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