(a) Introduction. There are four categories of information in an antidumping or countervailing duty proceeding: public, business proprietary, privileged, and classified. In general, public information is information that may be made available to the public, whereas business proprietary information may be disclosed (if at all) only to authorized applicants under an APO. Privileged and classified information may not be disclosed at all, even under an APO. This section describes the four categories of information.
(b) Public information. The Secretary normally will consider the following to be public information:
(1) Factual information of a type that has been published or otherwise made available to the public by the person submitting it;
(2) Factual information that is not designated as business proprietary by the person submitting it;
(3) Factual information that, although designated as business proprietary by the person submitting it, is in a form that cannot be associated with or otherwise used to identify activities of a particular person or that the Secretary determines is not properly designated as business proprietary;
(4) Publicly available laws, regulations, decrees, orders, and other official documents of a country, including English translations; and
(5) Written argument relating to the proceeding that is not designated as business proprietary.
(c) Business proprietary information. The Secretary normally will consider the following factual information to be business proprietary information, if so designated by the submitter:
(1) Business or trade secrets concerning the nature of a product or production process;
(2) Production costs (but not the identity of the production components unless a particular component is a trade secret);
(3) Distribution costs (but not channels of distribution);
(4) Terms of sale (but not terms of sale offered to the public);
(5) Prices of individual sales, likely sales, or other offers (but not components of prices, such as transportation, if based on published schedules, dates of sale, product descriptions (other than business or trade secrets described in paragraph (c)(1) of this section), or order numbers);
(6) Names of particular customers, distributors, or suppliers (but not destination of sale or designation of type of customer, distributor, or supplier, unless the destination or designation would reveal the name);
(7) In an antidumping proceeding, the exact amount of the dumping margin on individual sales;
(8) In a countervailing duty proceeding, the exact amount of the benefit applied for or received by a person from each of the programs under investigation or review (but not descriptions of the operations of the programs, or the amount if included in official public statements or documents or publications, or the ad valorem countervailable subsidy rate calculated for each person under a program);
(9) The names of particular persons from whom business proprietary information was obtained;
(10) The position of a domestic producer or workers regarding a petition; and
(11) Any other specific business information the release of which to the public would cause substantial harm to the competitive position of the submitter.
(d) Privileged information. The Secretary will consider information privileged if, based on principles of law concerning privileged information, the Secretary decides that the information should not be released to the public or to parties to the proceeding. Privileged information is exempt from disclosure to the public or to representatives of interested parties.
(e) Classified information. Classified information is information that is classified under Executive Order No. 12356 of April 2, 1982 (47 FR 14874 and 15557, 3 CFR 1982 Comp. p. 166) or successor executive order, if applicable. Classified information is exempt from disclosure to the public or to representatives of interested parties.
Notes of Decisions
Cathedral Candle Co. v. United States Int'l Trade Comm'n, 400 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
“Moreover, adding significant force to the reasonableness of the Commission’s interpretation of section 777 is the plain language of 19 C.F.R. § 351.105 (c)(10), a regulation of the Department of Commerce, the other agency that Congress has assigned, along with the Commission, to…”
Allied Pac. Food (Dalian) Co. Ltd. v. United States, 435 F. Supp. 2d 1295 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2006).
· cites it 2× “In the investigation, Allied Pacific cited 19 C.F.R. § 351.105 (b)(1) (2004), which defines public information as, inter alia, “factual information of a type that has been published or otherwise made available to the public by the person submitting it.”
Mueller Comercial De Mexico, S. De R.L. De C v. v. United States, 753 F.3d 1227 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
“There is no showing that Ternium, in the hypothesized benefit calculus, could have anticipated that, if it chose non-disclosure of its actual costs, Commerce would rely on TUNA’s three least favorable transactions to calculate Mueller’s rate; indeed, there is no showing that…”
Chia Far Indus. Factory Co., Ltd. v. United States, 343 F. Supp. 2d 1344 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2004).
“First, 19 C.F.R. § 351.105 (c)(6) (2002) establishes that Commerce normally will consider factual information to be business proprietary information, if so designated by the submitter: “[njames of particular customers, distributors, or suppliers.”
Coal. of Am. Mfrs. of Mobile Access Equip. v. United States, 2024 CIT 66 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2024).
· cites it 2× “As neither the government nor Dingli defends the latter’s BPI designation of its routes, the court re- mands for the agency to explain why such characteri- zation was permissible under 19 C.F.R. § 351.105 (c). Insofar as the Department finds that the company erred, the former…”
Maverick Tube Corp. v. United States, 2016 CIT 16 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2016).
“304 or may have been improperly considered privileged information pursuant to 19 C.F.R. §351.105 (d). Furthermore, whether the parties’ aspersions accurately characterize what transpired during the investigation, they do not lead to the conclusion that the application of AFA…”
Daikin Am., Inc. v. United States, 2025 CIT 22 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2025).
“Given the lack of 4 The court declines to redact confidential record material that it finds does not qualify as “business proprietary infor- mation” under the applicable Commerce regulation, 19 C.F.R. § 351.105 (c). See 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(2)(B) (providing that the court “shall…”
Giorgio Foods, Inc. v. United States, 2025 CIT 90 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2025).
“1 I An antidumping investigation requires Commerce to figure out, among other things, the “normal value” 1 In so doing, the court declines to redact certain confiden- tial record material that it finds does not qualify as “busi- ness proprietary information” under the applicable…”
Citribel N.V. v. United States, 2025 CIT 110 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2025).
“1 In so doing, the court declines to redact certain confiden- tial record material that it finds does not qualify as “busi- ness proprietary information” under the applicable Com- merce regulation, 19 C.F.R. § 351.105 (c). See 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(2)(B) (providing that the court…”
ArcelorMittal Tubular Prods. v. United States, 2025 CIT 121 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2025).
“1 1 In so doing, the court declines to redact certain confiden- tial record material that it finds does not qualify as “busi- ness proprietary information” under the applicable Com- merce regulation, 19 C.F.R. § 351.105 (c). See 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(2)(B) (providing that the…”
Coalition for Fair Trade in Shopping Bags v. United States, 2025 CIT 129 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2025).
“1 I As relevant here, the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, requires Commerce to impose an anti- 1 In so doing, the court declines to redact certain confiden- tial record material that it finds does not qualify as “busi- ness proprietary information” under the applicable Com-…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.