Certain Chocolate Milk Powder and Packaging Thereof; Notice of a Commission Determination To Review an Initial Determination Granting a Motion for Summary Determination of Violation of the General Exclusion Order; Request for Briefing on the Issues Under Review and on Remedy, Public Interest, and Bonding, 81547-81549 [2024-23208]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 8, 2024 / Notices
advance for sign language interpreter
services, assistive listening devices,
language translation services, or other
reasonable accommodations. We ask
that you contact Mr. William Stewart
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section of this notice) at least seven (7)
business days prior to the meeting to
give the Department of the Interior
sufficient time to process your request.
All reasonable accommodation requests
are managed on a case-by-case basis.
Public Disclosure of Comments: Time
will be allowed on both days for any
individual or organization wishing to
make extemporaneous and/or formal
oral comments. Depending on the
number of persons wishing to speak,
and the time available, the time for
individual comments may be limited.
Interested parties should contact Mr.
William Stewart (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT) for placement on
the public speaker list for this meeting.
Members of the public may also choose
to submit written comments by emailing
them to wstewart@usbr.gov. Due to time
constraints during the meeting, the
AMWG is not able to read written
public comments. All written comments
will be made part of the public record
and will be provided to the AMWG
members.
Before including your address, phone
number, email address, or other
personal identifying information in your
comment, you should be aware that
your entire comment—including your
personal identifying information—may
be made publicly available at any time.
While you can ask us in your comment
to withhold your personal identifying
information from public review, we
cannot guarantee that we will be able to
do so.
Authority: 5 U.S.C. ch. 10.
William Stewart,
Adaptive Management Group Chief, Upper
Colorado Basin—Interior Region 7.
[FR Doc. 2024–23219 Filed 10–7–24; 8:45 am]
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
BILLING CODE 4332–90–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Oct 07, 2024
Jkt 265001
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–1232
(Enforcement)]
Certain Chocolate Milk Powder and
Packaging Thereof; Notice of a
Commission Determination To Review
an Initial Determination Granting a
Motion for Summary Determination of
Violation of the General Exclusion
Order; Request for Briefing on the
Issues Under Review and on Remedy,
Public Interest, and Bonding
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission (‘‘Commission’’) has
determined to review an initial
determination (‘‘ID’’) (Order No. 9) of
the presiding administrative law judge
(‘‘ALJ’’) granting a motion for summary
determination of violation of the
General Exclusion Order (‘‘GEO’’). The
Commission has determined to review
the ID’s findings that there have been
violations of the GEO. The Commission
requests written submissions from the
parties on the issues under review and
from the parties, interested government
agencies, and other interested persons
on the issues of remedy, the public
interest, and bonding as to the asserted
trademark, under the schedule set forth
below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul
Lall, Office of the General Counsel, U.S.
International Trade Commission, 500 E
Street SW, Washington, DC 20436,
telephone (202) 205–2043. Copies of
non-confidential documents filed in
connection with this investigation may
be viewed on the Commission’s
electronic docket (EDIS) at https://
edis.usitc.gov. For help accessing EDIS,
please email EDIS3Help@usitc.gov.
General information concerning the
Commission may also be obtained by
accessing its internet server at https://
www.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired
persons are advised that information on
this matter can be obtained by
contacting the Commission’s TDD
terminal on (202) 205–1810.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Commission instituted the original
investigation on December 1, 2020,
based on a complaint filed on behalf of
Meenaxi Enterprise Inc. (‘‘Meenaxi’’) of
Edison, New Jersey. 85 FR 77237–38
(Dec. 1, 2020). The complaint alleged
violations of section 337 of the Tariff
Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, based upon
the importation into the United States,
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00131
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
81547
the sale for importation, and the sale
within the United States after
importation of certain chocolate milk
powder and packaging thereof by reason
of infringement of U.S. Trademark
Registration No. 4,206,026 (‘‘the ’026
mark’’). The Commission’s notice of
investigation named several
respondents, including but not limited
to Bharat Bazar Inc. of Union City,
California (‘‘Bharat Bazaar’’); Coconut
Hill Inc. d/b/a Coconut Hill of
Sunnyvale, California (‘‘Coconut Hill’’);
Organic Food d/b/a Namaste Plaza
Indian Super Market (‘‘Organic Food’’)
of Fremont, California; and New India
Bazar Inc. d/b/a New India Bazar of San
Jose, California (‘‘New India’’). Id. at
77237. The Office of Unfair Import
Investigations (‘‘OUII’’) was also a party
to the investigation. Id.
In the underlying investigation, all
respondents were found in default. See
Order No. 6 (Feb. 10, 2021), unreviewed
by Comm’n Notice (Mar. 2, 2021); Order
No. 23 (May 19, 2022), unreviewed by
Comm’n Notice (Jun. 14, 2022). On May
24, 2021, Meenaxi moved for summary
determination of violation of section
337 by the respondents found in default
by Order No. 6 and requested a GEO. On
December 1, 2021, the former chief
administrative law judge (‘‘former
CALJ’’) granted the motion as an initial
determination (‘‘ID’’) (Order No. 15), but
noted discrepancies with respect to
respondent Organic Food, calling into
question whether that respondent was
ever properly served with the complaint
and notice of investigation and with the
CALJ’s order to show cause why the
respondents should not be found in
default, Order No. 5 (Jan. 13, 2021). See
Order No. 15 at 1, n.1. No petitions for
review of the ID were filed. The
Commission determined sua sponte to
review Order No. 15 and ordered
reconsideration of Order No. 6 as to
Organic Food and/or any other
respondents who may not have been
properly served with documents in the
underlying investigation. See Comm’n
Notice at 3 (Jan. 18, 2022). The
Commission remanded the investigation
to an ALJ for further proceedings. Id.
On remand, the current chief
administrative law judge (‘‘CALJ’’)
issued Order No. 18, granting Meenaxi’s
unopposed motion for leave to amend
the complaint and notice of
investigation to (i) substitute Organic
Food with proposed respondent Organic
Ingredients Inc. d/b/a Namaste Plaza
Indian Super Market (‘‘Organic
Ingredients’’) of San Diego, California;
(ii) correct the address of respondent
New India; (iii) correct the address of
respondent Bharat Bazar; and (iv)
supplement the complaint with Exhibits
E:\FR\FM\08OCN1.SGM
08OCN1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
81548
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 8, 2024 / Notices
9-a, 9-b, and 9-c, concerning Organic
Food and/or Organic Ingredients. Order
No. 18 at 1–5 (Mar. 11, 2022),
unreviewed by Comm’n Notice (Apr. 12,
2022); see also 87 FR 22940–41 (Apr.
18, 2022). Meenaxi also demonstrated
that Bharat Bazar actually had been
served with all of the documents in the
investigation (prior to remand) despite
incorrectly spelling Bharat Bazar’s
address as being on ‘‘Niled Road’’
instead of ‘‘Niles Road.’’ See Order No.
18 at 4.
The CALJ conducted remand
proceedings as to Organic Ingredients
and New India to respond to the
amended complaint and notice of
investigation, and then ordered them to
respond to an order to show cause why
they should not be found in default. See
Order No. 19 (Mar. 11, 2022); Order No.
21 at 2–3 (May 3, 2022). On May 19,
2022, the CALJ issued an ID finding
Organic Ingredients and New India in
default. Order No. 23 (May 19, 2022),
unreviewed by Comm’n Notice (June 14,
2022). Accordingly, the Commission
found all respondents in default
(collectively with the respondents
previously found in default, the
‘‘Defaulting Respondents’’).
Subsequently, on June 15, 2022,
following the remand determination of
default, Meenaxi again moved for
summary determination of violation by
the Defaulting Respondents and
requested a GEO. On July 6, 2022, OUII
filed a response supporting the motion.
On August 3, 2022, the CALJ issued
a remand ID (‘‘RID’’) (Order No. 27),
granting the second motion for summary
determination and finding a violation of
section 337 with respect to the ’026
mark. The RID found that all Defaulting
Respondents met the importation
requirement and that Meenaxi satisfied
the domestic industry requirement. See
19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(1–3). No party
petitioned for review of the ID.
On September 19, 2022, the
Commission determined not to review
the RID. See 87 FR 58130–32 (Sept. 23,
2022). On November 15, 2022, the
Commission issued a final
determination finding a violation,
issuing a GEO prohibiting the
unlicensed importation of chocolate
milk powder and packaging thereof that
infringe the ’026 mark, and terminating
the investigation. See 87 FR 70864–66
(Nov. 21, 2022). The GEO prohibits the
unlicensed importation of ‘‘chocolate
milk powder in consumer-sized
container with the Bournvita label.’’ Id.
On the same day, the Commission
issued an opinion explaining the basis
for its final determination.
On November 9, 2023, the
Commission determined to institute an
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Oct 07, 2024
Jkt 265001
enforcement proceeding under
Commission Rule 210.75 to investigate
alleged violations of the GEO by four
respondents: (1) Organic Ingredients; (2)
New India; (3) Bharat Bazar; and (4)
Coconut Hill (collectively the
‘‘Enforcement Respondents’’). See
Comm’n Notice, EDIS Doc. ID 808258
(Nov. 9, 2023); see also 88 FR 78786–87
(Nov. 16, 2023); 89 FR 15220 (Mar. 1,
2024). OUII is also named as a party. Id.
On January 10, 2024, the presiding
ALJ issued an order directing the
Enforcement Respondents to show
cause why they should not be found in
default and why judgment should not be
rendered against them for failing to
respond to the enforcement complaint
and notice of investigation. See Order
No. 6 (Jan. 10, 2024). Order No. 6
directed the Enforcement Respondents
to make any showing of good cause by
no later than February 2, 2024. Id. at 3.
No party responded to Order No. 6. See
Order No. 8 at 1 (Feb. 13, 2024).
On March 14, 2024, the Commission
determined that the four Enforcement
Respondents were in default. See Order
No. 8 (Feb. 13, 2024), unreviewed by
Comm’n Notice (Mar. 14, 2024). On
March 15, 2024, Meenaxi filed a motion
requesting summary determination of
violation of the GEO and the issuance of
CDOs against the four Enforcement
Respondents. See ID at 5.
On August 16, 2024, the presiding
ALJ issued the subject ID (Order No. 9),
granting Meenaxi’s motion and
recommending issuance of the
requested CDOs. The ALJ concluded
that ‘‘the unrebutted evidence
summarized below demonstrates that
the Enforcement Respondents have
imported and/or sold after importation
chocolate milk powder products bearing
the ‘Bournvita’ label’’ in violation of the
GEO. ID at 16. The ID noted that
Meenaxi alleges that the Enforcement
Respondents have violated the GEO by
offering for sale, selling, advertising,
and aiding and abetting the sale for
Cadbury’s ‘‘BOURNVITA’’ products. Id.
at 17–18. The ID explained that ‘‘[t]hese
(or similar) products were found to
infringe the ’026 Mark during the
violation phase’’ of this investigation.
Id. at 18. No party filed a petition
seeking review of the ID.
On August 19, 2024, the Commission
issued a notice soliciting submissions
on public interest issues raised by the
recommended relief should the
Commission find a violation of the GEO,
specifically, CDOs against the four
Enforcement Respondents: (1) Bharat
Bazaar; (2) Coconut Hill; (3) Organic
Ingredients; and (4) New India. 89 FR
68203–04 (Aug. 23, 2024). No comments
were received in response to the notice.
PO 00000
Frm 00132
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Having reviewed the record of the
investigation, including the enforcement
complaint, the ID, and the parties’
submissions to the ALJ, the Commission
has determined to review the ID’s
findings that the Enforcement
Respondents have violated the GEO. In
connection with these findings, the
Commission requests responses from
the parties to the following questions:
(1) Whether the sale of infringing
products imported before the issuance
of a GEO but sold in the United States
after the issuance of that order
constitutes a violation of the GEO?
(2) Whether a complainant must
provide evidence of importation of
infringing products after the date on
which the GEO issued in order to
establish a violation of a GEO in an
enforcement proceeding under
Commission Rule 210.75 (19 CFR
210.75), and whether such evidence was
presented here?
(3) Whether 19 U.S.C. 1337(g)(1)
applies to allegations of a violation of a
GEO in an enforcement proceeding
involving defaulting Enforcement
Respondents?
Written Submissions: The parties are
requested to file written submissions on
the questions identified in this notice.
In connection with the final
disposition of this enforcement
proceeding, the statute authorizes
issuance of, inter alia, cease and desist
orders in addition to the outstanding
GEO, which could result in the
respondents being required to cease and
desist from engaging in unfair acts in
the importation and sale of such
articles. Accordingly, the Commission is
interested in receiving written
submissions that address the form of
remedy, if any, that should be ordered.
The statute requires the Commission
to consider the effects of that remedy
upon the public interest. The public
interest factors the Commission will
consider include the effect that cease
and desist orders would have on: (1) the
public health and welfare, (2)
competitive conditions in the U.S.
economy, (3) U.S. production of articles
that are like or directly competitive with
those that are subject to investigation,
and (4) U.S. consumers. The
Commission is therefore interested in
receiving written submissions that
address the aforementioned public
interest factors in the context of this
investigation.
If the Commission orders some form
of remedy, the U.S. Trade
Representative, as delegated by the
President, has 60 days to approve,
disapprove, or take no action on the
Commission’s determination. See
Presidential Memorandum of July 21,
E:\FR\FM\08OCN1.SGM
08OCN1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 8, 2024 / Notices
2005, 70 FR 43251 (July 26, 2005).
During this period, the Enforcement
Respondents would be entitled to
continue the activities in the CDOs
under bond, except to the extent they
are prohibited by the outstanding GEO,
in an amount determined by the
Commission. The Commission is
therefore interested in receiving
submissions concerning the amount of
the bond that should be imposed if a
remedy is ordered.
Parties to the investigation, interested
government agencies, and any other
interested parties are encouraged to file
written submissions on the issues of
remedy, the public interest, and
bonding. Such submissions should
address the recommended
determination by the ALJ on remedy
and bonding.
In its initial submission, Complainant
is also requested to identify the remedy
sought and Complainant and OUII are
requested to submit proposed remedial
orders for the Commission’s
consideration. The initial written
submissions and proposed remedial
orders must be filed no later than close
of business on October 16, 2024. Reply
submissions must be filed no later than
the close of business on October 23,
2024. No further submissions on these
issues will be permitted unless
otherwise ordered by the Commission.
Opening submissions are limited to 25
pages. Reply submissions are limited to
15 pages. No further submissions on any
of these issues will be permitted unless
otherwise ordered by the Commission.
Persons filing written submissions
must file the original document
electronically on or before the deadlines
stated above. The Commission’s paper
filing requirements in 19 CFR 210.4(f)
are currently waived. 85 FR 15798 (Mar.
19, 2020). Submissions should refer to
the investigation number (‘‘Inv. No.
337–TA–1232 Enforcement’’) in a
prominent place on the cover page and/
or the first page. (See Handbook for
Electronic Filing Procedures, https://
www.usitc.gov/documents/handbook_
on_filing_procedures.pdf). Persons with
questions regarding filing should
contact the Secretary, (202) 205–2000.
Any person desiring to submit a
document to the Commission in
confidence must request confidential
treatment by marking each document
with a header indicating that the
document contains confidential
information. This marking will be
deemed to satisfy the request procedure
set forth in Rules 201.6(b) and
210.5(e)(2) (19 CFR 201.6(b) &
210.5(e)(2)). Documents for which
confidential treatment by the
Commission is properly sought will be
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Oct 07, 2024
Jkt 265001
treated accordingly. Any non-party
wishing to submit comments containing
confidential information must serve
those comments on the parties to the
investigation pursuant to the applicable
Administrative Protective Order. A
redacted non-confidential version of the
document must also be filed with the
Commission and served on any parties
to the investigation within two business
days of any confidential filing. All
information, including confidential
business information and documents for
which confidential treatment is properly
sought, submitted to the Commission for
purposes of this investigation may be
disclosed to and used: (i) by the
Commission, its employees and Offices,
and contract personnel (a) for
developing or maintaining the records
of this or a related proceeding, or (b) in
internal investigations, audits, reviews,
and evaluations relating to the
programs, personnel, and operations of
the Commission including under 5
U.S.C. Appendix 3; or (ii) by U.S.
government employees and contract
personnel, solely for cybersecurity
purposes. All contract personnel will
sign appropriate nondisclosure
agreements. All nonconfidential written
submissions will be available for public
inspection on EDIS.
The Commission’s vote on this
determination took place on October 2,
2024.
The authority for the Commission’s
determination is contained in section
337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in part
210 of the Commission’s Rules of
Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part
210).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: October 2, 2024.
Lisa Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2024–23208 Filed 10–7–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
JOINT BOARD FOR THE
ENROLLMENT OF ACTUARIES
Renewal of Charter of Advisory
Committee on Actuarial Examinations
Joint Board for the Enrollment
of Actuaries.
ACTION: Notice of renewal of advisory
committee.
AGENCY:
The Joint Board for the
Enrollment of Actuaries announces the
renewal of the charter of the Advisory
Committee on Actuarial Examinations.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Elizabeth Van Osten, at
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00133
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
81549
Elizabeth.j.vanosten@irs.gov or 202–
317–3648.
The
purpose of the Advisory Committee on
Actuarial Examinations (Advisory
Committee) is to advise the Joint Board
for the Enrollment of Actuaries (Joint
Board) on examinations in actuarial
mathematics and methodology. The
Joint Board administers such
examinations in discharging its
statutory mandate to enroll individuals
who wish to perform actuarial services
with respect to pension plans subject to
the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974. The Advisory
Committee’s functions include, but are
not necessarily limited to, considering
and recommending examination topics;
developing examination questions;
recommending proposed examinations;
reviewing examination results and
recommending pass marks; and as
requested by the Joint Board, making
recommendations relative to the
examination program.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
(Authority: 5 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.)
Dated: October 2, 2024.
Joleah M. White,
Chair, Joint Board for the Enrollmentof
Actuaries.
[FR Doc. 2024–23165 Filed 10–7–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
Merry Alice Troupe, N.P.; Decision and
Order
On February 14, 2024, the Drug
Enforcement Administration (DEA or
Government) issued an Order to Show
Cause (OSC) to Merry Alice Troupe,
N.P., of Tucson, Arizona (Registrant).
Request for Final Agency Action
(RFAA), Exhibit (RFAAX) 1, at 1, 3. The
OSC proposed the revocation of
Registrant’s DEA Certificate of
Registration No. MT3167384, alleging
that Registrant’s registration should be
revoked because Registrant is ‘‘currently
without authority to handle controlled
substances in Arizona, the state in
which [she is] registered with DEA.’’ Id.
at 2 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3)).
The OSC notified Registrant of her
right to file with DEA a written request
for hearing, and that if she failed to file
such a request, she would be deemed to
have waived her right to a hearing and
be in default. Id. at 2 (citing 21 CFR
1301.43). Here, Registrant did not
E:\FR\FM\08OCN1.SGM
08OCN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 195 (Tuesday, October 8, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 81547-81549]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-23208]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-1232 (Enforcement)]
Certain Chocolate Milk Powder and Packaging Thereof; Notice of a
Commission Determination To Review an Initial Determination Granting a
Motion for Summary Determination of Violation of the General Exclusion
Order; Request for Briefing on the Issues Under Review and on Remedy,
Public Interest, and Bonding
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade
Commission (``Commission'') has determined to review an initial
determination (``ID'') (Order No. 9) of the presiding administrative
law judge (``ALJ'') granting a motion for summary determination of
violation of the General Exclusion Order (``GEO''). The Commission has
determined to review the ID's findings that there have been violations
of the GEO. The Commission requests written submissions from the
parties on the issues under review and from the parties, interested
government agencies, and other interested persons on the issues of
remedy, the public interest, and bonding as to the asserted trademark,
under the schedule set forth below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Lall, Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2043. Copies of non-
confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation may
be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov. For help accessing EDIS, please email
[email protected]. General information concerning the Commission may
also be obtained by accessing its internet server at https://www.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on
this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal
on (202) 205-1810.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission instituted the original
investigation on December 1, 2020, based on a complaint filed on behalf
of Meenaxi Enterprise Inc. (``Meenaxi'') of Edison, New Jersey. 85 FR
77237-38 (Dec. 1, 2020). The complaint alleged violations of section
337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, based upon the
importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the
sale within the United States after importation of certain chocolate
milk powder and packaging thereof by reason of infringement of U.S.
Trademark Registration No. 4,206,026 (``the '026 mark''). The
Commission's notice of investigation named several respondents,
including but not limited to Bharat Bazar Inc. of Union City,
California (``Bharat Bazaar''); Coconut Hill Inc. d/b/a Coconut Hill of
Sunnyvale, California (``Coconut Hill''); Organic Food d/b/a Namaste
Plaza Indian Super Market (``Organic Food'') of Fremont, California;
and New India Bazar Inc. d/b/a New India Bazar of San Jose, California
(``New India''). Id. at 77237. The Office of Unfair Import
Investigations (``OUII'') was also a party to the investigation. Id.
In the underlying investigation, all respondents were found in
default. See Order No. 6 (Feb. 10, 2021), unreviewed by Comm'n Notice
(Mar. 2, 2021); Order No. 23 (May 19, 2022), unreviewed by Comm'n
Notice (Jun. 14, 2022). On May 24, 2021, Meenaxi moved for summary
determination of violation of section 337 by the respondents found in
default by Order No. 6 and requested a GEO. On December 1, 2021, the
former chief administrative law judge (``former CALJ'') granted the
motion as an initial determination (``ID'') (Order No. 15), but noted
discrepancies with respect to respondent Organic Food, calling into
question whether that respondent was ever properly served with the
complaint and notice of investigation and with the CALJ's order to show
cause why the respondents should not be found in default, Order No. 5
(Jan. 13, 2021). See Order No. 15 at 1, n.1. No petitions for review of
the ID were filed. The Commission determined sua sponte to review Order
No. 15 and ordered reconsideration of Order No. 6 as to Organic Food
and/or any other respondents who may not have been properly served with
documents in the underlying investigation. See Comm'n Notice at 3 (Jan.
18, 2022). The Commission remanded the investigation to an ALJ for
further proceedings. Id.
On remand, the current chief administrative law judge (``CALJ'')
issued Order No. 18, granting Meenaxi's unopposed motion for leave to
amend the complaint and notice of investigation to (i) substitute
Organic Food with proposed respondent Organic Ingredients Inc. d/b/a
Namaste Plaza Indian Super Market (``Organic Ingredients'') of San
Diego, California; (ii) correct the address of respondent New India;
(iii) correct the address of respondent Bharat Bazar; and (iv)
supplement the complaint with Exhibits
[[Page 81548]]
9-a, 9-b, and 9-c, concerning Organic Food and/or Organic Ingredients.
Order No. 18 at 1-5 (Mar. 11, 2022), unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (Apr.
12, 2022); see also 87 FR 22940-41 (Apr. 18, 2022). Meenaxi also
demonstrated that Bharat Bazar actually had been served with all of the
documents in the investigation (prior to remand) despite incorrectly
spelling Bharat Bazar's address as being on ``Niled Road'' instead of
``Niles Road.'' See Order No. 18 at 4.
The CALJ conducted remand proceedings as to Organic Ingredients and
New India to respond to the amended complaint and notice of
investigation, and then ordered them to respond to an order to show
cause why they should not be found in default. See Order No. 19 (Mar.
11, 2022); Order No. 21 at 2-3 (May 3, 2022). On May 19, 2022, the CALJ
issued an ID finding Organic Ingredients and New India in default.
Order No. 23 (May 19, 2022), unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (June 14,
2022). Accordingly, the Commission found all respondents in default
(collectively with the respondents previously found in default, the
``Defaulting Respondents'').
Subsequently, on June 15, 2022, following the remand determination
of default, Meenaxi again moved for summary determination of violation
by the Defaulting Respondents and requested a GEO. On July 6, 2022,
OUII filed a response supporting the motion.
On August 3, 2022, the CALJ issued a remand ID (``RID'') (Order No.
27), granting the second motion for summary determination and finding a
violation of section 337 with respect to the '026 mark. The RID found
that all Defaulting Respondents met the importation requirement and
that Meenaxi satisfied the domestic industry requirement. See 19 U.S.C.
1337(a)(1-3). No party petitioned for review of the ID.
On September 19, 2022, the Commission determined not to review the
RID. See 87 FR 58130-32 (Sept. 23, 2022). On November 15, 2022, the
Commission issued a final determination finding a violation, issuing a
GEO prohibiting the unlicensed importation of chocolate milk powder and
packaging thereof that infringe the '026 mark, and terminating the
investigation. See 87 FR 70864-66 (Nov. 21, 2022). The GEO prohibits
the unlicensed importation of ``chocolate milk powder in consumer-sized
container with the Bournvita label.'' Id. On the same day, the
Commission issued an opinion explaining the basis for its final
determination.
On November 9, 2023, the Commission determined to institute an
enforcement proceeding under Commission Rule 210.75 to investigate
alleged violations of the GEO by four respondents: (1) Organic
Ingredients; (2) New India; (3) Bharat Bazar; and (4) Coconut Hill
(collectively the ``Enforcement Respondents''). See Comm'n Notice, EDIS
Doc. ID 808258 (Nov. 9, 2023); see also 88 FR 78786-87 (Nov. 16, 2023);
89 FR 15220 (Mar. 1, 2024). OUII is also named as a party. Id.
On January 10, 2024, the presiding ALJ issued an order directing
the Enforcement Respondents to show cause why they should not be found
in default and why judgment should not be rendered against them for
failing to respond to the enforcement complaint and notice of
investigation. See Order No. 6 (Jan. 10, 2024). Order No. 6 directed
the Enforcement Respondents to make any showing of good cause by no
later than February 2, 2024. Id. at 3. No party responded to Order No.
6. See Order No. 8 at 1 (Feb. 13, 2024).
On March 14, 2024, the Commission determined that the four
Enforcement Respondents were in default. See Order No. 8 (Feb. 13,
2024), unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (Mar. 14, 2024). On March 15, 2024,
Meenaxi filed a motion requesting summary determination of violation of
the GEO and the issuance of CDOs against the four Enforcement
Respondents. See ID at 5.
On August 16, 2024, the presiding ALJ issued the subject ID (Order
No. 9), granting Meenaxi's motion and recommending issuance of the
requested CDOs. The ALJ concluded that ``the unrebutted evidence
summarized below demonstrates that the Enforcement Respondents have
imported and/or sold after importation chocolate milk powder products
bearing the `Bournvita' label'' in violation of the GEO. ID at 16. The
ID noted that Meenaxi alleges that the Enforcement Respondents have
violated the GEO by offering for sale, selling, advertising, and aiding
and abetting the sale for Cadbury's ``BOURNVITA'' products. Id. at 17-
18. The ID explained that ``[t]hese (or similar) products were found to
infringe the '026 Mark during the violation phase'' of this
investigation. Id. at 18. No party filed a petition seeking review of
the ID.
On August 19, 2024, the Commission issued a notice soliciting
submissions on public interest issues raised by the recommended relief
should the Commission find a violation of the GEO, specifically, CDOs
against the four Enforcement Respondents: (1) Bharat Bazaar; (2)
Coconut Hill; (3) Organic Ingredients; and (4) New India. 89 FR 68203-
04 (Aug. 23, 2024). No comments were received in response to the
notice.
Having reviewed the record of the investigation, including the
enforcement complaint, the ID, and the parties' submissions to the ALJ,
the Commission has determined to review the ID's findings that the
Enforcement Respondents have violated the GEO. In connection with these
findings, the Commission requests responses from the parties to the
following questions:
(1) Whether the sale of infringing products imported before the
issuance of a GEO but sold in the United States after the issuance of
that order constitutes a violation of the GEO?
(2) Whether a complainant must provide evidence of importation of
infringing products after the date on which the GEO issued in order to
establish a violation of a GEO in an enforcement proceeding under
Commission Rule 210.75 (19 CFR 210.75), and whether such evidence was
presented here?
(3) Whether 19 U.S.C. 1337(g)(1) applies to allegations of a
violation of a GEO in an enforcement proceeding involving defaulting
Enforcement Respondents?
Written Submissions: The parties are requested to file written
submissions on the questions identified in this notice.
In connection with the final disposition of this enforcement
proceeding, the statute authorizes issuance of, inter alia, cease and
desist orders in addition to the outstanding GEO, which could result in
the respondents being required to cease and desist from engaging in
unfair acts in the importation and sale of such articles. Accordingly,
the Commission is interested in receiving written submissions that
address the form of remedy, if any, that should be ordered.
The statute requires the Commission to consider the effects of that
remedy upon the public interest. The public interest factors the
Commission will consider include the effect that cease and desist
orders would have on: (1) the public health and welfare, (2)
competitive conditions in the U.S. economy, (3) U.S. production of
articles that are like or directly competitive with those that are
subject to investigation, and (4) U.S. consumers. The Commission is
therefore interested in receiving written submissions that address the
aforementioned public interest factors in the context of this
investigation.
If the Commission orders some form of remedy, the U.S. Trade
Representative, as delegated by the President, has 60 days to approve,
disapprove, or take no action on the Commission's determination. See
Presidential Memorandum of July 21,
[[Page 81549]]
2005, 70 FR 43251 (July 26, 2005). During this period, the Enforcement
Respondents would be entitled to continue the activities in the CDOs
under bond, except to the extent they are prohibited by the outstanding
GEO, in an amount determined by the Commission. The Commission is
therefore interested in receiving submissions concerning the amount of
the bond that should be imposed if a remedy is ordered.
Parties to the investigation, interested government agencies, and
any other interested parties are encouraged to file written submissions
on the issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding. Such
submissions should address the recommended determination by the ALJ on
remedy and bonding.
In its initial submission, Complainant is also requested to
identify the remedy sought and Complainant and OUII are requested to
submit proposed remedial orders for the Commission's consideration. The
initial written submissions and proposed remedial orders must be filed
no later than close of business on October 16, 2024. Reply submissions
must be filed no later than the close of business on October 23, 2024.
No further submissions on these issues will be permitted unless
otherwise ordered by the Commission. Opening submissions are limited to
25 pages. Reply submissions are limited to 15 pages. No further
submissions on any of these issues will be permitted unless otherwise
ordered by the Commission.
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document
electronically on or before the deadlines stated above. The
Commission's paper filing requirements in 19 CFR 210.4(f) are currently
waived. 85 FR 15798 (Mar. 19, 2020). Submissions should refer to the
investigation number (``Inv. No. 337-TA-1232 Enforcement'') in a
prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (See Handbook
for Electronic Filing Procedures, https://www.usitc.gov/documents/handbook_on_filing_procedures.pdf). Persons with questions regarding
filing should contact the Secretary, (202) 205-2000.
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in
confidence must request confidential treatment by marking each document
with a header indicating that the document contains confidential
information. This marking will be deemed to satisfy the request
procedure set forth in Rules 201.6(b) and 210.5(e)(2) (19 CFR 201.6(b)
& 210.5(e)(2)). Documents for which confidential treatment by the
Commission is properly sought will be treated accordingly. Any non-
party wishing to submit comments containing confidential information
must serve those comments on the parties to the investigation pursuant
to the applicable Administrative Protective Order. A redacted non-
confidential version of the document must also be filed with the
Commission and served on any parties to the investigation within two
business days of any confidential filing. All information, including
confidential business information and documents for which confidential
treatment is properly sought, submitted to the Commission for purposes
of this investigation may be disclosed to and used: (i) by the
Commission, its employees and Offices, and contract personnel (a) for
developing or maintaining the records of this or a related proceeding,
or (b) in internal investigations, audits, reviews, and evaluations
relating to the programs, personnel, and operations of the Commission
including under 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3; or (ii) by U.S. government
employees and contract personnel, solely for cybersecurity purposes.
All contract personnel will sign appropriate nondisclosure agreements.
All nonconfidential written submissions will be available for public
inspection on EDIS.
The Commission's vote on this determination took place on October
2, 2024.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in
section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and
in part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR
part 210).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: October 2, 2024.
Lisa Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2024-23208 Filed 10-7-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
