composite Panels” Process Information Commerce will accept a scope ruling application if it is not rejected or a scope inquiry is not started within 30 days after filing. If the 30th day is a non-business day, the next business day will be used. If the application is accepted, a scope inquiry will begin on day 31. If Commerce chooses to address the issue under a different process, it will let the applicant know. Scope inquiries will be conducted on the record of the AD proceeding if there are companion AD and CVD orders for the same product from the same country. Commerce can decide if the ruling will apply country-wide or only to specific companies. Public Access and Participation The full list of scope ruling applications is available at https://access.trade.gov. For more information on how to file or participate, visit https://access.trade.gov/help/Scope_Ruling_Guidance.pdf. Anyone wishing to take part in a scope inquiry must file an entry of appearance according to 19 CFR 351.103(d)(1) and 19 CFR 351.225(n)(4). Interested parties may ask to be on the annual inquiry service list during the anniversary month of the relevant order’s publication. This is in line with Commerce’s procedures under 19 CFR 351.225(n). Submitting Comments Comments about the completeness of this notice should be sent to Scot Fullerton, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for AD/CVD Operations, at the U.S. Department of Commerce. This notice, dated 2025-09-18, is published according to 19 CFR 351.225(d)(3). The public can check the current status of each scope ruling application on the ACCESS system. 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.
Sol Gel Alumina-Based Ceramic Abrasive Grains From China; Determinations
USITC Finds Injury to U.S. Industry From Chinese Imports of Sol Gel Alumina-Based Ceramic Abrasive Grains Estimated reading time: 3–5 minutes On September 19, 2025, the United States International Trade Commission (USITC) made a final determination about imports from China. The USITC found that an industry in the United States is materially injured by imports of sol gel alumina-based ceramic abrasive grains from China. These grains are listed under subheading 2818.10.20 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States. The Department of Commerce found that these imports from China are being sold in the U.S. at less than fair value and are subsidized by the Chinese government. The investigation was started on November 25, 2024. Petitions were filed by Saint-Gobain Ceramics & Plastics, Inc., of Malvern, Pennsylvania. The USITC decided to move forward with the final phase after Commerce made a preliminary ruling that the imports were subsidized as stated in section 703(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671b(b)). A public notice was posted by the USITC about the final phase and a public hearing was scheduled. This information was made available in the Federal Register on June 2, 2025 (90 FR 23359). The hearing, which was planned for August 7, 2025, was later canceled, as announced in the Federal Register on August 8, 2025 (90 FR 38501). The USITC’s findings were finalized and filed on September 19, 2025. The views of the Commission are published in USITC Publication 5669, dated September 2025. The document is titled “Sol Gel Alumina-Based Ceramic Abrasive Grains from China: Investigation Nos. 701-TA-750 and 731-TA-1728 (Final).” Commissioner Johanson had a different view. He determined that the U.S. industry faces a threat of material injury from these imports, rather than current material injury. These actions were completed according to sections 705(b) and 735(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b) and 1673d(b)). The official order was issued by Sharon Bellamy, Supervisory Hearings and Information Officer of 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.
Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From China; Scheduling of Expedited Five-Year Reviews
U.S. International Trade Commission Schedules Expedited Review of Steel Wire Rod Orders Estimated reading time: 3–5 minutes The United States International Trade Commission (USITC) has announced it will conduct expedited five-year reviews of antidumping and countervailing duty orders on carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod from China. The notice was issued on September 24, 2025, in the Federal Register (Volume 90, Number 183). The purpose of these reviews is to determine if removing the current duty orders would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of material injury to the U.S. industry within a reasonably foreseeable time. The decision to proceed with expedited reviews comes after the USITC found that the group response from domestic interested parties was adequate. The response from the respondent interested party group was found to be inadequate. As a result, the Commission did not identify any reason to conduct full reviews. However, Commissioner Johanson voted to conduct full reviews. The reviews are being conducted according to the Tariff Act of 1930, section 751(c)(3), and under relevant sections of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR parts 201 and 207). A staff report with details about the reviews has been placed in the nonpublic record. It will be made available on October 3, 2025, to those listed on the Administrative Protective Order service list. A public version will be issued later. Parties that have supplied individually adequate responses to the notice of institution, or parties other than interested parties, may submit written comments by October 9, 2025. These comments may not include new factual information. If the Department of Commerce extends the time limit for completing its final results, any comments regarding those results are due within three business days after Commerce issues its results. Only comments from Charter Steel, Commercial Metals Company (CMC), Liberty Steel USA, Nucor Steel, and Optimus Steel LLC will be accepted. These were found to be individually adequate responses. Comments from other interested parties will not be accepted. All documents submitted as part of the reviews must be served to all other parties and must include a certificate of service. Documents without the certificate will not be accepted. The Commission has determined that these reviews are extraordinarily complicated. Therefore, the review period may be extended by up to 90 days, following 19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(5)(B). These reviews are conducted under the authority of Title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930 and published according to Section 207.62 of the Commission’s rules. The notice was signed by Sharon Bellamy, Supervisory Hearings and Information Officer, and issued on September 22, 2025. 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.
Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People’s Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With the Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; Notice of Amended Final Results; Correction
Correction Issued on Multilayered Wood Flooring Countervailing Duty Review Estimated reading time: 3–5 minutes The U.S. Department of Commerce made a correction related to a recent court decision on multilayered wood flooring from the People’s Republic of China. On September 15, 2025, Commerce published a notice in the Federal Register. This notice was about the U.S. Court of International Trade’s (CIT) final judgment in Evolutions Flooring, Inc. et al. v. United States, Consol. Court no. 21-00591. The judgment covered the review of countervailing duties for wood flooring from China for the period January 1, 2018, through December 31, 2018. The original notice said the court’s judgment was not in harmony with Commerce’s final results of the administrative review. It also said Commerce would amend the final results for certain companies. However, Commerce found an error in the spelling of a company’s name. The company’s correct name is Dalian Shengyu Science and Technology Development Co., Ltd. This company is a producer/exporter without a superseding cash deposit rate. Commerce is also changing its cash deposit instruction for this company. The notice directs that, in the Federal Register of September 15, 2025 (FR Doc 2025-17777), on page 44371, the name should be corrected to “Dalian Shengyu Science and Technology Development Co., Ltd.” This correction applies to both the first column, where the company is named, and the second column, where it is listed in Appendix II. This correction is being shared as required by sections 516A(c) and (e) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. For more information, contact Jonathan Schueler or Laurel Smalley at the U.S. Department of Commerce, Enforcement and Compliance, AD/CVD Operations, Office VIII, Washington, DC 20230. Phone numbers are (202) 482-9175 or (202) 482-3456. This notice is signed by Christopher Abbott, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Negotiations, acting for the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. The official correction notice was filed on September 22, 2025. 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.
Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People’s Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With the Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; Notice of Amended Final Results
U.S. Amends Countervailing Duty Results for Multilayered Wood Flooring from China Estimated reading time: 3–5 minutes Background Commerce’s 2017 CVD review included important Chinese companies. The companies affected include Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co., Ltd. (Jiangsu Senmao), Riverside Plywood Corporation and its cross-owned affiliates like Baroque Timber Industries (Zhongshan) Co., Ltd. (Baroque Timber), and non-selected companies under review. The case does not change the result for Jiangsu Guyu International Trading Co., Ltd. (Jiangsu Guyu). Commerce first published its 2017 review on November 27, 2020. It chose Baroque Timber and Jiangsu Guyu as mandatory respondents. Commerce did not select Jiangsu Senmao for individual review. Court Remands and Commerce Actions Jiangsu Senmao and other companies appealed Commerce’s results. On August 11, 2022, the CIT told Commerce to reconsider how it picked which companies to review and to recalculate the rate for companies not chosen for individual examination. After more court orders and remands, Commerce changed its methodology. The CIT then told Commerce to review Jiangsu Senmao as a main respondent and adjust its subsidy rate calculations for companies not chosen as main respondents. On August 8, 2025, Commerce issued new results. Commerce now based the rate for non-selected companies on both Baroque Timber and Jiangsu Senmao’s rates. The CIT accepted Commerce’s new final results on September 11, 2025. Subsidy Rates Assigned The amended rates for the 2017 period of review are: Producer/Exporter Subsidy Rate (percent ad valorem) Riverside Plywood Corporation and affiliates 13.18 Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo Wood Industry Co., Ltd. 2.45 Jiangsu Guyu International Trading Co., Ltd. 122.94 Non-selected companies under review 10.02 Cash Deposit Requirements Commerce will send new import duty collection (cash deposit) instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) for some companies. If a company already has a newer deposit rate from a later review, Commerce will not issue new instructions. For Houzhou Chenchang Wood Co., Ltd., Shenzhenshi Huanwei Woods Co., Ltd., and Zhejiang Biyork Wood Co., Ltd., Commerce will issue new cash deposit instructions because they do not have newer rates. Liquidation of Entries At present, entries by Riverside Plywood Corporation, its affiliates, Jiangsu Senmao, and companies listed in Appendix II remain under court injunction and cannot be finalized. This applies to goods entered between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2017. These entries will remain on hold until the appeals process is complete. If the CIT’s decision is not appealed, or after final court decisions, Commerce will instruct CBP to assess duties as per the amended rates, unless the rate is zero or de minimis. Companies Affected The companies impacted by these amended results are detailed in Appendices I and II of the official notice. Notice This action is required under U.S. law based on sections 516A(c) and (e) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: September 17, 2025 Christopher Abbott,Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Negotiations For questions, contact:Jonathan Schueler (202-482-9175) or Laurel Smalley (202-482-3456),AD/CVD Operations, Office VIII, U.S. Department of Commerce. 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.
Lightweight Thermal Paper From China; Scheduling of Expedited Five-Year Reviews
U.S. International Trade Commission Schedules Expedited Review for Lightweight Thermal Paper from China Estimated reading time: 7–10 minutes On September 23, 2025, the United States International Trade Commission (USITC) announced it is beginning expedited reviews of antidumping and countervailing duty orders for lightweight thermal paper from China. The reviews are being conducted under the Tariff Act of 1930. The Commission will decide if ending the current duties on lightweight thermal paper from China would likely cause harm to the U.S. paper industry in the future. The key date for this action is September 5, 2025. On this date, the USITC decided that the response from groups supporting U.S. industry was strong. The response from groups opposing the review was not strong. Because of this, the Commission chose an expedited review, following section 751(c)(3) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(3)). There are rules for how the review process happens. These rules can be found in the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure—19 CFR part 201 and part 207. A staff report with information about this review is on the nonpublic record. The report will be shared with those on the Administrative Protective Order service list on October 17, 2025. A public version will come out later, as stated in the Commission’s rules. Written comments about these reviews can be submitted by interested parties who gave an individually adequate response to the notice of institution. Other people, who are not parties to the review, can also send a short written statement. Comments are due by 5:15 p.m. on October 23, 2025. Comments must not have new factual information. If the Department of Commerce extends its review, the deadline for comments will change to three business days after Commerce publishes its final results. Any comments with business proprietary information must meet the rules in 19 CFR 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7. Every document entered must be served to all others involved. Each document must have a certificate of service or it will not be accepted. The Commission has found Domtar Corporation’s response to be individually adequate. Other interested parties may not submit comments, according to 19 CFR 207.62(d)(2). The Commission has determined that these reviews are very complicated. Because of this, it is using its authority to add up to 90 days to the review period, following 19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(5)(B). This review is being done under the authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930. The notice was published under section 207.62 of the Commission’s rules. For more information, contact Alexis Yim at the Office of Investigations (202-708-1446). Hearing-impaired persons can call 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. More information can also be found at the USITC website: usitc.gov or on the electronic docket at edis.usitc.gov. This notice was issued by Sharon Bellamy, Supervisory Hearings and Information Officer, on September 19, 2025. 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.
Hot-Rolled Steel Products From China, India, Indonesia, Taiwan, Thailand, and Ukraine; Determinations
U.S. Keeps Tariffs on Hot-Rolled Steel From Six Countries Estimated reading time: 2–5 minutes On September 23, 2025, the United States International Trade Commission (USITC) announced its final decision in a major trade case. The USITC finished its fourth review of duties on hot-rolled steel products. The countries involved are China, India, Indonesia, Taiwan, Thailand, and Ukraine. The USITC decided not to revoke the current duties. This decision applies to two types of duties: countervailing duties and antidumping duties. The USITC found that removing these duties would probably cause harm again to the U.S. hot-rolled steel industry. This harm is called “material injury” in the law. Countries and Products Covered Countervailing duties stay on products from India, Indonesia, and Thailand. Antidumping duties remain on products from China, India, Indonesia, Taiwan, Thailand, and Ukraine. These duties will continue at current levels. They are meant to stop unfair foreign trade practices that hurt U.S. companies. About the Review The USITC began these reviews on July 1, 2024. The process followed all rules under the Tariff Act of 1930. A public hearing was held on July 24, 2025. Everyone who wanted to take part was given a chance. The official report is USITC Publication 5667. It is titled “Hot-Rolled Steel Products from China, India, Indonesia, Taiwan, Thailand, and Ukraine: Investigation Nos. 701-TA-405-406 and 408 and 731-TA-899-901 and 906-908 (Fourth Review).” Legal Reference The work was done as required by section 751(c) of the Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). The determination was filed with the Secretary on September 19, 2025. Who Issued the Decision Sharon Bellamy, the Supervisory Hearings and Information Officer, issued the notice by order of the USITC. This decision means tariffs will stay in place to protect the U.S. steel industry from unfair trade for the next five years. 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.
Leading Attorney in International Legal Practice | Cross-Border Legal Services
At the Tianfu Central Legal Zone Forum, Fan Zhang, Director at JINGSH Chengdu, accepts the award designating JINGSH Riyadh Office as an official Overseas Legal Service Station, strengthening global legal support for Chinese enterprises.
Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Title-Revision of a Currently Approved Collection; Friction Ridge Cards: Arrest and Institution FD-249; Applicant FD-258; Identity History Summary Request FD-1164; FBI Standard Palm Print FD-884; Supplemental Finger and Palm Print FD-884a; Voluntary Appeal File Fingerprint FD-1212; Firearm-Related Challenge Fingerprint FD-1211 Restoration of Federal Firearm Rights Fingerprint FD-1222
FBI Releases Notice on Revised Friction Ridge Card Data Collection Estimated reading time: 3–5 minutes The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has announced a proposed change to its approved collection of friction ridge card data. This change was shared in the Federal Register on September 17, 2025. The public can comment on it for 60 days until November 17, 2025. The FBI collects and keeps fingerprint and palm print records using special forms. These records help law enforcement and government agencies identify people and keep records about criminal events. Details of the Collection The collection includes several forms: FD-249: Arrest and Institution FD-258: Applicant FD-1164: Identity History Summary Request FD-884: FBI Standard Palm Print FD-884a: Supplemental Finger and Palm Print FD-1212: Voluntary Appeal File Fingerprint FD-1211: Firearm-Related Challenge Fingerprint FD-1222: Restoration of Federal Firearm Rights These forms are for law enforcement groups and civil groups that need security checks or background checks. The record data is kept in the FBI’s Next Generation Identification System (NGI). Purpose of the Collection The FBI collects this information under Title 28, United States Code, Section 534. This law lets the FBI gather, keep, and share identification records, including for criminal and other investigations. The forms make sure the FBI can help other agencies across the country. Statistics and Burden The expected number of respondents each year is 459,238. Each response is estimated to take 10 minutes. The total yearly burden is about 12.4 million hours. The total annual cost for this collection is $0. Feedback and Questions People can send comments about: If collecting this information is needed. If the estimated time and process are correct. Ways to make the collection better or clearer. How to make it easier for people to submit information, including electronic ways. For more information or to give feedback, contact Brian A. Cain at the FBI’s Criminal History Information and Policy Unit in Clarksburg, West Virginia. You can call 304-625-5590 or email the office. For other details, contact Darwin Arceo at the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. This notice was shared by Darwin Arceo, Department Clearance Officer for the Paperwork Reduction Act, U.S. Department of Justice, on September 15, 2025. 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; Proposed eCollection eComments; Requested; New Collection; Title-Optional Flexible Financial Assistance Survey
U.S. Justice Department Seeks Comments on New Financial Assistance Survey for Victims Estimated reading time: 3–5 minutes What Is the Survey About? The survey is called the Optional Flexible Financial Assistance Survey. It is part of the Financial Assistance Grants for Victims of Sexual Assault, Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, and Stalking Program (FAV Program). This program began in 2024. It helps victims by giving them quick and flexible financial help. The financial help is for things victims need to stay safe and stable. Sometimes, traditional services do not cover these things. This new survey will help the program learn if the help works well. How Will the Survey Be Used? The survey is short and optional. It will be given to people who get flexible financial help from FAV Program grantees. The survey will be sent online. Grantees will collect the answers and report them to OVW twice a year. The results will show Congress and others how the program is working. What Does the Survey Ask? The survey will ask survivors questions like: How and when they got financial help, How the help affected their safety and their families. The survey will not ask for a lot of information, just what is needed to see if the program is working. Who Will Take the Survey? About 2,600 people will take the survey each year. OVW expects 13 grantees to give financial help. Each grantee will ask about 200 people to take the survey per year. How Long Will the Survey Take? Each survey will take about 10 minutes. Altogether, this means about 433 hours are needed for everyone to finish the survey each year. How Can You Comment? The DOJ wants comments from the public. Comments should be about: If the survey is needed, If the estimate of how long it takes is correct, Ways to improve the survey, How to reduce the work for people taking the survey. Comments will be accepted until November 17, 2025. Contact Details If you want a copy of the survey or have questions, contact Tiffany Watson at the Office on Violence Against Women by phone at 202-514-5430 or by email. For more information, you can also contact Darwin Arceo, Department Clearance Officer, at the U.S. Department of Justice, Justice Management Division. Key Facts Table Activity Estimated Respondents Responses per Person Total Responses Time per Response (min) Total Hours Flexible Financial Assistance Survey 2,600 1 2,600 10 433 The Department of Justice is taking this step to help victims get better support and protection. The public’s ideas and comments will help make the program better. 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; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Revision of a Previously Approved Collection; Title-Voluntary Appeal File (VAF) Application Form
Justice Department Seeks Comments on Voluntary Appeal File Application Update Estimated reading time: 5 minutes The Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), is asking for public comments on changes to the Voluntary Appeal File (VAF) Application Form. This is a notice from the Criminal Justice Information Services Division. People have 60 days to send comments, ending November 17, 2025. The FBI wants to hear more about: Whether the new information the form collects is useful. If the time it takes to fill out the form makes sense. Ways to make the form clearer. How to make the form easier to use, including online options. About the Voluntary Appeal File (VAF): If a person is delayed or told “no” when trying to buy a firearm, but they appeal and win, the FBI cannot keep a record of that decision or supporting documents. If the person tries to buy a firearm again, there can be more delays or denials. The person may need to submit documents again for each appeal. The VAF was created to help with this problem. People can ask the FBI to keep their information in the VAF. This can stop delays or wrong denials in the future. If accepted, the person gets a Unique Personal Identification Number (UPIN). They give their UPIN when buying a firearm, using the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). The VAF UPIN may help in other situations too, like for National Firearms Act gun checks or upcoming “firearm handler background checks.” People who have never been in a NICS check can also apply to the VAF to avoid problems later. Details of the Information Collection: Type of Collection: Revision of an approved collection. Form Title: Voluntary Appeal File (VAF) Application Form. Form Number: 1110-0043. Who Responds: Individuals. Response is voluntary. Time to Complete: About 30 minutes per person, not including travel for fingerprints or postage. Number of Respondents: About 11,073 people may apply each year. Total Time Spent Each Year: 5,536.5 hours total, based on all applicants. Some applications are resolved quickly. If fingerprints show the person is not restricted, it may take one day. If the person matches a possible restriction, the FBI might take up to 60 days, as they may need help from other agencies. Because of this, it is hard to estimate how long it will take to process all applications every year. For more information or to comment, contact Jill Montgomery at the FBI NICS Section, 1000 Custer Hollow Road, Clarksburg, WV 26306, or call 304-709-1476. Official contact at the Department of Justice: Darwin Arceo, Justice Management Division, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, 4W-218, Washington, DC. This notice was dated September 15, 2025. 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; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Revision of a Previously Approved Collection; ViCAP National Crime Database
Department of Justice Seeks Comments on ViCAP National Crime Database Collection Estimated reading time: 3–5 minutes The Department of Justice, through the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), is asking for public comments on a revised information collection for the ViCAP National Crime Database. This request follows the rules set by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The Critical Incident Response Group (CIRG) of the FBI will submit this information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. The public comment period is open for 60 days until November 17, 2025. Anyone with questions, suggestions, or requests for copies of the proposed collection instrument and instructions can contact Nathan Graham, Program Manager at the FBI’s Critical Incident Response Group. He can be reached at the FBI Academy, Quantico, VA 22135, by phone at (703) 632-4309. The Department encourages people to provide feedback on these points: Is the information collection needed for the FBI’s work, and does it have practical use? Is the FBI’s estimate of the public’s time and the number of responses correct? Can the quality, usefulness, or clarity of the information be improved? How can the burden on people who respond be reduced, for example, by using electronic or other technology? Details about the ViCAP National Crime Database: ViCAP is a unit within the FBI that studies serial violent and sexual crimes. The ViCAP National Crime Database is the largest U.S. collection of major violent crime case information. It collects and analyzes information about: Homicides (and attempted homicides) that are part of a series, appear random, or are sexually oriented Sexual assaults that are part of a series, or are committed by a stranger Missing persons, if foul play is likely and the victim is still missing Unidentified human remains when the cause of death may be homicide Overview of the Collection: Type of Information Collection: It is a revision of a collection already approved. Title of the Form/Collection: ViCAP National Crime Database. Agency Form Number: None. Affected Public: State, local, and tribal governments. Response is voluntary. Number of Respondents and Time: There are about 5,700 respondents each year. Each response takes about 20 minutes. Annual Burden: Total annual burden is about 1,900 hours (5,700 responses x 20 minutes each). Annual Cost Burden: There is no cost. Summary Table Activity Number of Respondents Frequency Total Annual Responses Time per Response (min) Total Annual Burden (hours) ViCAP National Crime Database 5,700 1 5,700 20 1,900 If more information is needed, readers can contact Darwin Arceo, Department Clearance Officer at the United States Department of Justice, 145 N Street NE, 4W-218, Washington, DC. This notice was signed by Darwin Arceo on September 15, 2025, as the Department Clearance Officer for the Paperwork Reduction Act at the U.S. Department of Justice. 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 Federal Advisory Committee Charter Renewal; Name of the Committee: NIC Advisory Board
NIC Advisory Board Charter Renewed Through 2027 Estimated reading time: 1–2 minutes The National Institute of Corrections (NIC) has renewed the charter for the NIC Advisory Board. The renewal is for two years, and it lasts through September 12, 2027. The NIC Advisory Board is a federal advisory committee. It was created by law under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, found at 5 U.S.C. 1001-1014 and 41 CFR 102-3.50(a). This law guides how advisory committees work in the government. The Advisory Board gives advice to the NIC on long-range plans and program development. It also recommends guidance to help NIC’s efforts. The Board also gives advice to the Attorney General about picking the Director of the NIC. The NIC helps corrections agencies at the federal, state, and local levels. It provides training, technical help, information, and development of policies and programs. It gives award funds to help start or run important correctional programs. The NIC tries to lead and guide how corrections work is done in the United States. Anyone can get a full copy of the NIC Advisory Board Charter. It can be downloaded as a PDF from the NIC website at https://nicic.gov. People can also ask for a paper copy by sending a mail request to the National Institute of Corrections, 320 1st Street NW, Washington, DC 20534. People who want to know more can contact Leslie LeMaster, who is the Designated Federal Officer. The phone number is (202) 305-5773, and the email is available on the NIC website. This notice is official and meets the rules of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended. The renewal was announced by Leslie LeMaster, Designated Federal Officer, National Institute of Corrections. 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 the Opening of the Inclusions Window for the Section 232 Steel and Aluminum Tariff Inclusions Process
Notice: September 2025 Section 232 Steel and Aluminum Tariff Inclusions Window Opens Estimated reading time: 2–4 minutes The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) has opened a new window for requests to include additional steel and aluminum products within Section 232 tariffs. This process is related to the President’s orders under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. These orders are part of Proclamations 10895 and 10896, issued on February 10, 2025. The Proclamations made new tariff rates for steel and aluminum imports, including certain extra products made from steel and aluminum. The BIS has set up a process to let people request more products to be added under these duties. Window Dates and Submission Information The window is open from September 15, 2025, until 11:59 PM ET on September 29, 2025. Only submissions for inclusion requests will be accepted during this time. All submissions must be sent by email to the Defense Industrial Base Programs inbox at the BIS. Process Details After the window closes, accepted requests will be posted online for a two-week public comment period. This will be on Docket ID BIS-2025-0023 at Regulations.gov. The process follows the interim final rule published on May 2, 2025 (90 FR 18780). There are set submission periods each year in May, September, and January. Contact Information For questions or more information about the inclusions process, contact Stephen Astle at 202-482-4506. For steel, email [email addresses as listed in notice]. For aluminum, email [email addresses as listed in notice]. More information and details about the submission process can be found in the interim final rule. Robby S. Saunders Deputy Assistant Secretary for Technology Security Federal Register Notice 2025-18008, September 17, 2025 Bureau of Industry and Security U.S. Department of Commerce 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.
Adoption and Procedures of the Section 232 Automobile Parts Tariff Inclusions Process
U.S. Sets New Process for Adding Auto Parts to Tariffs Estimated reading time: 3–5 minutes On September 17, 2025, the U.S. Department of Commerce announced a new process for including additional automobile parts in tariffs. This decision comes after President Biden issued Proclamation 10908 on March 26, 2025. This proclamation directs that more auto parts may be added to the scope of tariffs to protect national security. Key Points of the New Rule The rule became effective on September 17, 2025. The aim is to include more automobile parts under existing tariffs if imports of these parts threaten U.S. national security. The process is detailed under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. Who Can Request Additions Any U.S. producer of automobiles or automobile parts may make a request. Industry associations representing these producers can also request inclusions. How and When to Apply Inclusion requests are accepted during two-week windows, four times a year. The windows open at the start of January, April, July, and October. The first submission window opens on October 1, 2025. Requests should be sent in PDF format to a dedicated email inbox. Each request must be no longer than 30 pages, including all attachments. Information Needed in Requests Requests must include: Clear identification of the requester. A detailed description of the specific auto part. The eight or ten-digit Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) code. An explanation about why the article is an automobile part. Information about the domestic industry affected by the part. Import and domestic production statistics. A description of how increased imports threaten national security or the goals set by the Proclamation. If any information is missing or incorrect, requesters may get a 48-hour period to fix and resubmit the request. Public Comment Process Valid requests are posted for public review. There will be a 14-day public comment window after each submission period. Public comments must be submitted through regulations.gov using specific IDs for each quarterly window. Decision Timeline The Secretary of Commerce will make a decision on each request within 60 days. For each request, a memorandum stating approval or denial will be posted on regulations.gov. The rationale for the decision will be included. Any new parts added to the tariffs are effective the day after a Federal Register notice is published. Regulatory Details The rule is published as an interim final rule. The Office of Management and Budget has approved the information collection under emergency processing. The process is exempt from some federal rulemaking procedures due to its national security purpose. The rule does not affect state or local government authority. How to Comment on the Rule Itself Comments about the rule should be made separately from the inclusion requests. Rule comments must be submitted at regulations.gov under ID ITA-2025-0041 and by November 3, 2025. More Information For questions, contact Emily Davis, Director for Public Affairs at the International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. The official rule appears in the Federal Register, Volume 90, No. 178, pages 44767-44772 (September 17, 2025), under Docket No. 250728-0130, RIN 0625-AB30. 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.
Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2023
U.S. Finds Eight Chinese Exporters Part of China-Wide Entity in Wooden Bedroom Furniture Case Estimated reading time: 3–5 minutes On September 17, 2025, the U.S. Department of Commerce announced the final results of its review of antidumping duties for wooden bedroom furniture from China. The review looked at exports made between January 1, 2023, and December 31, 2023. Commerce decided that eight exporters from China did not show that they qualify for a separate rate from the China-wide entity. These exporters are: Dorbest Ltd. Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Ltd. Rui Feng Lumber Development Co., Ltd. Rui Feng Woodwork Co., Ltd. Wanvog Furniture (Kunshan) Co., Ltd. Yeh Brothers World Trade Inc. Zhongshan Fookyik Furniture Co., Ltd. Shenzhen New Fudu Furniture Co., Ltd. These companies either did not file the required forms, did not respond to requests for information, or failed to show that they meet the rules for a separate rate. Because of this, they are treated as part of the China-wide entity. Commerce did not calculate any individual dumping margins for this review. There are no new calculations to share. For all entries of wooden bedroom furniture from these companies, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will collect antidumping duties at the China-wide entity rate. The current China-wide rate is 216.01 percent. The cash deposit requirements for shipments will be as follows: If an exporter already has a separate rate from a past review, that rate is still used. For exporters from China that do not have a separate rate, including those listed above, the cash deposit rate is 216.01 percent. For non-China exporters with no separate rate, the rate will match the Chinese supplier they used. Importers must file a certificate showing they did not get reimbursed for antidumping duties before their entries are finalized. If they do not do this, they may have to pay double duties. This notice also reminds anyone under an Administrative Protective Order to follow rules for handling confidential information. These results were published under the authority of the Tariff Act of 1930 and United States regulations. For more information, interested parties can find the full decision and related documents on the Enforcement and Compliance’s ACCESS 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.
Wooden Cabinets and Vanities and Components Thereof From the People’s Republic of China: Continuation of Antidumping Duty Order and Countervailing Duty
U.S. Keeps Special Taxes on Wooden Cabinets and Vanities From China Estimated reading time: 4 minutes Why Are There Special Taxes? The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) is keeping its special taxes, called antidumping and countervailing duties, on wooden cabinets and vanities from China. This decision was made because removing the taxes could lead to more unfair trading and hurt U.S. companies. Commerce and the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) looked at the trade rules about wooden cabinets and vanities from China. They found that if the special taxes were removed, more unfair trading, called dumping and subsidies, would happen. This would likely hurt companies in the United States. What Products Are Covered? The taxes apply to wooden cabinets and vanities and their parts from China. These products are usually used in kitchens and bathrooms. They can be floor mounted, wall mounted, or attached in other ways. The material can be real wood or wood made from particles, fibers, or bamboo. Wooden cabinets and vanities, with or without wooden or other coverings. Wooden component parts, such as frames, cabinet boxes, doors, drawers, shelves, and panels. “Ready to assemble” cabinets, also known as “flat packs.” Cabinets and vanities imported with sinks, faucets, plumbing, or countertops. Only the wooden part is taxed. Wooden cabinets and vanities processed in another country (such as cutting, painting, or assembly) are still included. What Is Not Included? Some products are not taxed. These include: Accessories added after making the cabinet, like drawer organizers or lazy Susans. Solid wooden decorations, like corbels and rosettes. Hardware made of metal, like hinges, handles, or screws. Medicine cabinets that are wall mounted, have mirrors, are assembled before shipping, are sold ready for retail, and are no deeper than seven inches. Wooden bedroom furniture. Hardwood plywood that is taxed under other rules. Trade Code Numbers These products are listed under special trade codes. The main codes are 9403.40.9060 and 9403.60.8081. Some parts may use codes 9403.90.7080 and 9403.91.0080. What Happens Next? Customs officers will keep collecting the special taxes on these products when they enter the United States. This rule began on September 9, 2025. The next check on these taxes will happen five years from the last ITC decision. Important Reminders Parties with special business information must keep following the rules on how to return or destroy the information. Breaking those rules could lead to punishment. This notice follows all U.S. trade law rules. It was officially signed by Christopher Abbott, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Negotiations, on September 12, 2025. 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.
Methylene Diphenyl Diisocyanate From the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less-Than-Fair-Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Extension of Provisional Measures
U.S. Finds Chinese MDI Sold Below Fair Value in Preliminary Decision Estimated reading time: 3–5 minutes The U.S. Department of Commerce announced a preliminary finding on methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI) from China. Commerce determined that MDI from the People’s Republic of China is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less-than-fair-value (LTFV). What is MDI? MDI is a chemical used in making foams and plastics. It has two or more isocyanate groups connected to benzene rings with methylene bridges. MDI can be liquid or solid. Some of the common names for MDI include Polymeric MDI, Monomeric MDI, and Modified MDI. The investigation covers all types and grades of MDI from China, regardless of their physical form, additives, or packaging. Investigation Scope The investigation covers MDI and products containing more than 40% MDI by weight. Some products with less MDI or that are highly modified are not included. If MDI is processed in a third country or mixed with MDI from other sources, only the Chinese component is covered. Preliminary Dumping Margins Commerce found these estimated dumping margins for Chinese exporters and producers: Covestro Polymers (China) Co., Ltd.: 376.12% Shandong Mingko Co., Ltd.: 376.12% China-wide entity: 511.75% (based on facts available with adverse inferences) These margins show that MDI from China is being sold in the U.S. at much lower prices than normal value. Suspension of Liquidation U.S. Customs and Border Protection will suspend liquidation of MDI from China that is entered or withdrawn for consumption on or after the date of publication of the notice. Importers will need to provide a cash deposit equal to the dumping margin above for their specific supplier. How Did Commerce Make Its Decision? Commerce used information from the original petition and relied on facts available for the China-wide entity. For companies not individually examined, Commerce used the average margin alleged in the petition (376.12%). No Changes to Scope No parties commented on the scope of the products covered. Therefore, the scope remains unchanged from the initial notice. Public Comments and Hearing Requests Interested parties can submit written comments (case briefs) within 30 days of the notice’s publication. Parties may also request a hearing on the issues raised. If requested, the hearing date will be announced by Commerce. Postponement of Final Decision Wanhua Singapore and Wanhua Ningbo requested to postpone the final determination. Commerce agreed, extending the final decision deadline to 135 days after this notice. Provisional measures (such as cash deposits) may now last up to six months. Next Steps Commerce will send its findings to the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC). If the final determination confirms the preliminary findings, the ITC will then decide if imports of MDI from China harm U.S. industry. Details and Contacts The full decision can be found online at https://access.trade.gov. For further information, contact Kayden Jenson or Christopher Maciuba at the International Trade Administration in Washington, DC. This finding was published in the Federal Register on September 16, 2025 (Volume 90, Number 177, Pages 44629-44632). 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 Cameras, Camera Systems, and Accessories Used Therewith; Notice of Commission Determination To Review in Part a Final Initial Determination of Violation of Section 337; Schedule for Filing Written Submissions on Certain Issues Under Review and on Remedy, the Public Interest, and Bonding
U.S. International Trade Commission Reviews Patent Case Involving GoPro and Insta360 Estimated reading time: 6–10 minutes Background of the Case GoPro, a camera company based in California, filed a complaint on May 6, 2024. They claimed Insta360 imported cameras and accessories into the U.S. that violated six of GoPro’s patents. These patents included five “utility” patents for different camera technologies and one design patent known as D789,435. The ITC began an official investigation soon after the complaint. Insta360 is based in Shenzhen, China, with a U.S. branch in Irvine, California. Changes in Claims During the Case GoPro withdrew some of its claims during the investigation. By the end of the case, GoPro was only asserting certain claims for each of the six patents. ALJ’s Initial Findings The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) held a hearing in January 2025. On July 11, 2025, the ALJ made a decision: Insta360 violated Section 337 with respect to GoPro’s design patent D789,435. Insta360 did not violate Section 337 with respect to the five utility patents. The ALJ also made several findings about patent infringement, invalidity, and whether GoPro’s products satisfied certain legal requirements. These included: Some GoPro patent claims were found invalid or not infringed. Some claims were satisfied for domestic industry needs. The design patent D’435 was found infringed and valid. Proposed Remedies from the ALJ If the ITC finds a violation, the ALJ recommended: A limited exclusion order to block certain Insta360 products from entering the U.S. A cease and desist order to stop Arashi Vision (U.S.) LLC from certain sales, since it had significant inventory. A bond set at zero percent of entered value, because GoPro’s products cost less than Insta360’s. Petitions for Review On July 25, 2025, both GoPro and Insta360 challenged parts of the decision and asked for review. They disagreed over both the final findings and specific issues related to the design and utility patents. They filed responses to each other’s petitions on August 4, 2025. Comments from Public and Government Officials The ITC asked for public comments about the case on July 15, 2025. Several U.S. Representatives and the involved companies submitted opinions. Issues Under ITC Review The ITC will review parts of the decision involving: Certain limits in the ‘840 patent. Some language in the ‘052 patent. The ALJ’s finding that certain Insta360 products infringe the design patent D’435. The ITC does not plan to review the rest of the ALJ’s findings. Questions and Next Steps The ITC is asking the parties to explain whether Insta360 products infringe GoPro’s D’435 design patent. They especially want to know about Insta360’s rear screen, which can be in many positions. The ITC also requests written answers on potential remedies, the public interest, and whether warranty and repair parts should be exempt from any orders. The public interest includes concerns for health, the U.S. economy, competition, U.S. production, and consumers. If the ITC orders a remedy, the U.S. Trade Representative will have 60 days to review. During that review, products can enter the U.S. under bond. Deadline for Written Submissions All main written submissions must be filed by September 25, 2025. Reply submissions are due by October 2, 2025. There are page limits for all submissions, and parties must follow all ITC rules. Contact Information People can find documents online at https://edis.usitc.gov or get general details at https://www.usitc.gov. For filing questions, call (202) 205-2000. By order of the Commission.Issued: September 11, 2025.Supervisory Attorney: Susan Orndoff. 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.
Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People’s Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With the Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; Notice of Amended Final Results
Court Orders Amended Results in Chinese Wood Flooring Duty Review Estimated reading time: 3 minutes Court Orders Amended Results in Chinese Wood Flooring Duty Review On August 29, 2025, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) gave its final judgment in the case of Evolutions Flooring, Inc. et al. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 21-00591. The CIT agreed with the U.S. Department of Commerce’s revised findings about the countervailing duty on multilayered wood flooring from China for goods imported between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2018. Changes to Subsidy Rates Riverside Plywood Corporation and its cross-owned affiliates: 9.02% Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo Wood Industry Co., Ltd.: 5.29% Non-selected companies under review: 7.91% Background of the Decision In its earlier decision on October 27, 2021, Commerce used certain facts to say that the Government of China’s Export Buyer’s Credit Program (EBCP) applied to companies under review. This contributed to their subsidy rates. Later, the Department fixed errors in its calculations. Evolutions Flooring, Inc. and others appealed the results. On March 27, 2025, the CIT sent the decision back for corrections. The Commerce Department then found that Jiangsu Senmao did not use the EBCP during the review period. It also corrected calculation mistakes for Baroque Timber. Cash Deposit Rules The Commerce Department will update instructions for U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). However, companies listed in Appendix I already have newer cash deposit rates, so their current rates will not change. For Dailan Shengyu Science and Technology Development Co., Ltd., which does not have a newer rate, new instructions will be sent to CBP. Liquidation of Entries Certain entries remain on hold by order of the CIT while any appeals are pending. These are imports by Riverside Plywood Corporation, Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo Wood Industry Co., Ltd., and companies listed in Appendix II from January 1, 2018, through December 31, 2018. If the CIT ruling is not appealed, or if higher courts agree with CIT, Commerce will order CBP to collect duties at the new rates for these companies. Lists of Companies *Appendix I lists companies with superseding cash deposit requirements. Appendix II lists non-selected companies now subject to the new amended final results.* The news is official as of September 8, 2025, and is signed by Christopher Abbott, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Negotiations. 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.
CIT Court Appointed Counsel
At the Tianfu Central Legal Zone Forum, Fan Zhang, Director at JINGSH Chengdu, accepts the award designating JINGSH Riyadh Office as an official Overseas Legal Service Station, strengthening global legal support for Chinese enterprises.
Certain Vaporizer Devices, Cartridges Used Therewith, and Components Thereof (II); Notice of Institution of Investigation
U.S. International Trade Commission Starts Investigation on Vaporizer Devices and Components Estimated reading time: 5–10 minutes On August 8, 2025, JUUL Labs, Inc. from Washington, DC, filed a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission. The complaint is under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. The case is about certain vaporizer devices, cartridges used with these devices, and their parts. The complaint says these products are being imported, sold for importation, or sold in the U.S. after being imported. JUUL Labs claims these products infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,156,533. The complaint also says that there is an industry in the United States involved in this matter, as the law requires. JUUL Labs has asked the Commission to investigate and, after the investigation, issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders. On September 9, 2025, the U.S. International Trade Commission agreed to begin an investigation. The investigation will check if section 337(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act has been violated. It will focus on the importation, sale for importation, or sale in the U.S. after importation of the following products: Vaporizer devices (also known as electronic nicotine delivery systems or ENDS) Cartridges used with these devices Components of these devices and cartridges, including cartridge housings, e-liquid nicotine salt formulations, heater components (also called atomizers), chargers, batteries, and subassemblies of these items The investigation will also check if an industry in the U.S. exists in this area, as required by section 337(a)(2). The named parties in this investigation are: Complainant: JUUL Labs, Inc., 1000 F Street NW, Washington, DC 20004 Respondents: NJOY, LLC, 9449 N 90th Street, Suite 201, Scottsdale, AZ 85258 NJOY Holdings, Inc., 9449 N 90th Street, Suite 201, Scottsdale, AZ 85258 Altria Group, Inc., 6601 W Broad Street, Richmond, VA 23230 Altria Group Distribution Company, 6601 W Broad Street, Richmond, VA 23230 Altria Client Services LLC, 6601 W Broad Street, Richmond, VA 23230 The Chief Administrative Law Judge at the U.S. International Trade Commission will choose the presiding Administrative Law Judge for the investigation. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations will not join as a party in this case. Respondents must send their replies to the complaint and the investigation notice, following section 210.13 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. The deadline is no later than 20 days after the Commission sends the complaint and notice of investigation. Extensions for the deadline will only be allowed if there is good reason. If a respondent does not reply on time, they may lose their right to contest the complaint. The Commission and the judge may take the facts as given in the complaint and notice. This can result in an exclusion order, a cease and desist order, or both, against the respondent. For more information or to see the complaint (without confidential information), visit the Commission’s electronic docket at https://edis.usitc.gov. The notice was issued by Sharon Bellamy, Supervisory Hearings and Information Officer, on September 9, 2025. 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.




