Daily Rules, Proposed Rules, and Notices of the Federal Government
The Commission instituted this investigation on April 20, 2012, based on a complaint filed by Emerson Electric Co. (“Emerson”), of St. Louis, Missouri, alleging violations of section 337 of the
On June 7, 2012, Emerson filed a corrected motion to amend the complaint and NOI to add Mega as a respondent. Then on June 28, 2012, Emerson filed a second motion to amend the complaint and NOI to add Zhongda as a respondent. Respondent Anaheim did not oppose the motions. On June 15, 2012 and July 10, 2012, the OUII investigative staff attorney (“IA”) filed responses in support of the motions to amend.
On July 17, 2012, the ALJ issued an ID granting Emerson's motions to amend the complaint and NOI to add Mega and Zhongda as respondents. The ALJ found that Emerson made a showing of good cause for the amendments based on new evidence obtained during the course of the investigation. In particular, the ALJ noted that Emerson first learned that Mega was involved in the production and manufacturing of the accused products in interrogatory responses. In addition, the ALJ noted that Emerson first learned that Zhongda was involved in the distribution, transportation, and importation of the accused products during discovery. The ALJ further found that neither the public interest nor any party would be prejudiced by the amendments. Anaheim filed a petition for review on July 25, 2012, and the IA and Emerson filed replies on August 1, 2012. We note that Anaheim's petition is not proper under the Commission's Rules. 19 CFR 210.43(a)(2).
The Commission finds no reason to overturn the ALJ's findings, and accordingly, has determined not to review the subject ID.
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 sections 210.43-45 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.43-45).
By order of the Commission.