Sorbitol From France; Determination, 39277 [2010-16649]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 130 / Thursday, July 8, 2010 / Notices
this investigation may be viewed on the
Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS)
at https://edis.usitc.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kevin G. Baer, Esq., Office of Unfair
Import Investigations, U.S. International
Trade Commission, telephone (202)
205–2221.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Authority: The authority for institution of
this investigation is contained in section 337
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and
in section 210.10 of the Commission’s Rules
of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10
(2010).
Scope of Investigation: Having
considered the complaint, the U.S.
International Trade Commission, on
July 1, 2010, ordered that—
(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of
section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended, an investigation be instituted
to determine whether there is a
violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of
section 337 in the importation into the
United States, the sale for importation,
or the sale within the United States after
importation of certain caskets that
infringe one or more of claims 1, 13, 27,
and 44–53 of the ‘124 patent; claims 1,
6, 8, 9, 16, 17, 19, and 21 of the ‘291
patent; claims 1 and 2 of the ‘936 patent;
claims 1, 2, 5–8, 11, and 12 of the ‘294
patent; and claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 of the
‘810 patent, and whether an industry in
the United States exists as required by
subsection (a)(2) of section 337;
(2) For the purpose of the
investigation so instituted, the following
are hereby named as parties upon which
this notice of investigation shall be
served:
(a) The complainant is: Batesville
Services, Inc., One Batesville Boulevard,
Batesville, Indiana 47006.
(b) The respondent is the following
entity alleged to be in violation of
section 337, and is the party upon
which the complaint is to be served:
Ataudes Aguilares, S. de R.L. de C.v.,
Volcan Osorno 5829 C.P. 44250,
Huentitan El Bajo, Guadalajara, Jal.,
Mexico.
(c) The Commission investigative
attorney, party to this investigation, is
Kevin G. Baer, Esq., Office of Unfair
Import Investigations, U.S. International
Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW.,
Suite 401, Washington, DC 20436; and
(3) For the investigation so instituted,
the Honorable Paul J. Luckern, Chief
Administrative Law Judge, U.S.
International Trade Commission, shall
designate the presiding Administrative
Law Judge.
Responses to the complaint and the
notice of investigation must be
submitted by the named respondent in
accordance with section 210.13 of the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:09 Jul 07, 2010
Jkt 220001
Commission’s Rules of Practice and
Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to
19 CFR 201.16(d)–(e) and 210.13(a),
such responses will be considered by
the Commission if received not later
than 20 days after the date of service by
the Commission of the complaint and
the notice of investigation. Extensions of
time for submitting responses to the
complaint and the notice of
investigation will not be granted unless
good cause therefor is shown.
Failure of the respondent to file a
timely response to each allegation in the
complaint and in this notice may be
deemed to constitute a waiver of the
right to appear and contest the
allegations of the complaint and this
notice, and to authorize the
administrative law judge and the
Commission, without further notice to
the respondent, to find the facts to be as
alleged in the complaint and this notice
and to enter an initial determination
and a final determination containing
such findings, and may result in the
issuance of an exclusion order or a cease
and desist order or both directed against
the respondent.
By order of the Commission.
Issued: July 2, 2010.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
39277
hearing to be held in connection
therewith was given by posting copies
of the notice in the Office of the
Secretary, U.S. International Trade
Commission, Washington, DC, and by
publishing the notice in the Federal
Register on December 17, 2009 (74 FR
66992). The hearing was held in
Washington, DC, on May 11, 2010, and
all persons who requested the
opportunity were permitted to appear in
person or by counsel.
The Commission transmitted its
determination in this review to the
Secretary of Commerce on July 1, 2010.2
The views of the Commission are
contained in USITC Publication 4164
(June 2010), entitled Sorbitol from
France (Inv. No. 731–TA–44 (Third
Review).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: July 1, 2010.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2010–16649 Filed 7–7–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[FR Doc. 2010–16638 Filed 7–7–10; 8:45 am]
[Investigation No. 731–TA–1070B (Review)]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
Certain Tissue Paper Products From
China
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
Determination
[Investigation No. 731–TA–44 (Third
Review)]
Sorbitol From France; Determination
On the basis of the record 1 developed
in the subject five-year review, the
United States International Trade
Commission (Commission) determines,
pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff
Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675d(c)) (the
Act), that revocation of the antidumping
duty order on sorbitol from France,
would not be likely to lead to
continuation or recurrence of material
injury to an industry in the United
States within a reasonably foreseeable
time.
Background
The Commission instituted this
review on July 1, 2009 (74 FR 31762,
July 2, 2009) and determined on October
6, 2009 that it would conduct a full
review. Notice of the scheduling of the
Commission’s review and of a public
1 The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the
Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19
CFR 207.2(f)).
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
On the basis of the record 1 developed
in the subject five-year review, the
United States International Trade
Commission (Commission) determines,
pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff
Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)), that
revocation of the antidumping duty
order on certain tissue paper products
from China would be likely to lead to
continuation or recurrence of material
injury to an industry in the United
States within a reasonably foreseeable
time.2
2 The Commission determined to exercise its
authority to extend the review period by up to 90
days pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1675 (c)(5) (B).
1 The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the
Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19
CFR 207.2(f)).
2 Chairman Okun and Commissioner Pearson
found two domestic like products—consumer tissue
paper and bulk tissue paper. They determined that
revocation of the antidumping duty order on bulk
tissue paper would be likely to lead to continuation
or recurrence of material injury to an industry in
the United States within a reasonably foreseeable
time. They also determined that revocation of the
antidumping duty order on consumer tissue paper
would not be likely to lead to continuation or
recurrence of material injury to an industry in the
United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.
E:\FR\FM\08JYN1.SGM
08JYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 130 (Thursday, July 8, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 39277]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-16649]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 731-TA-44 (Third Review)]
Sorbitol From France; Determination
On the basis of the record \1\ developed in the subject five-year
review, the United States International Trade Commission (Commission)
determines, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19
U.S.C. 1675d(c)) (the Act), that revocation of the antidumping duty
order on sorbitol from France, would not be likely to lead to
continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the
United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background
The Commission instituted this review on July 1, 2009 (74 FR 31762,
July 2, 2009) and determined on October 6, 2009 that it would conduct a
full review. Notice of the scheduling of the Commission's review and of
a public hearing to be held in connection therewith was given by
posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S.
International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the
notice in the Federal Register on December 17, 2009 (74 FR 66992). The
hearing was held in Washington, DC, on May 11, 2010, and all persons
who requested the opportunity were permitted to appear in person or by
counsel.
The Commission transmitted its determination in this review to the
Secretary of Commerce on July 1, 2010.\2\ The views of the Commission
are contained in USITC Publication 4164 (June 2010), entitled Sorbitol
from France (Inv. No. 731-TA-44 (Third Review).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The Commission determined to exercise its authority to
extend the review period by up to 90 days pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1675
(c)(5) (B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By order of the Commission.
Issued: July 1, 2010.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2010-16649 Filed 7-7-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
