Foundry Coke From China, 17849 [2018-08455]

Download as PDF daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 79 / Tuesday, April 24, 2018 / Notices two years; and (3) once informed of the breach, the attorney and economist took immediate action to cure the breach. The Commission also considered aggravating factors, including that (1) the attorney and the economist did not discover the breach themselves, but were instead informed of the breach by counsel for petitioners; and (2) the brief was publicly available on the Commission’s website for two days and was accessed by at least one individual who was not authorized to view the BPI. The Commission issued private letters of reprimand to the attorney and the economist. Case 8. The Commission determined that two attorneys representing the complainant breached an APO in a section 337 investigation when they sent an email attachment containing information that had been designated as CBI by the respondent to the complainant’s employees. In this case, an attorney representing the complainant sent to the complainant’s employees an email that appended portions of the complainant’s draft pre-hearing brief which included CBI, asking them to read it and provide comments. A second attorney of the same law firm, who was responsible for the day-to-day management of this investigation for the complainant, was copied on the email. One of the complainant’s employees then transmitted the document in question to the complainant’s directors and other of the complainant’s employees. The attorneys’ law firm learned of the disclosure on a phone call with the complainant’s employees. The law firm’s counsel then spoke to the respondent’s counsel and alerted the administrative law judge of the breach. Thereafter, the administrative law judge conducted a telephone conference with the parties and ordered, inter alia, that the complainant retain an independent forensic expert to produce a record of the scope and timing of the disclosure of the CBI to the complainant’s employees. At the completion of the report, all CBI in the complainant’s possession was to be destroyed. In determining the appropriate action in response to the breach, the Commission considered mitigating factors, including that (1) the breach was inadvertent; (2) complainant’s counsel self-reported the breach and took prompt action to destroy all copies of the disclosed document and prevent further dissemination; (3) respondent was not seeking further sanctions; and (4) neither attorney had previously been found in violation of an APO. The Commission also considered aggravating factors, including that (1) the VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:03 Apr 23, 2018 Jkt 244001 confidential material was reviewed by several individuals at the complainant who were not authorized to view the CBI; and (2) that weeks had passed before the breach was discovered. The Commission issued a private letter of reprimand to the attorney who first sent the offending email to the complainant’s employees. The Commission also issued a warning letter to the second attorney, who exercised inadequate oversight over the CBI in question (including a failure to observe that the attachment sent to the complainant was replete with respondent’s CBI). Case 9. The Commission determined that a law firm representing the complainant did not breach an APO in a section 337 investigation. Respondent’s counsel alleged that the law firm used CBI without authorization to prepare and file a new complaint at the Commission. However, for each alleged instance of an improper disclosure of CBI, the law firm was able to show that the information alleged to be CBI was available in the public record. By order of the Commission. Issued: April 18, 2018. Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission. 17849 full review (82 FR 41053, August 29, 2017). 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 October 26, 2017 (82 FR 49660). The hearing was cancelled on February 20, 2018 at the request of the domestic interested parties (83 FR 39, February 27, 2018). The Commission made this determination pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). It completed and filed its determination in this review on April 18, 2018. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4774 (April 2018), entitled Foundry Coke from China: Investigation No. 731–TA–891 (Third Review). By order of the Commission. Issued: April 18, 2018. Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2018–08455 Filed 4–23–18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P [FR Doc. 2018–08432 Filed 4–23–18; 8:45 am] INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION BILLING CODE 7020–02–P [Investigation No. 337–TA–1044] INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 731–TA–891 (Third Review)] U.S. International Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: Foundry Coke From China 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 the Tariff Act of 1930 (‘‘the Act’’), that revocation of the antidumping duty order on foundry coke 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. Background The Commission, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)), instituted this review on May 1, 2017 (82 FR 20381) and determined on August 4, 2017 that it would conduct a 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 00062 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Certain Graphics Systems, Components Thereof, and Consumer Products Containing the Same: Notice of Request for Statements on the Public Interest Notice is hereby given that the presiding administrative law judge has issued a final Initial Determination and a Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bond in the abovecaptioned investigation. The Commission is soliciting comments on public interest issues raised by the recommended relief, namelya limited exclusion order (‘‘LEO’’) against certain graphics systems, components thereof, and consumer products containing the same, which are imported, sold for importation, and/or sold after importation by respondents VIZIO, Inc. (‘‘VIZIO’’), MediaTek Inc. and Media Tek USA Inc. (collectively, ‘‘MediaTek’’), and Sigma Designs, Inc. (‘‘SDI’’); and a cease and desist order (‘‘CDO’’) against respondents VIZIO and SDI. This notice is soliciting public interest comments from the public only. SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\24APN1.SGM 24APN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 79 (Tuesday, April 24, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 17849]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-08455]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 731-TA-891 (Third Review)]


Foundry Coke From China

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 the Tariff Act of 1930 (``the 
Act''), that revocation of the antidumping duty order on foundry coke 
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 
1675(c)), instituted this review on May 1, 2017 (82 FR 20381) and 
determined on August 4, 2017 that it would conduct a full review (82 FR 
41053, August 29, 2017). 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 October 26, 2017 (82 FR 49660). 
The hearing was cancelled on February 20, 2018 at the request of the 
domestic interested parties (83 FR 39, February 27, 2018).
    The Commission made this determination pursuant to section 751(c) 
of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). It completed and filed its 
determination in this review on April 18, 2018. The views of the 
Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4774 (April 2018), 
entitled Foundry Coke from China: Investigation No. 731-TA-891 (Third 
Review).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: April 18, 2018.
Lisa Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2018-08455 Filed 4-23-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.