FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W320072576> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W320072576 startingPage "657" @default.
• W320072576 abstract "The size and complexity of antidumping investigations has led Department of Commerce (Commerce) to require that certain data prepared by respondents be submitted in computerized form. (1) Obtaining such information on tapes and dics (collectively hereinafter such information tapes) has allowed Commerce to analyze large amounts of data in short periods of time. The requirement for tape submissions, while necessary in most cases, does impose certain burdens on respondents. Although most companies keep much of their data on computers, they rarely have precisely information required for an antidumping investigation in computerized format. Thus, complying with Commerce's requirement for tape submissions requirement if burdens imposed are found to be unreasonable. (2) A company enjoys several benefits once it compiles information in computerized form. The respondent company can, for instance, analyze such data and project its potential liability. Moreover, company can reformulate data in order to bolster its arguments and minimize its liability. Until recently, petitioners' counsel were limited by their ability to decipher various submissions proffered by respondents during course of an antidumping investigation. They were not given access to copies of tapes that respondents provided to Commerce. Rather, petitioners' counsel were restricted to using hard copies of printouts submitted by respondents. Thus, petitioners were forced either to accept explanations given by respondents in their narrative answers, or face daunting task of reviewing thousands of pages of printouts. This human computer approach to evaluating respondents' submissions was an extremely inefficient use of attorney and support personnel time. Further, this resulted in imperfect findings. Consequently, petitioners' counsel often were precluded from making arguments during course of an antidumping case, because it was impossible to fully verify an assumption about respondents' data without use of a computer. In some instances, certain petitioners were precluded from: Making a sales-below-cost allegation; (3) undertaking an analysis to show that sales to related parties were not made at arms-length; (4) and identifying a clear correlation, or lack thereof, between price and quantity in a quantity discount claim. (5) In other instances, petitioners made good faith arguments based on incomplete analyses of respondents' data. Ultimately, Commerce rejected these arguments because respondents' data did not substantiate them. In short, counsel's inability to effectively critique respondents' submissions based on review of narrative response and hard-copy of printouts often left petitioners remediless. Fortunately for petitioners, it is now well settled that their counsel can gain access to respondents' tapes under an administrative or judicial protective order. Computer tapes are part of administrative record (6) to which plaintiffs are entitled. (7) Computer tapes should be released unless a party can show that release of its information by Commerce to counsel for another party to proceeding poses a clear and present danger, demonstrated by evidence regarding actual conditions. . (8) Moreover, when match models are involved, [access to] tapes may be essential for effective advocacy. (9) After U.S. Court of International Trade's holding in Timken Co. v. United States, (10) Commerce began releasing tapes to petitioners' counsel in complex investigations and annual reviews because the need of petitioners for tapes outweight[ed] interests of respondents for continued confidential treatment of tapes. (11) Shortly thereafter, following decision in Yale Materials Handling Corp. v. United States, (12) Commerce signaled its intention to release respondents' tapes to petitioners in all antidumping investigations and administrative reviews regardless of complexity of proceeding. …" @default.
• W320072576 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W320072576 creator A5010031100 @default.
• W320072576 creator A5022084391 @default.
• W320072576 date "1991-09-22" @default.
• W320072576 modified "2023-09-28" @default.
• W320072576 title "The Impact of Computerization on Antidumping Practice: The Petitioner's Perspective" @default.
• W320072576 hasPublicationYear "1991" @default.
• W320072576 type Work @default.
• W320072576 sameAs 320072576 @default.
• W320072576 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W320072576 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W320072576 hasAuthorship W320072576A5010031100 @default.
• W320072576 hasAuthorship W320072576A5022084391 @default.
• W320072576 hasConcept C121955636 @default.
• W320072576 hasConcept C12713177 @default.
• W320072576 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W320072576 hasConcept C154945302 @default.
• W320072576 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W320072576 hasConcept C162853370 @default.
• W320072576 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W320072576 hasConcept C179576951 @default.
• W320072576 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W320072576 hasConcept C2776640315 @default.
• W320072576 hasConcept C2777834853 @default.
• W320072576 hasConcept C2778272461 @default.
• W320072576 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W320072576 hasConceptScore W320072576C121955636 @default.
• W320072576 hasConceptScore W320072576C12713177 @default.
• W320072576 hasConceptScore W320072576C144133560 @default.
• W320072576 hasConceptScore W320072576C154945302 @default.
• W320072576 hasConceptScore W320072576C162324750 @default.
• W320072576 hasConceptScore W320072576C162853370 @default.
• W320072576 hasConceptScore W320072576C17744445 @default.
• W320072576 hasConceptScore W320072576C179576951 @default.
• W320072576 hasConceptScore W320072576C199539241 @default.
• W320072576 hasConceptScore W320072576C2776640315 @default.
• W320072576 hasConceptScore W320072576C2777834853 @default.
• W320072576 hasConceptScore W320072576C2778272461 @default.
• W320072576 hasConceptScore W320072576C41008148 @default.
• W320072576 hasIssue "4" @default.
• W320072576 hasLocation W3200725761 @default.
• W320072576 hasOpenAccess W320072576 @default.
• W320072576 hasPrimaryLocation W3200725761 @default.
• W320072576 hasRelatedWork W1491812997 @default.
• W320072576 hasRelatedWork W1530698690 @default.
• W320072576 hasRelatedWork W2045573215 @default.
• W320072576 hasRelatedWork W2132523566 @default.
• W320072576 hasRelatedWork W2178705881 @default.
• W320072576 hasRelatedWork W218852422 @default.
• W320072576 hasRelatedWork W230548592 @default.
• W320072576 hasRelatedWork W251603629 @default.
• W320072576 hasRelatedWork W273548639 @default.
• W320072576 hasRelatedWork W279313544 @default.
• W320072576 hasRelatedWork W283675139 @default.
• W320072576 hasRelatedWork W286641542 @default.
• W320072576 hasRelatedWork W2994462727 @default.
• W320072576 hasRelatedWork W305247109 @default.
• W320072576 hasRelatedWork W308577351 @default.
• W320072576 hasRelatedWork W316064477 @default.
• W320072576 hasRelatedWork W316414342 @default.
• W320072576 hasRelatedWork W324758032 @default.
• W320072576 hasRelatedWork W338903389 @default.
• W320072576 hasRelatedWork W350403386 @default.
• W320072576 hasVolume "22" @default.
• W320072576 isParatext "false" @default.
• W320072576 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W320072576 magId "320072576" @default.
• W320072576 workType "article" @default.