Request for Circumvention Inquiries on Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube Completed in Vietnam Using Hot-Rolled Steel Manufactured in China and Taiwan - Grunfeld, Desiderio, Lebowitz, Silverman & Klestadt LLP
I. Type of Action: Request for country-wide circumvention inquiries to determine whether light-walled rectangular pipe and tube (LWRPT) completed in Vietnam using hot-rolled steel manufactured in China and Taiwan are circumventing the antidumping duty (ADD) orders on LWRPT from China and Taiwan, and the countervailing duty (CVD) order on LWRPT from China.
II. Product: LWRPT from China and Taiwan is subject to different ADD/CVD order scopes.
• China (ADD/CVD): Certain welded carbon quality light-walled steel pipe and tube, of rectangular (including square) cross section, having a wall thickness of less than 4mm. The term carbon-quality steel includes both carbon steel and alloy steel which contains only small amounts of alloying elements. Specifically, the term carbon quality includes products in which none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity by weight respectively indicated: 1.80 percent of manganese, or 2.22 percent of silicon, or 1.00 percent of copper, or 0.50 percent of aluminum, or 1.25 percent of chromium, or 0.30 percent of cobalt, or 0.40 percent of lead, or 1.25 percent of nickel, or 0.30 percent of tungsten, or 0.10 percent of molybdenum, or 0.10 percent of niobium, or 01.5 percent vanadium, or 0.15 percent of zirconium.
• Taiwan (ADD): Light-walled carbon steel pipes and tubes of rectangular (including square) cross-section having a wall thickness of less than 0.156 inch.
III. HTSUS Classifications: LWRPT from China and Taiwan is subject to different ADD/CVD order scopes.
• China (ADD/CVD): LWRPT is currently imported under 7306.61.5000 and 7306.61.7060.
• Taiwan (ADD): 7306.60.50.00.
IV. Date of Filing: May 17, 2022.
V. Requestors: Atlas Tube Inc., Bull Moose Tube Company, Maruichi American Corporation, Searing Industries, Nucor Tubular Products Inc., Vest Inc., and the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC.
VI. Named Vietnamese producers/exporters of LWRPT: Please contact our office for a list filed with the petition.
VII. Named U.S. Importers of LWRPT from Vietnam: Please contact our office for a list filed with the petition.
VIII. Projected Initiation:
A. Projected earliest date of DOC Initiation: June 17, 2022 (can be extended to July 2, 2022). Please contact our office for a complete projected schedule for the circumvention inquiry.
B. The default date for suspension of liquidation is when DOC’s Notice of Initiation is published in the Federal Register, pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 351.226(l).
If you have questions regarding how this investigation may impact current and future imports of scope merchandise or whether a particular product is within the scope of the investigation, please contact one of our attorneys.
________________________________________________________________________________
Federal Register Notices:
• Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube From the People's Republic of China and Mexico: Continuation of Antidumping Duty Orders
• Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Notice of Scope Ruling Applications Filed in Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings
• Certain Biaxial Integral Geogrid Products From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of the Expedited First Sunset Review of the Countervailing Duty Order
• Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products From Japan: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Determination of No Shipments; 2019-2020
• Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Certain High-Density Fiber Optic Equipment and Components Thereof; Institution of an Advisory Opinion Proceeding
• Certain Computer Network Security Equipment and Systems, Related Software, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same; Institution of Investigation
• Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires From India: Final Results of Expedited First Sunset Review of the Countervailing Duty Order
• Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products From the Republic of Korea: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results, Notice of Amended Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Review
• Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Heavy Forged Hand Tools From China; Determinations
• Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Freight Rail Coupler Systems and Certain Components Thereof From the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less-Than-Fair Value
• Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Certain Video Processing Devices, Components Thereof, and Digital Smart Televisions Containing the Same; Commission Determination Not To Review an Initial Determination Terminating the Investigation Due to Settlement and Setting a Schedule for Briefing an Order Concerning Sanctions; Termination of Investigation
________________________________________________________________________________
Twitter to Pay $150 Million Penalty for Allegedly Breaking its Privacy Promises - Again - Federal Trade Commission
It’s FTC 101. Companies can’t tell consumers they will use their personal information for one purpose and then use it for another. But according to the FTC, that’s the kind of digital bait-and-switch Twitter pulled on unsuspecting consumers. Twitter asked users for personal information for the express purpose of securing their accounts, but then also used it to serve targeted ads for Twitter’s financial benefit. It wasn’t Twitter’s first alleged violation of the FTC Act, but this one will cost the company $150 million in civil penalties.
The story starts with the FTC’s 2010 complaint against Twitter. In that case, Twitter told users that users could control who had access to their tweets and that their private messages could be viewed only by recipients. But according to the FTC, Twitter didn’t have reasonable safeguards to ensure users’ choices were honored. The 2010 complaint cited multiple instances in which Twitter’s actions – and inactions – led to unauthorized access of users’ personal information. To settle that case, the company agreed to an order that became final in 2011 that would impose substantial financial penalties if it further misrepresented “the extent to which [Twitter] maintains and protects the security, privacy, confidentiality, or integrity of any nonpublic consumer information.”
The just-announced $150 million civil penalty stems from a new complaint filed by the Department of Justice on behalf of the FTC, alleging that Twitter violated the order in the earlier case by collecting customers’ personal information for the stated purpose of security and then exploiting it commercially. You’ll want to read the complaint for the details, but here’s how the FTC says Twitter deceived its customers.
From May 2013 through September 2019, Twitter prompted users to provide their telephone numbers or email addresses for security purposes, such as to enable multi-factor authentication. (Multi-factor authentication is an additional layer of security that requires separate forms of identification to access an account – for example, a password and a code sent to a user’s verified email address.) Twitter also told people it would use their personal data to help with account recovery (for example, if users forgot their passwords) or to re-enable full access if Twitter detected suspicious activity on a person’s account. The FTC says Twitter induced people to provide their phone numbers and email addresses by claiming that the company’s purpose was, for example, to “Safeguard your account.” Twitter further encouraged users to provide that information because “An extra layer of security helps make sure that you, and only you, can access your Twitter account.”
But according to the FTC, much more was going on behind the scenes. In fact, in addition to using people’s phone numbers and email addresses for the protective purposes the company claimed, Twitter also used the information to serve people targeted ads – ads that enriched Twitter by the multi-millions.
Just how persuasive was Twitter’s security pitch? During the time period covered by the complaint, more than 140 million users gave Twitter their email addresses or phone numbers for security purposes. Would that same number of people have given Twitter that information if they knew how else Twitter was going to use it? We don’t think so. If you’re struck by the irony of a company exploiting consumers’ privacy concerns in a way that facilitated further invasions of consumers’ privacy, it’s an irony not lost on the FTC.
In addition to imposing a $150 million civil penalty for violating the 2011 order, the new order adds more provisions to protect consumers in the future:
• Twitter is prohibited from using the phone numbers and email addresses it illegally collected to serve ads.
• Twitter must notify users about its improper use of phone numbers and email addresses, tell them about the FTC law enforcement action, and explain how they can turn off personalized ads and review their multi-factor authentication settings.
• Twitter must provide multi-factor authentication options that don’t require people to provide a phone number.
• Twitter must implement an enhanced privacy program and a beefed-up information security program that includes multiple new provisions spelled out in the order, get privacy and security assessments by an independent third party approved by the FTC, and report privacy or security incidents to the FTC within 30 days.
What can other companies take from the latest action against Twitter?
What the text giveth, a privacy policy or buried disclaimer cannot taketh away. Consumers have a right to rely on what you say at the time you ask for their information. Trying to take it back in a contradictory statement buried elsewhere on your website is unlikely to correct a misrepresentation.
Keeping customers’ information secure is a win-win. Consumers benefit when companies take extra steps to protect their personal data. So let’s be clear: Multi-factor authentication can be an effective way to do that. Don’t discourage people from agreeing to multi-factor authentication by making them give up their privacy to use it.
Violating FTC orders will result in substantial penalties. The FTC takes order enforcement seriously and will use every lawful means to hold recidivists responsible for further violations.
________________________________________________________________________________
In Less than 24 Hours CBP Officers in Louisville Intercept $3.65M in Counterfeit Designer Apparel & Unapproved Medication - U.S. Customs & Border Protection
LOUISVILLE, Ky — In 24 hours, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers in Louisville have seized a myriad of items: counterfeit driver’s licenses, counterfeit Apple Air pods and Watches, and counterfeit designer watches. However, three shipments of designer apparel and medications valued at $3.65 million had the most items in each shipment.
On May 17 officers inspected a shipment arriving from Hong Kong that was heading to a residence in Suwanee, Georgia. Inside officers found over 5,000 pairs of counterfeit Chanel earring. An Import Specialist determined that the earrings were counterfeit. The 5052 earrings had a Manufacturer’s Suggested Retail Price (MSRP) of $2.27 million, had they been genuine.
Later that night, officers were inspecting a shipment arriving from the United Kingdom and was heading to a residence in Las Vegas, Nevada. Officers inspected the shipment and found 1,000 blister packs of Sildenafil along with clothes and Cheetos. The Sildenafil has a MSRP of more than $309,000.
Early the next morning, officers were still inspecting shipments and targeted a shipment arriving from Hong Kong. The package supposedly contained a kid bag. When officers inspected the shipment, they found more than 150 counterfeit Chanel handbags. An Import Specialist also determined these were counterfeit knockoffs. The 156 handbags had a MSRP of $1.07 million, had they been real. These fakes were heading to a residence in Sands Point, New York.
“Our officers and import specialists have done an excellent job targeting shipments and identifying counterfeit items,” said LaFonda D. Sutton-Burke, Director, Field Operations-Chicago Field Office. “CBP protects businesses and consumers every day with an aggressive intellectual property rights enforcement program.”
The rapid growth of e-commerce enables consumers to search for and easily purchase millions of products through online vendors, but this easy access gives counterfeit and pirated goods more ways to enter the U.S. economy. U.S. consumers spend more than $100 billion every year on intellectual property rights (IPR) infringing goods, falling victim to approximately 20% of the counterfeits that are illegally sold worldwide.
“Counterfeit and pirated goods pose a serious danger to America’s economic vitality and national security, and public safety,” said Thomas Mahn, Port Director-Louisville. “Our officers understand their critical role in protecting the U.S. from not only terrorist threats, and narcotics smuggling, but also safeguarding the American consumer and companies from counterfeit products that hurt our economy.”
CBP routinely conducts inspection operations on arriving and departing international flights and intercepts narcotics, weapons, currency, prohibited agriculture products, counterfeit goods, and other illicit items at our nation’s 328 international ports of entry.
On a typical day in 2021, CBP officers seized $9 million worth of products with Intellectual Property Rights violations. Learn more about what CBP did during "A Typical Day" in 2021.
________________________________________________________________________________
Hang Up on Imposter Scams - Federal Trade Commission
When people encounter scams or bad business practices, they report them to the FTC. And what we’ve learned is interesting. Young adults report losing money to scammers more often than older people do, but when people age 70+ had a loss, the reported median loss was much higher.
So, during Older Americans Month we’re talking about some of the top scams reported to the FTC by older adults — imposter scams. Imposter scams often begin with a call, text message, or email, or even an alarming pop-up warning on your computer. The scams take different twists and turns, but the gist is the same: a scammer pretends to be someone you trust to trick you into sending them money or sharing personal information.
Scammers may claim that they’re calling from a tech company (think Microsoft or Apple), saying your computer has been hacked. Maybe they say they’re from your bank (“unauthorized transfer”), Amazon (“unauthorized purchase”), or even the government (“you’re in trouble with the law”). Some scammers say they’re a loved one who needs help in some way. In all cases, they want you to pay. Quickly. By gift card or cryptocurrency, so it’s hard to get your money back.
If anyone contacts you out of the blue demanding money:
• Slow down. Talk to someone you trust before you act.
• Never pay anyone who demands money by gift card, cryptocurrency, or money transfer. Nobody legit will ever ask.
• When in doubt, check with the real agency, person, or company. But don’t use the phone number, email, or website they give you. Look it up yourself.
If you spot an imposter scam, report it to the FTC at ReportFraud.ftc.gov. Your report can help the FTC identify and stop scammers. To learn about new scams and how to avoid them, sign up for our Consumer Alerts.