ITC INSTITUTES SECTION 337 INVESTIGATION ON CERTAIN NITRILE GLOVES
The investigation is based on a complaint filed by Tillotson Corporation d/b/a Best Manufacturing Company of Menlo, GA, on May 30, 2007. The complainant requests that the ITC issue a permanent general exclusion order and permanent cease and desist orders.
Identified respondents from China in this investigation include:
Beijing Huateng Rubber Plastic of China（北京华腾橡塑乳胶制品有限公司）;
Ideal Healthcare Group Co. Ltd. of China;
and JDA (Tianjin) Plastic Rubber Co. Ltd. of China（兰奇天津塑胶有限公司）.
5 条评论:
Is the Section 337 violate with TRIPs? How the chinese companies response to the Section 337 examination?
The first question is rather difficult to answer. As far as I know, there is so dispute concerning Section 337 before the DSB of the WTO up till now.
What is Chinese companies’ response to Section 337 investigation? It depends. Some are serious and fight for their rights to death, e.g., Actions Semiconductor from Shenzhen, while some just ignore their competitors’ complaints and lose the entire U.S. market.
You can check my previous posts for reference:
http://www.inblogs.net/iprinchina/2007/06/sigmatel-actions-settle-patent-suits.html
http://www.inblogs.net/iprinchina/2007/06/blog-post.html
http://www.inblogs.net/iprinchina/2007/05/metro-technologies-co-ltd-of-suzhou.html
http://www.inblogs.net/iprinchina/2007/05/truth-is.html
Thanks indeed, ur answer is quite helpful. I am doing my dissertation which related to sec.337, lots of confusion. What's ur opinions for forum choice and double jeopardy after sec.337 amended in 1994? Have the double jeopardy happened at the really cases? In my opinion, to response the sec337 investigation,it's not enough just by companies, government should do more on legislation.
I don’t understand your concern very well. The ITC administrative proceeding and litigations before federal district courts provide different relief, and are not in conflict with each other.
As to the role of government, the Ministry of Commerce has so far given much guidance and help to Chinese enterprises in Section 337 disputes, however, the approach of possible legislation by the administration, in my view, involves policy risk and legal uncertainties.
BTW, hope to read your dissertation in the future.
Last time, I said that there is so dispute concerning Section 337 before the DSB of the WTO up till now. It is wrong. Please check http://www.wto.org/English/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds186_e.htm
To quote from the Request for Consultations from EC: “Section 337 US Tariff Act has already twice been examined by GATT panels, the second of which found in 1989 that important aspects of Section 337 violated the obligation to accord national treatment to imported goods under Article III of the GATT. Section 337 was amended by the 1994 US Uruguay Round Agreements Act in an attempt to bring the statute into conformity with the GATT Panel's findings. However, the Uruguay Round Agreements Act has failed to achieve this goal. Section 337, in its present form, does not eliminate the major GATT inconsistencies raised by the 1989 GATT Panel and further violates several provisions of the TRIPS Agreement.”
DS186 status: no panel established nor settlement notified.
Sorry for my error.
发表评论