19 C.F.R. § 351.306

Use of business proprietary information

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

(a) By the Secretary. The Secretary may disclose business proprietary information submitted to the Secretary only to:

(1) An authorized applicant;

(2) An employee of the Department of Commerce or the International Trade Commission directly involved in the proceeding in which the information is submitted;

(3) An employee of U.S. Customs and Border Protection directly involved in conducting an investigation regarding negligence, gross negligence, or fraud relating to an antidumping or countervailing duty proceeding;

(4) The U.S. Trade Representative as provided by 19 U.S.C. 3571(i);

(5) Any person to whom the submitting person specifically authorizes disclosure in writing; and

(6) A charged party or counsel for the charged party under 19 CFR part 354.

(b) By an authorized applicant. (1) An authorized applicant may retain business proprietary information for the time authorized by the terms of the administrative protective order (APO).

(2) An authorized applicant may use business proprietary information for purposes of the segment of the proceeding in which the information was submitted.

(3) If business proprietary information that was submitted to a segment of the proceeding is relevant to an issue in a different segment of the same proceeding, an authorized applicant may place such information on the record of the subsequent segment as authorized by the APO of the segment where the business proprietary information was submitted.

(4) If business proprietary information that was submitted to a countervailing duty segment of the proceeding is relevant to a subsequent scope, circumvention, or covered merchandise inquiry conducted on the record of the companion antidumping duty segment of the proceeding pursuant to § 351.225(m)(2), § 351.226(m)(2), or § 351.227(m)(2), an authorized applicant may place such information on the record of the companion antidumping duty segment of the proceeding as authorized by the APO of the countervailing duty segment where the business proprietary information was submitted.

(5) If business proprietary information that was submitted to a scope, circumvention, or covered merchandise inquiry conducted on the record of a companion antidumping duty segment of the proceeding pursuant to § 351.225(m)(2), § 351.226(m)(2), or § 351.227(m)(2) is relevant to a subsequent countervailing duty segment of the proceeding, an authorized applicant may place such information on the record of the companion countervailing duty segment of the proceeding as authorized by the APO of the antidumping duty segment where the business proprietary information was submitted.

(c) Identifying parties submitting business proprietary information. (1) If a party submits a document containing business proprietary information of another person, the submitting party must identify, contiguously with each item of business proprietary information, the person that originally submitted the item (e.g., Petitioner, Respondent A, Respondent B). Business proprietary information not identified will be treated as information of the person making the submission. If the submission contains business proprietary information of only one person, it shall so state on the first page and identify the person that originally submitted the business proprietary information on the first page.

(2) If a party to a proceeding is not represented, or its representative is not an authorized applicant, the submitter of a document containing that party's business proprietary information must serve that party or its representative, if applicable, with a version of the document that contains only that party's business proprietary information consistent with § 351.303(f)(1)(iii). The document must not contain the business proprietary information of other parties.

(d) Disclosure to parties not authorized to receive business proprietary information. No person, including an authorized applicant, may disclose the business proprietary information of another person to any other person except another authorized applicant or a Department official described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section. Any person that is not an authorized applicant and that is served with business proprietary information must return it to the sender immediately, to the extent possible without reading it, and must notify the Department. An allegation of an unauthorized disclosure will subject the person that made the alleged unauthorized disclosure to an investigation and possible sanctions under 19 CFR part 354.

[63 FR 24403, May 4, 1998, as amended at 88 FR 67080, Sept. 29, 2023; 89 FR 20836, Mar. 25, 2024; 89 FR 101763, Dec. 16, 2024]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases, 1998–2015 · leading case: Geum Poong Corp. v. United States, 163 F. Supp. 2d 669 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2001).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Geum Poong Corp. v. United States, 163 F. Supp. 2d 669 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2001). · cites it 2× “19 C.F.R. § 351.306 provides, in relevant part, as follows: Use of business proprietary information.”

Yama Ribbons & Bows Co., Ltd. v. United States, 2012 CIT 117 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2012). · cites it 3× “See 19 C.F.R. § 351.306 . Importantly, the relevant data appears to be proprietary and therefore it would have been inappropriate for Commerce simply to move it from one administrative record to another.”

SSAB North Am. Div. v. United States Bureau of Customs & Border Prot., 571 F. Supp. 2d 1347 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2008). “See 19 C.F.R. § 351.306 (2003) (“An authorized applicant may use business proprietary information for purposes of the segment of a proceeding in which the information was submitted.”

Atar, S.R.L. v. United States, 637 F. Supp. 2d 1068 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2009). “§ 1677f(b)-(c) (2006); 19 C.F.R. § 351.306 (a) (2006); see Def.’s Br.”

MacLean-Fogg Co. v. United States, 100 F. Supp. 3d 1349 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2015). “at 6 (citing 19 C.F.R. § 351.306 (a)(5) (authorizing Commerce to disclose BPI to "[a]ny person to whom the submitting person specifically authorizes disclosure in writing”)).”

Allegheny Ludlum Corp. v. United States, 2003 CIT 126 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003). “Specifically, Allegheny cites 19 C.F.R. § 351.306 (b) which provides that an authorized applicant may retain proprietary information subject to the APO and may place that information on the record in subsequent administrative reviews if it is relevant to an issue in the later…”

E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. v. United States, 22 Ct. Int'l Trade 19 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1998). “4826 (Dep’t Commerce 1996) (new regulation 19 C.F.R. § 351.306 to allow information from earlier proceeding to be placed in the record of a subsequent proceeding), and the general principle that an agency decision must have a rational basis, asks the court to determine that…”

— 19 C.F.R. § 351.306(a) — 1 case

Geum Poong Corp. v. United States, 163 F. Supp. 2d 669 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2001). “19 C.F.R. § 351.306 provides, in relevant part, as follows: Use of business proprietary information.”

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.