Section 421 was added to the Trade Act of 1974 by the US-China Relations Act of 2000. It implements the product-specific transitional safeguard provision contained in the November 1999 bilateral Sino-American trade agreement, which was also includes in China's World Trade Organisation (WTO) accession protocol. Specifically, Section 421 allows US domestic industries to obtain relief should an investigation by the USITC find that Chinese products are imported into the US in such increased quantities as to cause a market disruption. According to the statute, a market disruption "exists whenever imports of an article like or directly competitive with an article produced by a domestic industry are increasing rapidly, either absolutely or relatively, so as to be a significant cause of material injury, or threat of material injury, to the domestic industry". Section 421 is similar to Section 406, which is aimed at market disruption caused by imports from communist and transition economies. Of course, Section 406 no longer applies to China since the country became a WTO member, which is why Section 421 was added to the Trade Act of 1974.

This is the fourth case that the USITC has considered under Section 421. The previous three dealt with pedestal actuators, steel wire hangers and brake drums and rotors. In the first two President George Bush decided against imposing safeguards, citing the "national economic interest" in one and the negative impact on the US economy in another as grounds for his decision. The third was terminated when the USITC did not find any market disruption. An additional Section 421 case, dealing with furniture imports, may be filed next month.

Section 421 prescribes a tight schedule for the consideration of a petition. The initial USITC determination, including its remedy recommendation, is to be made within 60 days of the petition's filing. The case then moves to the Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) for further deliberation and recommendation, which is to be rendered within 55 days after receipt of the USITC's recommendation. A final decision is then made by the president within ten days of the receipt of USTR's recommendation. The schedule for the ductile iron waterworks fittings investigation is as follows: The USITC will hold a hearing in this investigation on 6 November; requests to appear are due by 28 October and a pre-hearing conference will be held on 30 October. Pre-hearing briefs must be submitted by 28 October; post-hearing briefs by 12 November; final comments on market disruption by 26 November; and final comments on the USITC's remedy recommendations, if there are any, must be submitted by 8 December.

USITC Adds Hong Kong Company, Five Other Respondents to Plastic Grocery and Retail Bags Investigation. The USITC has decided not to review an initial determination by the presiding administrative law judge (ALJ) in investigation 337-TA-492. This decision amends the complaint by adding six entities to the list of respondents. The USITC instituted this investigation on 1 May 2003, based on a complaint filed by Superbag Corp. The investigation deals with certain T-styled plastic grocery and retail bags that infringe one or more of Claims 1-8 and 15-19 of Superbag's US Patent 5,188,235.

On 8 August 2003 Superbag filed a motion to amend its complaint to add the following six entities as respondents: (1) Advance Polybag, Inc of Louisiana; (2) Universal Polybag Co, Ltd of Thailand; (3) Prime Source International LLC of Ohio; (4) Nantong Huasehng Plastic Products Co. of China; (5) Bee Lian Plastic Marketing PTE Ltd of Singapore; and (6) Polson Products Limited of Hong Kong. The USITC's investigative attorney supported the motion.

USITC Adds Respondent to Alkaline Batteries Investigation. The USITC has determined not to review an ALJ initial determination in investigation 337-TA-493, granting the motion of complainants to amend the complaint and notice of investigation to add Hitachi Maxell, Ltd as a respondent.

This investigation was instituted on 27 May 2003, based on a complaint filed by complainants Energizer Holdings, Inc and Eveready Battery Co, Inc. Their complaint as amended alleges violations of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in the importation into the US, the sale for importation and the sale within the US after importation of certain zero-mercury-added alkaline batteries, parts thereof, and products containing same by reason of infringement of Claims 1-12 of US Patent 5,464,709. The complainants requested that the USITC issue a general exclusion order and cease and desist orders.

The USITC named as respondents 26 companies located in the US, Hong Kong, the Chinese mainland, Indonesia and Japan. The Hong Kong companies are (1) Chung Pak Battery Works, (2) Golden Power Industries, Ltd, (3) Gold Peak Industries, Ltd and (4) Hi-Watt Battery Industry Company, Ltd. The mainland Chinese companies are (1) Sichuan Changhong Electric Company, Ltd, (2) Changhong Battery Company, (3) Fujian Nanping Nanfu Battery Co, Ltd, (4) Guangdong Chaoan Zhenglong Enterprise Co, Ltd, (5) Guangzhou Tiger Head Battery, Group Co, Ltd, (6) Ningbo Baowang Battery Co, Ltd, (7) Zhejiang 3-Turn Battery Co, Ltd and (8) Zhongyin Ningbo Battery Co, Ltd.