[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 151 (Monday, August 7, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44723-44724]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-12788]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

[Docket No. WTO/DS345]


WTO Dispute Settlement Proceeding Regarding United States--
Customs Bond Directive for Merchandise Subject to Anti-Dumping/
Countervailing Duties

AGENCY: Office of the United States Trade Representative.

ACTION: Notice; request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Office of the United States Trade Representative 
(``USTR'') is providing notice that on June 6, 2006, India requested 
consultations with the United States under the Marrakesh Agreement 
Establishing the World Trade Organization (``WTO Agreement'') 
concerning certain issues relating to Customs Bond Directive 99-3510-
004, as amended by the Amendment to Bond Directive 99-3510-004 (July 9, 
2004), and clarifications and amendments thereof. That request may be 
found at http://www.wto.org contained in a document designated as WT/
DS345/1. USTR invites written comments from the public concerning the 
issues raised in this dispute.

DATES: Although USTR will accept any comments received during the 
course of the dispute settlement proceedings, comments should be 
submitted on or before August 18, 2006 to be assured of timely 
consideration by USTR.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be submitted (i) electronically, to 
[email protected], Attn: ``India Bond Dispute (DS345)'' in the 
subject line, or (ii) by fax, to Sandy McKinzy at (202) 395-3640. For 
documents sent by fax, USTR requests that the submitter provide a 
confirmation copy to the electronic mail address listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elissa Alben, Assistant General 
Counsel, Office of the United States Trade Representative, 600 17th 
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20508, (202) 395-9622.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: USTR is providing notice that consultations 
have been requested pursuant to the WTO Understanding on Rules and 
Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (``DSU''). If such 
consultations should fail to resolve the matter and a dispute 
settlement panel is established pursuant to the DSU, such panel, which 
would hold its meetings in Geneva, Switzerland, would be expected to 
issue a report on its findings and recommendations within six to nine 
months after it is established.

Major Issues Raised by India

    On August 4, 2004, the Department of Commerce published in the 
Federal Register notice of its affirmative preliminary less-than-fair-
value (``LTFV'') determination in an investigation concerning certain 
frozen and canned warm water shrimp from India (69 FR 47,111). On 
December 23, 2004, the Department of Commerce published notice of its 
affirmative final LTFV determination (69 FR 76,916), and on February 1, 
2005, the Department of Commerce published an amended final LTFV 
determination, along with an antidumping duty order, covering only 
certain frozen warm water shrimp from India (70 FR 5147). The latter 
notice contains the final margins of LTFV sales, as provided in section 
733 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.
    In its request for consultations, India alleges that the United 
States has imposed on importers a requirement to maintain a continuous 
entry bond in the amount of the anti-dumping duty margin multiplied by 
the value of imports of frozen warmwater shrimp imported by the 
importer in the preceding year, and that Customs Bond Directive 99-
3510-004, as amended on July 9, 2004 (and any clarifications and 
amendments thereof) as such constitutes specific action against dumping 
and subsidization not in accordance with GATT 1994 Article VI:2 and 3, 
as well as Articles 1, and 18.1 of the AD Agreement and Articles 10 and 
32.1 of the Subsidies Agreement, that it results in charges in excess 
of the margin of dumping or amount of subsidy that are not in 
accordance with GATT 1994 Articles VI:2 and VI:3, and that it is 
unreasonable as security for payment of antidumping and countervailing 
duties and therefore inconsistent with Note Ad paragraphs 2 and 3 of 
GATT 1994 Article VI. India further alleges that the continuous bond 
requirement as such is inconsistent with Articles 7.1, 7.2, 7.4, and 
7.5 of the AD Agreement and Articles 17.1, 17.2, 17.4, and 17.5 of the 
Subsidies Agreement to the extent that it may be characterized as a 
provisional measure or is applied prior to the imposition of definitive 
antidumping duties, and that it is inconsistent with Articles 9.2 and 
9.3 of the AD Agreement and Articles 19.3 and 19.4 of the Subsidies 
Agreement. India further states that because the amended directive was 
not published in the Federal Register or the Customs Bulletin of the 
United States, it is inconsistent with GATT 1994 Article X, AD 
Agreement Article 18.5, and Subsidies Agreement Article 32.5. India 
alleges that the measure as such is inconsistent with GATT 1994 Article 
I and II as a charge in excess of that imposed or mandatorily required 
by legislation on the date of entry into force of the GATT, and that it 
is inconsistent with GATT 1994 Article XI as a restriction other than a 
duty, tax or other charge and GATT 1994 Article XIII to the extent it 
is applied in a discriminatory manner. India also states that the 
application of the continuous bond requirement to imports of frozen 
warmwater shrimp from India is inconsistent with Articles I, II, VI:2 
(including Note 1 Ad Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article VI) XI, and XIII of 
the GATT, and Articles 1, 7.1, 7.2, 7.4, 7.5, 9.2, 9.3, 9.3.1 and 18.1 
of the AD Agreement.

Public Comment: Requirements for Submissions

    Interested persons are invited to submit written comments 
concerning the issues raised in this dispute. Persons may submit their 
comments either (i) electronically, to [email protected], Attn: 
``India Bond Dispute (DS345)'' in the subject line, or (ii) by fax to 
Sandy McKinzy at (202) 395-3640. For documents sent by fax, USTR 
requests that the submitter provide a confirmation copy to the 
electronic mail address listed above.

[[Page 44724]]

    USTR encourages the submission of documents in Adobe PDF format, as 
attachments to an electronic mail. Interested persons who make 
submissions by electronic mail should not provide separate cover 
letters; information that might appear in a cover letter should be 
included in the submission itself. Similarly, to the extent possible, 
any attachments to the submission should be included in the same file 
as the submission itself, and not as separate files.
    A person requesting that information contained in a comment 
submitted by that person be treated as confidential business 
information must certify that such information is business confidential 
and would not customarily be released to the public by the submitter. 
Confidential business information must be clearly designated as such 
and the submission must be marked ``BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL'' at the top 
and bottom of the cover page and each succeeding page.
    Information or advice contained in a comment submitted, other than 
business confidential information, may be determined by USTR to be 
confidential in accordance with section 135(g)(2) of the Trade Act of 
1974 (19 U.S.C. 2155(g)(2)). If the submitter believes that information 
or advice may qualify as such, the submitter--
    (1) Must clearly so designate the information or advice;
    (2) Must clearly mark the material as ``SUBMITTED IN CONFIDENCE'' 
at the top and bottom of the cover page and each succeeding page; and
    (3) Is encouraged to provide a non-confidential summary of the 
information or advice.
    Pursuant to section 127(e) of the URAA (19 U.S.C. 3537(e)), USTR 
will maintain a file on this dispute settlement proceeding, accessible 
to the public, in the USTR Reading Room, which is located at 1724 F 
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20508. The public file will include non-
confidential comments received by USTR from the public with respect to 
the dispute; if a dispute settlement panel is convened, the U.S. 
submissions to that panel, the submissions, or non-confidential 
summaries of submissions, to the panel received from other participants 
in the dispute, as well as the report of the panel; and, if applicable, 
the report of the Appellate Body. An appointment to review the public 
file (Docket No. WT/DS-345, India Bond Dispute) may be made by calling 
the USTR Reading Room at (202) 395-6186. The USTR Reading Room is open 
to the public from 9:30 a.m. to noon and 1 p.m. to 4 p.m., Monday 
through Friday.

Daniel Brinza,
Assistant United States Trade Representative for Monitoring and 
Enforcement.
 [FR Doc. E6-12788 Filed 8-4-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3190-W6-P