FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W305247109> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W305247109 startingPage "647" @default.
• W305247109 abstract "In recent years, the United States Department of Commerce has become markedly more dependent on the use of computers administering the antidumping law. While the benefit of computerization facilitating the Department's data analysis is plain--especially complicated cases involving large numbers of transactions and complex model matches--computerization has imposed a substantial additional burden on respondents an already demanding investigative process. Of parcticular concern is Commerce's practice of requiring respondents to submit detailed cost and sales data on computer tape virtually all of its investigations and administrative reviews, regardless of the time and expense necessary to prepare such submissions. (1) Moreover, Commerce's practice of releasing the tapes to petitioners assisting antidumping investigations has created new risks regarding the inadvertant disclosure of highly sensitive business proprietary information. In this Article, we examine the extent to which Commerce--in both its regulations and its practice--and the Court of International Trade (CIT) have addressed the problems of burden and risk associated with Commerce's increased reliance on computer tape submissions. THE COMPULSORY SUBMISSION OF COMPUTER TAPES Court Rulings There can be no disputing the dramatic increase the speed and effectiveness of data analysis, and the commensurate decrease Commerce's administrative burden that computer tape submissions bring to the investigative process. In the few cases involving the question of compulsory computer tape submissions, courts have been sensitive, however, to the substantial additional burden time and expense that they can impose on certain respondents. Accordingly, assessing the reasonableness of compulsory computer tape submissions, the CIT has taken a fact-specific, case-by-case approach that balances the need for this particular form of data submission a given investigation against the burden it would impose on the target of that investigation. (2) Where a respondent does not normally maintain computerized records, however, the CIT Timken v. United States (3) ruled that it is per se unreasonable to require computerized submissions. It was Timken that the CIT first addressed, albeit obliquely, the issue of compulsory computer tape submissions. The dispute arose when Commerce denied a petitioner's request to copy computer tapes submitted by the respondent the investigation of Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished or Unfinished, from Japan. (4) The petitioner challenged Commerce's decision, arguing that order to bring its valuable expertise the specific industry to bear and comment on Commerce's dumping-margin calculations, it had to perform its own data analysis. This would be practically impossible without the tapes, (5) given the extreme complexity of the case. Commerce countered that a policy of releasing respondents' computer tapes to petitioners might prompt exporters not to computerize their cost and sales records order to avoid having them handed over to their competitors such an easily digestable and manipulable form. (6) This incentive to de-computerize would threaten the future supply of an invaluable investigative resource. (7) Moreover, Commerce concluded that it would be unable to brandish the punitive best information otherwise available (BIA) method of calculating dumping margins as a countervailing disincentive. (8) To reach this conclusion, however, the Department had to acknowledge the existence of a safe harbor that protects non-computerized firms from compulsory tape submissions. Commerce argued that it could resort to BIA only where a recalcitrant respondent has refused to submit records in the form required. (9) Yet Commerce conceded, and the court affirmed, that it had no power to require data computerized form from exporters who did not normally maintain computerized records. …" @default.
• W305247109 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W305247109 creator A5082822340 @default.
• W305247109 creator A5089012509 @default.
• W305247109 date "1991-09-22" @default.
• W305247109 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W305247109 title "The Submission and Release of Computer Tapes in Antidumping Investigations: The Respondent's Perspective" @default.
• W305247109 hasPublicationYear "1991" @default.
• W305247109 type Work @default.
• W305247109 sameAs 305247109 @default.
• W305247109 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W305247109 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W305247109 hasAuthorship W305247109A5082822340 @default.
• W305247109 hasAuthorship W305247109A5089012509 @default.
• W305247109 hasConcept C111919701 @default.
• W305247109 hasConcept C121955636 @default.
• W305247109 hasConcept C12713177 @default.
• W305247109 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W305247109 hasConcept C154945302 @default.
• W305247109 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W305247109 hasConcept C162853370 @default.
• W305247109 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W305247109 hasConcept C179576951 @default.
• W305247109 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W305247109 hasConcept C2776640315 @default.
• W305247109 hasConcept C2776949292 @default.
• W305247109 hasConcept C2778272461 @default.
• W305247109 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W305247109 hasConcept C98045186 @default.
• W305247109 hasConceptScore W305247109C111919701 @default.
• W305247109 hasConceptScore W305247109C121955636 @default.
• W305247109 hasConceptScore W305247109C12713177 @default.
• W305247109 hasConceptScore W305247109C144133560 @default.
• W305247109 hasConceptScore W305247109C154945302 @default.
• W305247109 hasConceptScore W305247109C162324750 @default.
• W305247109 hasConceptScore W305247109C162853370 @default.
• W305247109 hasConceptScore W305247109C17744445 @default.
• W305247109 hasConceptScore W305247109C179576951 @default.
• W305247109 hasConceptScore W305247109C199539241 @default.
• W305247109 hasConceptScore W305247109C2776640315 @default.
• W305247109 hasConceptScore W305247109C2776949292 @default.
• W305247109 hasConceptScore W305247109C2778272461 @default.
• W305247109 hasConceptScore W305247109C41008148 @default.
• W305247109 hasConceptScore W305247109C98045186 @default.
• W305247109 hasIssue "4" @default.
• W305247109 hasLocation W3052471091 @default.
• W305247109 hasOpenAccess W305247109 @default.
• W305247109 hasPrimaryLocation W3052471091 @default.
• W305247109 hasRelatedWork W130467804 @default.
• W305247109 hasRelatedWork W1530698690 @default.
• W305247109 hasRelatedWork W1969656563 @default.
• W305247109 hasRelatedWork W2054965951 @default.
• W305247109 hasRelatedWork W2092392073 @default.
• W305247109 hasRelatedWork W2132523566 @default.
• W305247109 hasRelatedWork W2147973771 @default.
• W305247109 hasRelatedWork W230548592 @default.
• W305247109 hasRelatedWork W2416557578 @default.
• W305247109 hasRelatedWork W2602097749 @default.
• W305247109 hasRelatedWork W273548639 @default.
• W305247109 hasRelatedWork W2796682072 @default.
• W305247109 hasRelatedWork W2994462727 @default.
• W305247109 hasRelatedWork W308577351 @default.
• W305247109 hasRelatedWork W3124532832 @default.
• W305247109 hasRelatedWork W320072576 @default.
• W305247109 hasRelatedWork W324758032 @default.
• W305247109 hasRelatedWork W350403386 @default.
• W305247109 hasRelatedWork W621499583 @default.
• W305247109 hasRelatedWork W2100249013 @default.
• W305247109 hasVolume "22" @default.
• W305247109 isParatext "false" @default.
• W305247109 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W305247109 magId "305247109" @default.
• W305247109 workType "article" @default.