[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 248 (Wednesday, December 27, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77821-77822]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-22185]


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

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 November 21, 2006, the Dispute 
Settlement Body, at India's request, established a panel under the 
Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (``WTO 
Agreement''). That request may be found at http://www.wto.org contained 
in a document designated as WT/DS345/6. 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 February 28, 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: Section 127(b) of the Uruguay Round 
Agreements Act (``URAA'') (19 U.S.C. 3537(b)(1)) requires that notice 
and opportunity for comment be provided after the United States submits 
or receives a request for the establishment of a WTO dispute settlement 
panel. Consistent with this obligation, USTR is providing notice that a 
dispute settlement panel has been requested pursuant to the WTO 
Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of 
Disputes (``DSU''). The panel will hold its meetings in Geneva, 
Switzerland. Note that some of the issues described below were also 
raised in a request for the establishment of a panel submitted by 
Thailand, see 71 FR 59542 (October 10, 2006).

Major Issues Raised by India

    On February 1, 2005 the Department of Commerce published an 
antidumping duty order covering certain frozen warm water shrimp from 
India (70 FR 5147). In its request for establishment of a panel, 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. It alleges that 
Customs Bond Directive 99-3510-004, as amended on July 9, 2004 (and any 
clarifications and amendments thereof), as well as the laws and 
regulations of the United States pursuant to which the requirement was 
adopted (including 19 U.S.C. 1484, 1502, 1505, 1623, and 1673g, and 19 
CFR 113.13, 113.40, 113.62, and 142.2) as such constitute specific 
action against dumping and subsidization not in accordance with Article 
VI:2 and 3 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (``GATT 
1994''), as well as Articles 1, and 18.1 of the Agreement on 
Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and 
Trade 1994 (``AD Agreement'') and Articles 10 and 32.1 of the Agreement 
on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (``Subsidies Agreement''), 
that they result 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 the simultaneous imposition of the continuous 
bond requirement and the obligation to provide bonds or make cash 
deposits for the payment of anti-dumping or countervailing duty 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 they are 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 they are applied prior to the imposition of definitive antidumping 
or countervailing duties, and that they are inconsistent with Articles 
2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 9.1, 9.2 and 9.3 of the AD Agreement and Articles 1, 14, 
19.2, 19.3 and 19.4 of the Subsidies Agreement. India further states 
that because the amended

[[Page 77822]]

directive was not published in the Federal Register or the Customs 
Bulletin of the United States, it is inconsistent with GATT 1994 
Article X:1 and X:2, AD Agreement Article 18.5, and Subsidies Agreement 
Article 32.5. India alleges that the amended bond directive 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, or, alternatively, 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. India also states that the application of 
the continuous bond requirement to imports of frozen warmwater shrimp 
from India is inconsistent with Articles I:1, II:1(a) and (b), VI:2 
(including Note 1 Ad Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article VI) XI, and XIII of 
the GATT, and Articles 1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 7.1, 7.2, 7.4, 7.5, 9.1, 9.2, 
9.3, 9.3.1 and 18.1 of the AD Agreement. Finally, it states that the 
application of the continuous bond requirement only to importers of 
subject merchandise from India and five other countries is inconsistent 
with GATT 1994 Article X:3(a).

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.
    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 or in the event 
of an appeal from such a panel, the U.S. submissions, the submissions, 
or non-confidential summaries of submissions, received from other 
participants in the dispute; 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 E. Brinza,
Assistant United States Trade Representative for Monitoring and 
Enforcement.
 [FR Doc. E6-22185 Filed 12-26-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3190-W7-P