19 C.F.R. § 351.304

Establishing business proprietary treatment of information

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Claim for business proprietary treatment. (1) Any person that submits factual information to the Secretary in connection with a proceeding may:

(i) Request that the Secretary treat any part of the submission as business proprietary information that is subject to disclosure only under an administrative protective order,

(ii) Claim that there is a clear and compelling need to withhold certain business proprietary information from disclosure under an administrative protective order, or

(iii) In an investigation, identify customer names that are exempt from disclosure under administrative protective order under section 777(c)(1)(A) of the Act.

(2) The Secretary will require that all business proprietary information presented to, or obtained or generated by, the Secretary during a segment of a proceeding be disclosed to authorized applicants, except for

(i) Customer names submitted in an investigation,

(ii) Information for which the Secretary finds that there is a clear and compelling need to withhold from disclosure, and

(iii) Privileged or classified information.

(b) Identification of business proprietary information—(1) Information releasable under administrative protective order—(i) In general. A person submitting information must identify the information for which it claims business proprietary treatment by enclosing the information within single brackets. The submitting person must provide with the information an explanation of why each item of bracketed information is entitled to business proprietary treatment. A person submitting a request for business proprietary treatment also must include an agreement to permit disclosure under an administrative protective order, unless the submitting party claims that there is a clear and compelling need to withhold the information from disclosure under an administrative protective order.

(ii) Electronic databases. In accordance with § 351.303(c)(3), an electronic database need not contain brackets. The submitter must select the security classification “Business Proprietary Document—May Be Released Under APO” at the time of filing to request business proprietary treatment of the information contained in the database. The public version of the database must be publicly summarized and ranged in accordance with § 351.304(c).

(2) Information claimed to be exempt from disclosure under administrative protective order. (i) If the submitting person claims that there is a clear and compelling need to withhold certain information from disclosure under an administrative protective order (see paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section), the submitting person must identify the information by enclosing the information within double brackets, and must include a full explanation of the reasons for the claim.

(ii) In an investigation, the submitting person may enclose business proprietary customer names within double brackets (see paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of this section).

(iii) The submitting person may exclude the information in double brackets from the business proprietary/APO version of the submission served on authorized applicants. See § 351.303 for filing and service requirements.

(c) Public version. (1) A person filing a submission that contains information for which business proprietary treatment is claimed must also file a public version of the submission. The public version must be filed on the filing deadline for the business proprietary document. If the business proprietary document was filed under the one-day lag rule (see § 351.303(c)(2)), the public version and the final business proprietary document must be filed on the first business day after the filing deadline. The public version must contain a summary of the bracketed information in sufficient detail to permit a reasonable understanding of the substance of the information. If the submitting person claims that summarization is not possible, the claim must be accompanied by a full explanation of the reasons supporting that claim. Generally, numerical data will be considered adequately summarized if grouped or presented in terms of indices or figures within 10 percent of the actual figure. If an individual portion of the numerical data is voluminous, at least one percent representative of that portion must be summarized. A submitter should not create a public summary of business proprietary information of another person.

(2) If a submitting party discovers that it has failed to bracket information correctly, the submitter may file a complete, corrected business proprietary document along with the public version (see § 351.303(c)(2)(ii) through (iii)). At the close of business on the day on which the public version of a submission is due under paragraph (c)(1) of this section, however, the bracketing of business proprietary information in the original business proprietary document or, if a corrected version is timely filed, the corrected business proprietary document will become final. Once bracketing has become final, the Secretary will not accept any further corrections to the bracketing of information in a submission, and the Secretary will treat non-bracketed information as public information.

(d) Nonconforming submissions—(1) In general. The Secretary will reject a submission that does not meet the requirements of section 777(b) of the Act and this section with a written explanation. The submitting person may take any of the following actions within two business days after receiving the Secretary's explanation:

(i) Correct the problems and resubmit the information;

(ii) If the Secretary denied a request for business proprietary treatment, agree to have the information in question treated as public information;

(iii) If the Secretary granted business proprietary treatment but denied a claim that there was a clear and compelling need to withhold information under an administrative protective order, agree to the disclosure of the information in question under an administrative protective order; or

(iv) Submit other material concerning the subject matter of the rejected information. If the submitting person does not take any of these actions, the Secretary will not consider the rejected submission.

(2) Timing. The Secretary normally will determine the status of information within 30 days after the day on which the information was submitted. If the business proprietary status of information is in dispute, the Secretary will treat the relevant portion of the submission as business proprietary information until the Secretary decides the matter.

[63 FR 24401, May 4, 1998, as amended at 76 FR 39277, July 6, 2011; 88 FR 67079, Sept. 29, 2023]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 20 cases, 2002–2020 · leading case: Chia Far Indus. Factory Co., Ltd. v. United States, 343 F. Supp. 2d 1344 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2004).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Chia Far Indus. Factory Co., Ltd. v. United States, 343 F. Supp. 2d 1344 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2004). · cites it 8× “Included in this submission was certain material for which Allegheny requested double-bracketed treatment under 19 C.F.R. §§ 351.304 (a)(2)(ii) and 351.304(b)(2).”

Allied Pac. Food (Dalian) Co. Ltd. v. United States, 435 F. Supp. 2d 1295 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2006). · cites it 3× “The actual sales prices were modified for public consumption according to 19 C.F.R. § 351.304 (c) (2004), which allows a respondent to summarize its data by grouping (“ranging”) the data within ten percent of the actual numerical figures.”

MacLean-Fogg Co. v. United States, 100 F. Supp. 3d 1349 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2015). · cites it 9× “” 30 *1355 In commenting on the remand results below, the Aluminum Extrusions Fan-Trade Committee (“AEFTC”) — a petitioner in the underlying countervailing duty investigation and an intervenor in this action 31 — argued, inter alia, that Commerce should have calculated the…”

Allied Pac. Food (Dalian) Co. v. United States, 587 F. Supp. 2d 1330 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2008). · cites it 2× “See 19 C.F.R. § 351.304 (c) (2004). B. The Department’s Recalculation of the Surrogate Value for the Labor Rate The Remand Redetermination recalculated the surrogate labor wage rate it ap *1339 plied in the Final Determination, lowering the rate from $0.”

Allied Pac. Food (Dalian) Co. v. United States, 716 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2010). · cites it 4× “Plaintiffs conclude from this pattern that “substantial evidence does not support the Commerce Department’s claim that Devi applied the Department’s ranging regulation in 19 C.F.R. § 351.304 (c)(1) in a manner that did not distort its publicly reported, ranged per unit prices by…”

Atar, S.R.L. v. United States, 637 F. Supp. 2d 1068 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2009). · cites it 2× “19 C.F.R. § 351.304 (c). Although Corticella did not submit a nonproprietary version, Commerce apparently did not reject that company’s data.”

Shantou Red Garden Foodstuff Co., Ltd. v. United States, 2012 CIT 7 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2012). “” 19 C.F.R. § 351.304 (c) (2003). 13 . "Count-size” is a method of measuring the average size of shrimp by determining how many shrimp on average would constitute a given weight.”

Max Fortune Indus. Ltd. v. United States, 2012 CIT 87 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2012). · cites it 2× “§ 1677f(c)(l) and 19 C.F.R. § 351.304 (b)(2)®). Def.’s Opp.”

Royal Brush Mfg., Inc. v. United States, 2020 CIT 171 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2020). “22 The court is mindful that parties sometimes question whether Commerce always complies with a substantially similar requirement in its regulations, 19 C.F.R. § 351.304 (c)(1). Commerce’s actions are not now before the court and the court cannot ignore the robust APO procedures…”

Haixing Jingmei Chem. Prods. Sales Co. v. United States, 335 F. Supp. 3d 1330 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018). “6, 2018) (citing 19 C.F.R. § 351.304 (c)(1) ). Although Plaintiff attempted to persuade the agency that it undertook efforts to ensure full cooperation from its customer and the downstream customer, its efforts were not enough.”

Atar S.r.L. v. United States, 2012 CIT 101 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2012). “(“Corticella”), the only respondent in the ninth review other than Atar that received a dumping margin based on its own sales data, failed to meet the obligation imposed by the Department’s regulation, 19 C.F.R. § 351.304 (2008), to place on the record a public summary of…”

Hebei Golden Bird Trading Co., Ltd. v. United States, 2017 CIT 86 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2017). · cites it 2× “at 1–2, 5 Pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 351.304 (b)(2), parties may identify information in submissions to Commerce as non-releasable even under an APO by identifying such information within double brackets, rather than single brackets, if there is a “clear and compelling need” to…”

Show all 20 citing cases →

— 19 C.F.R. § 351.304(c) — 1 case

Atar, S.R.L. v. United States, 637 F. Supp. 2d 1068 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2009). “19 C.F.R. § 351.304 (c). Although Corticella did not submit a nonproprietary version, Commerce apparently did not reject that company’s data.”

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.