The U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC or
Commission) has voted to expedite its five-year ("sunset") review
concerning the antidumping duty order on fresh garlic from China (Inv. No. 731-
TA-683 (Third Review)).
As a result of this vote, the Commission will
conduct an expedited review to determine whether revocation of this order would
be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a
reasonably foreseeable time.
The Uruguay Round Agreements Act requires the
Department of Commerce to revoke an antidumping or countervailing duty order,
or terminate a suspension agreement, after five years unless the Department of
Commerce and the USITC determine that revoking the order or terminating the
suspension agreement would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of
dumping or subsidies (Commerce) and of material injury (USITC) within a
reasonably foreseeable time.
The Commission's notice of institution in five-year
reviews requests that interested parties file with the Commission responses
that discuss the likely effects of revoking the order under review and provide
other pertinent information. Generally within 95 days from institution, the
Commission will determine whether the responses it has received reflect an
adequate or inadequate level of interest in a full review. If responses to the
USITC's notice of institution are adequate, or if other circumstances warrant a
full review, the Commission conducts a full review, which includes a public
hearing and issuance of questionnaires.
The Commission generally does not hold a hearing or
conduct further investigative activities in expedited reviews. Commissioners
base their injury determinations in expedited reviews on the facts available,
including the Commission's prior injury and review determinations, responses
received to its notice of institution, data collected by staff in connection
with the reviews, and information provided by the Department of Commerce.
All six Commissioners concluded that the domestic
group response for this review was adequate and the respondent group response
was inadequate and voted for an expedited review.