[Federal Register: March 1, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 41)]
[Notices]
[Page 11081-11082]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr01mr00-98]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
Certain Cigarettes and Packaging Thereof; Notice of Commission
Determination To Review and Affirm an Initial Determination Terminating
the Investigation as to Respondent Allstate Cigarette Distributors,
Inc. on the Basis of a Consent Order; Issuance of Consent Order
[Inv. No. 337-TA-424]
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to review and affirm an initial determination
(``ID'') (Order No. 30) issued by the presiding administrative law
judge (``ALJ'') terminating the above-referenced investigation as to
respondent Allstate Cigarette Distributors, Inc. (``Allstate'') on the
basis of a consent order; to grant complainant Brown & William Tobacco
Corp.'s (``complainant'') motion for leave to reply to Allstate's
motion to strike the petition for review; and to deny Allstate's motion
to strike the petition for review.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shara L. Aranoff, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone 202-
205-3090, e-mail saranoff@usitc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission instituted this trademark-
based investigation on September 16, 1999, based on a complaint filed
by Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. (``complainant'') alleging
violations of section 337 by reason of: (a) Infringement of 11
federally registered U.S. trademarks; (b) unfair competition under the
Lanham Act; (c) improper importation of products under the Lanham Act;
and (d) dilution of the registered trademarks. On January 7, 2000,
Allstate filed a motion to terminate the investigation based on a
proposed consent order. Complainant opposed the motion and the
Commission investigative attorney (``IA'') supported the motion. On
January 20, 2000, the ALJ issued the subject ID granting the motion to
terminate the investigation as to Allstate by consent order. On January
27, 2000, complainant timely moved for a two-day extension of time
within which to file its petition for review. The Chairman granted the
request pursuant to Commission rule 210.14(b) (19 CFR 210.14(b)). On
January 31, 2000, complainant timely filed a petition for review. On
February 7, 2000, Allstate and the IA filed timely responses to the
petition for review, and Allstate filed a motion to strike the petition
for review. On February 8, 2000, complainant filed a motion for leave
to respond to the motion to strike and an opposition to the motion.
Having examined the record in this investigation, the final ID, the
petition for review, and the responses thereto, the Commission has
determined to review the ID, because it raises an issue of Commission
policy. Specifically, the Commission has considered whether it is
appropriate, as a matter of Commission policy, to grant a motion to
terminate based on a consent order, over the objection of the
complainant, in the circumstances of this investigation.
The Commission's rules no longer provide that a motion to terminate
an investigation based on a consent order must be a joint motion of the
respondent(s) and the complainant(s). However, there may be
circumstances where granting a consent order motion over a
complainant's objection may be inappropriate as a matter of policy.
Such circumstances may include, for example, where granting a consent
order and terminating an investigation as to a respondent would deprive
the complainant of the opportunity to obtain a general exclusion order.
Another circumstance may be where the respondent has failed to provide
sufficient discovery such that a consent order may undermine the
complainant's ability to obtain a general exclusion order. These
circumstances are not presented by this ID. We agree with the
administrative law judge's conclusion that this motion does not present
a situation where the movant's discovery conduct undermines
complainant's ability to seek a general exclusion order, and there is
no indication that complainant would be deprived of its opportunity to
pursue a general exclusion order given the particular circumstances of
the participation of the intervener and the remaining respondents in
this investigation. Accordingly, the Commission has determined to
affirm the ID.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the
Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) and section 210.45 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.45).
Copies of the public versions of Order No. 30 and all other
nonconfidential documents filed in connection with this investigation
are or will be available for inspection during official business hours
(8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S.
International Trade Commission, 500 E
[[Page 11082]]
Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202-205-2000. Hearing-
impaired persons are advised that information can be obtained by
contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. General
information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing
its Internet server (http://www.usitc.gov).
Issued: February 22, 2000.
By order of the Commission.
Donna R. Koehnke,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-4905 Filed 2-29-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P