UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`Washington, D.C.
`
`Before the Hon. Paul J. Luckern, Administrative Law Judge
`
`%
`
`_- I “
`i
`_ .
`-
`
`-
`-1
`
`*
`
`I
`
`/ -
`
`In the matter of:
`
`)
`1
`
`CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL VEHICLES )
`1
`AND COMPONENTS THEREOF
`)
`
`Investigation No. 3 3 7-TA-
`
`DEERE’S MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
`AGRA-INFOCENTRUM-BENELUX SHOULD NOT BE HELD IN DEFAULT
`
`Complainant, Deere & Company, hereby moves for an order directed to Respondent, Agra-
`
`Invocentrum-Benelux (“AIB”), to show cause why AIB should not be found in default, pursuant to
`19 C.F.R. 5 210,16(a).
`
`Further, Complainant requests that, unless AIB makes a sufficient showing in response to a
`
`show cause order, an initial determination of default under 19 C.F.R. 3 210.16 be entered sua
`
`sponte, finding that AIB is deemed to have admitted all allegations of the Complaint and Notice of
`
`Investigation, and recommending an exclusion order against imports of John Deere equipment
`
`through AIB.
`
`It is hereby certified that reasonable, good-faith effort was made to resolve the issues raised
`
`in this motion with Hans Bastiaansen, president of AIB, and David 0. Lloyd, OUII. Specifically,
`
`on April 1, 2003, Mr. Bastiaansen was informed by facsimile letter from Complainant’s counsel
`
`about the deficiencies of Mr. Bastiaansen’s March 11, 2003, letter to the Commission and was
`
`invited to respond. On April 14, 2003, Mr. Bastiaansen was requested to contact Complainant’s
`
`counsel to discuss AIB’s intentions regarding the investigation. The April 14,2003, letter explained
`
`

`
`the potential ramifications to AIB of a failure to respond to the Complaint and Notice of
`
`Investigation. No response was received to either letter. It is further certified that reasonable, good-
`
`faith effort was made to resolve the issues of this motion with the Staff Attorney in a telephone
`
`conversation with Mr. Lloyd on April 14,2003. The Staff indicated that is will take a position on
`
`this motion after reviewing all the papers. Complainant has been unable to determine AIB’s position
`
`on this motion.
`
`Dated: April 18,2003
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`-
`Regis % . Slutter
`
`Robe YSwecker
`
`Goutam Patnaik
`BURNS, DOANE, SWECKER & MATHIS, L.L.P.
`1737 King Street, Suite 500
`Alexandria, VA 223 14
`Telephone:
`(703) 836-6620
`Facsimile:
`(703) 836-2021
`
`COUNSEL FOR COMPLAINANT,
`DEERE & COMPANY
`
`

`
`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`Washington, D.C.
`
`Before the Hon. Paul J. Luckern, Administrative Law Judge
`
`In the matter of:
`
`)
`1
`)
`CERTAlN AGRICULTURAL VEHICLES )
`AND COMPONENTS THEREOF
`)
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-487
`
`DEERE’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
`AGRA-INFOCENTRUM-BENELUX SHOULD NOT BE HELD IN DEFAULT
`
`I.
`
`Background
`
`The Complaint, Notice of Investigation, and Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure
`
`were served on all Respondents on February 7,2003. Agra-Infocentrum-Benelux (“AIB”) is one of
`
`the Respondents that was served. The Notice of Investigation warned AIB:
`
`Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each
`allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to
`constitute a waver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of
`the complaint and to authorize the administrative law judge and the
`Commission, without further notice to that respondent, to find the
`facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter
`both an initial determination and a final determination containing
`such findings, and may result in the issuance of a limited exclusion
`order or a cease and desist order or both directed against that
`respondent.
`
`Subsequently, Judge Luckern’s Order No. 1 was served on AIB February 12,2003, by air
`
`mail. Order No. 1 informed AIB that responses to the Complaint and Notice of Investigation were
`
`to be submitted “in accordance with Commission rule 2 10.13”. In addition, Order No. 1 stated:
`
`[Plursuant to Commission rules . . ., such responses will be
`considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after
`
`

`
`the date of service of the complaint and notice of investigation. Any
`extensions of time for submitting said responses will not be granted
`unless good cause therefor is shown.
`
`Order No. 1 also required AIB to have a discovery statement in the hands of Judge Luckern no later
`
`than March 10,2003. A preliminary conference was scheduled for March 13,2003, by Order No.
`
`1.
`
`AIB (i) did not submit a discovery statement to Judge Luckern by March 10,2003, as ordered
`
`and (ii) did not attend the preliminary conference on March 13,2003, personally or through counsel.
`
`As noted in Order No. 3, the “parties, not submitting discovery statements, are in flagrant violation
`
`of Order No. 1. Said parties should orally explain in detail to the administrative law judge at the
`
`preliminary conference on March 13 why they did not submit discovery statements. In the absence
`
`of an adequate explanation, orders to show cause may be issued against said parties.” Plainly, AIB
`
`flagrantly violated Order No. 1.
`
`On February 21,2003, Complainant served its (i) first set of interrogatories, and (ii) its first
`
`set of document requests on AIB by international air courier. Responses were due on March 17,
`
`2003. But no responses were received.
`
`The president and owner of AIB submitted a letter’ to the Commission, dated March 11,
`
`2003, acknowledging receipt on February 25, 2003, of (i) the Complaint, (ii) the Notice of
`
`Investigation, and (iii) the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. Thus, AIB cannot argue
`
`that it did not receive those materials. AIB’s letter accompanied a two-page narrative entitled
`
`1
`
`See Exhibit A: Judge Luckern’s March 19, 2003, Notice to Parties forwarding
`a copy of AIB’s March 11, 2003, letter. Note that Judge Luckern’s Certificate
`of Service is not included in the exhibit.
`
`2
`
`

`
`“Response to Complaint of Respondent Agra-Infocentrum-Benelux” which attached two e-mails.
`
`In that letter “Response”, the president and owner of AIB said:
`
`[W]e are not prepared to give any documents free to prove our
`response to the Complaint of Deere & Company.
`
`Pursuant to this response we see no reason to answer the sets of
`document request and the sets of interrogatories coming from Deere
`& Company.
`
`Thus, AIB’s letter “Response” acknowledged receipt of Complainant’s discovery, but flatly refused
`
`to respond. Although AIB’s letter “Response” was sent to the Commission, it was not served on any
`
`parties to the investigation by AIB. Rather, it was served by Judge Luckern on March 19, 2003.
`
`AIB’s letter “Response” does not respond to the paragraphs of the Complaint, and is not under oath.
`
`On March 11, 2003, the Staff served its first set of document requests and first set of
`
`interrogatories on AIB. AIB’s responses to the Staffs discovery requests were due on April 3.
`
`Complainant is unaware of any response to the interrogatories or document requests having been
`
`provided by AIB, and believes that none were provided.
`
`On April 1, 2003, Complainant’s counsel sent a letter by facsimile to AIB explaining the
`requirements of 19 C.F.R. 0 2 10.13(b) as to the form of a response and the need for statistical data.2
`
`In an effort to be cooperative, that letter offered to accept AIB responses if promptly submitted and
`
`served. No reply to the April lSt letter has been received.
`
`On April 14,2003, Complainant’s counsel sent another letter to AIB by facsimile requesting
`
`a reply not later than 5:OO p.m. (EDT) on April 16,2003, and warning that failure to respond to the
`
`2
`
`Copy attached as Exhibit B. Note that facsimile cover sheets are not included.
`
`

`
`complaint andNotice of Investigation are grounds for d e f a ~ l t . ~ The letter closed by alerting AIB that
`
`motions leading to default were being planned. No reply to the April 14th letter has been received.
`
`To date, AIB made no response whatsoever to the Notice of Investigation. AI B has not
`
`answered interrogatories from Complainant or from the Staff. AIB has not responded to the
`
`document requests of the Complainant or the Staff. AIB has not produced any documents other than
`
`two pages of e-mails attached to the letter “Response”. No attorney has submitted an appearance
`
`on behalf of AIB.
`
`11.
`
`An Order Should Issue to AIB Directing AIB to Show Cause Why It Should Not Be
`Held in Default.
`
`This investigation has been pending for over two months; the hearing is scheduled to occur
`
`in about five months. It is imperative to cull out parties who fail to abide by the Commission’s
`
`procedural rules. AIB is such a party.
`
`An order to show cause should issue because:
`
`0
`
`0
`
`e
`
`0
`
`The Complaint and Notice of Investigation were served upon AIB by registered mail
`
`on February 7,2003, and received by AIB on February 25,2003;
`AIB has not submitted a response to the Complaint complying with 19 C.F.R. 9
`
`21 0.13;
`
`AIB has not submitted any response to the Notice of Investigation; and
`
`AIB flagrantly disregarded Judge Luckern’s Order No. 1.
`
`The requirements of a response to the Complaint and a response to the Notice of
`Investigation are set forth in 19 C.F.R. 0 210.13(b), which provides in pertinent part:
`
`3
`
`Copy attached as Exhibit C. Note that facsimile cover sheets are not included.
`
`4
`
`

`
`[Elach response shall be under oath . . . . Each respondent shall
`respond to each allegation in the complaint and in the notice of
`investigation, and shall set forth a concise statement of the facts
`constituting each ground of defense. There shall be a specific
`admission, denial, or explanation of each fact alleged in the complaint
`and notice, or if the respondent is without knowledge of any such
`fact, a statement to that effect. . . . Each response shall include, when
`available, value of imports of the involved article. Each response
`shall also include a statement concerning the respondent’s capacity to
`produce the subject article and the relative significance of the United
`States market to its operation. Respondents who are not
`manufacturing their imports shall state the name and address of the
`supplier(s) of those imports.
`
`Service of documents, such as a response to the Complaint and Notice of Investigation, must be
`
`served on the Secretary to the Commission and on each other party, or, the party’s attorney. 19
`C.F.R. 6 20 l.l6(b). Ground Rule 7(iv) of Order No. 1, requires service of documents less than 15
`
`pages by hand or by facsimile transmission.
`
`Despite the warning in the Notice of Investigation itself, in Judge Luckern’s Order No. 1,
`
`and in two subsequent letters from Complainant’s counsel, AIB has never responded in any way to
`
`the Notice of Investigation. For this reason alone, an order to show cause should issue to AIB.
`
`Moreover, the “Response” AIB submitted to the Secretary does not meet the requirements
`
`of the Commission’s Rules. In particular, the “Response” does not -
`
`e
`
`0
`
`e
`
`e
`
`include any statements under oath;
`
`respond to each allegation of the Complaint;
`
`provide a specific “admission, denial, or explanation of each fact alleged in the
`
`complaint”;
`
`indicate the value of imports of the involved article;
`
`5
`
`

`
`include a statement concerning AIB’s capacity to produce the subject article or the
`
`relative significance of the United States market to its operation; and
`
`state the name and address of the supplier(s) of AIB’s imports.
`
`A letter which is not under oath, which does not respond to each allegation of the Complaint or set
`
`forth specific admissions, denials, or explanation of each fact alleged in the Complaint, and does not
`
`identify the Respondent’s suppliers is insufficient as a response. Certain Neodymium-Iron-Boron
`
`Magnets, Magnet Alloys, and Articles Containing the Same, ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-372,1995 ITC
`
`LEXIS 352, *18 (Initial Determination, August 4, 1995). Thus, AIB’s letter “Response” fails to
`
`qualify as a proper response to the Complaint.
`
`Further, that letter “Response” admitted that:
`
`The combination of the world wide web and the strong market value
`of the US-Dollar since the last five years has created an immense
`interest from non and authorized John Deere dealers in the United
`States for buying European version John Deere forage harvesters.
`Therefore our sales organisation has been contacted many times by
`non and authorized US John Deere dealers for their possibility to buy
`European version John Deere forage harvesters.
`
`Because of their strong interest, we started a few years ago with
`sending E-mails, mostly to authorized US John Deere dealers to
`inform them about the possibility to buy European version John
`Deere equipment.
`
`AIB thus unabashedly concedes that it advertises, markets, and sells gray goods to the United States.
`
`On April 1 and again on April 14, Complainant’s counsel alerted AIB to the specific
`
`Commission rule governing responses, and highlighted some of the requirements. But nothing
`
`further has been received from AIB. AIB has not replied to the April 14 letter as requested by close-
`
`of-business on April 16.
`
`6
`
`

`
`Furthermore, AIB has not responded to interrogatories or document requests from either
`
`Complainant or the Staff.
`
`Last, but not least, AIB failed to comply with Judge Luckern’s Order No. 1. By Order No.
`
`3, that failure was deemed to be “flagrant”.
`
`These facts, especially in light of AIB’s statements in its letter “Response” that (i) AIB is
`
`“not prepared to give any documents free to prove our response to the Complaint” and (ii) AIB sees
`
`“no reason to answer the sets of document requests and the sets of interrogatories”, show disdain and
`
`disrespect for this investigation and the authority of the ITC. Accordingly, AIB’s action - or more
`
`accurately, inaction - virtually demand that an order to show cause be issued requiring AIB to
`
`explain why it should not be held in default.
`
`Under comparable facts, an order to show cause has been issued. Certain Neodymium-lron-
`
`Boron Magnets, Magnet Alloys, andArtides Containing the Same, ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-372,1995
`ITC LEXIS 352, * 18 (Initial Determination, August 4, 1995); Certain Lens-Fitted Film Packages,
`
`ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-406,1998 ITC LEXIS 235 (ALJ Order No. 23, September 29,1998); Certain
`
`Rare-Earth Magnets and Magnetic Materials and Articles Containing the Same, ITC Inv. No. 337-
`
`TA-413,1999 ITC LEXIS 208 (ALJ Order No. 57, June 29,1999).
`
`Recognizing that the improbability that AIB will present the necessary showing to obviate
`
`default, Complainant also requests that the Administrative Law Judge issue, sua sponte, an initial
`
`determination that (i) AIB is in default, deeming all allegations of the complaint to have been
`
`admitted by AIB, and - in light of AIB’s admission of gray goods marketing in the United States -
`
`(ii) recommending an exclusion order against imports of John Deere equipment through AIB.
`
`7
`
`

`
`111. Conclusion
`
`For the reasons set forth above, Complaint respectfully requests that an order to show cause
`be issued to AIB to show cause why AIB should not be found in default, pursuant to 19 C.F.R. 0
`
`2 10.16, and further requests that, unless AIB makes a sufficient showing in response to a show cause
`order, the initial determination of default under 19 C.F.R. 9 210.13(b) be entered sua sponte,
`
`(i) finding that AIB is deemed to have admitted all allegations of the Complaint and Notice of
`
`Investigation, and (ii) recommending an exclusion order against imports of John Deere equipment
`
`through AIB.
`
`Dated: April 18,2003
`
`Respectfully submitted, -
`&!PA&
`
`Robe 4. Swecker
`L
`Regis E. Slutter
`Goutam Patnaik
`BURNS, DOANE, SWECKER & MATHIS, L.L.P.
`1737 King Street, Suite 500
`Alexandria, VA 223 14
`Telephone:
`(703) 836-6620
`Facsimile:
`(703) 836-2021
`
`COUNSEL FOR COMPLAINANT,
`DEERE & COMPANY
`
`8
`
`

`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`

`
`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`Washington, D.C.
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL
`VEHICLES AND COMPONENTS
`THEREOF
`
`1
`1
`1
`1
`1
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-487
`
`The Secretary received, on March 14,2003, a five page communication fiom Agra-
`
`Infocentrum-BeneIux. A copy of the communication is attached.
`
`Issued: March 19,2003
`
`. .
`. ..
`&
`
`-
`...
`
`.'..,
`.- ..,
`
`

`
`The Honorable Marilyn R.Abbott
`Secretary
`United States International Trade Cammission
`500 E Street, SW Room 112
`Washington, D.C. 20436
`
`Date: 11 March 2003
`
`Subject: Certain Agricultural Vehicles and Components Thereof
`Investigation No.r337-TA-487
`
`Q %q
`-Ej Fa z-
`g 2 3
`6 4 A
`* 7#?z mL7'rn
`-.
`2
`;?,U
`..
`-. IT!
`2-4
`.? 6-
`A T a
`-.
`
`>Qr%l
`
`-*-<
`
`.. ..
`. .
`... I . .,
`,.I..! . .,
`I
`
`
`:
`
`.
`
`.
`
`
`
`Dear Secretary Abbott,
`
`On 19 February,2003,we received Registered Mail with number R 867 051 669,
`which contained Exhibit Nr.16 till Exhibit Nr.70.
`On 2 5 February,ZOO3,we received Registered Mail with number RA 690 733 4 5 9 us,
`which contained your letter of 7 February 2003 to advise us that the
`United States International Trade Commission has instituted an investigation
`with Nr. 337-TA-487 and which contained also following enclosures:
`Ccmplaint,Notice of Investigation,Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure
`and Exhibit Nr.1 till Exhibit Nr.15.
`Therefore we were not able to file a response to the allegations in t h e
`complaint within the twenty days after the date of service of the complaint.
`
`We hope that our enclosed response to the allegations will still be considered
`by the Commission.
`
`~ c l o o u r e s : Our Response
`Enclosure 1
`mlclosure 2
`
`oc entrum- BePelux
`
`5110 AA Baarle-Nassau
`The Netherlands
`
`

`
`FN THE MATTER OF$ CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL VEHICLES AND COHPO"!rS
`
`TBIsRxOq
`
`COMPLAINT OF DEERE Sr COMPANY
`INVBSTIGATION NO + 337 -TA-487
`RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT OF RESPONDENT AGRA-INFOCENTRUK-BENELUX.
`
`1,Hans Bastiaansen,President /Owner of Agra-Infocentrum-Benelux,rnentioned as
`Respondent in the first group of Respondents in the complaint of Deere & Company,
`confirms to have exported European version John Deere forage harvesters to the
`United States of America on a fair and legal base.
`One of the activities of Aqra-Infocentrum-Benelux is a sales organisation of
`new and used agricultural and industrial equipment in and out Europe and this
`on a worldwide base.
`Beginning the 90's we were contacted on a regular base by different European
`authorized John Deere dealers f o r the sale of their used John Deere forage
`harvesters and this because our sales ofganisation had already at that time
`many international relationships.
`
`We have at this time an open and free international market around the whole
`globe,such as world wide web,free magazine advertisements etc. Therefore it
`is very easy to find advertised new and used agricultural equipment from a l l
`trademarks, including advertised John Deere equipment, by non and authorized
`John Deere dealers.
`The combination of the world wide web and the strong market value of the
`US-Dollar since the last five years has created an immense interest from
`non and authorized John Deere dealers in the United States for buying.
`European version John Deere forage harvesters.
`Therefore our sales organisation has been contacted many times by non and
`authorized US John Deere dealers for their possibility to buy European
`version John Deere forage harvesters.
`
`Because of their strong interest, we started a few years ago with sending
`E-mails, mostly to authorized US John Deere dealers to inform them about
`the possibility to buy'European version John Deere equipment.
`(See Complaint Exhibit m . 2 4 and Complaint Exhibit nr.25)
`In these E-mails, we never used the Registered John Deere Logo and even
`not the John Deere green or yellow colors and we didn't mention prices.
`
`It was mostly the US dealer himself who contacted OU company to get price
`informations, just like Kory Taylor did by contacting us by E-mail on the
`21st June 2002 (see enclosure ar 1.) and by E-mail again on the 25th June
`2002 (see encfosure PI 2 . ) concerning new forage equipment but obviously
`with other purposes than to do business,(See Complaint Exhibit nr.401,
`which is in our point of view unfair and misleading.
`Also, different US authorized John Deere dealers did inform our company
`that they often had to compete with other trademarks o f forage harvesters
`which were much cheaper than the US version John Deere forage harvesters.
`merefore they decided to purchase those European version John Deere
`forage harvesters so that they could keep their customers satisfied and
`~ o h n Deere minded.
`
`

`
`I
`
`The US non and authorized John Deere dealers we have done business with,
`were informed by us before a done deal on materia1,technical and safety
`differences between the European version John Deere forage harvesters
`and the US version John Deere forage harvesters.
`
`Due to the fact that we did mostly business with US authorized John Deere
`dealers and due to the fact that Deere & Company has never contacted us
`in front concerning the allegations in their complaint,we were not aware
`at all of any unfair act against Deere & Company, neither of infringement
`of Deere's Registered trademarks.
`
`, ..
`
`AB a legal European limited company, we always have acted according the l a w
`and to the best of our knowledge.
`Also,it has never been OUT intention to destroy the US forage market but
`to support with respect the authorized US John deere dealer.
`
`. . I .
`
`L .4
`
` : . .
`. -
`I . r i
`.
`I
`'
`. .
`. .-.,
`.: a
`.:. :..
`, . '. ., .,..
`.. . y:,
`
`:.5
`
`.<.-.
`
`..
`
`
`.
`.
`. .
`
`.. . .
`..:, r. . .
`. . _, _ .
`
`If authorized US John Deere dealers can purchase directly European version
`John Deere Equipment and can import this European equipment i n t o the US,
`than we as European company can export the same European version John Deere
`equipment to authorized US John Deere dealers also.
`If Deere & Company tries to get forbidden, (by their Complaint and via the
`US International Trade commission1,our European company to export European
`John Deere equipment to the US,without even mentioning any US authorized
`John Deere dealer in their complaint, we are talking about discrimination 1
`
`Nevertheless, with respect for all authorized US John Deere dealers we have
`done business with, we are not prepared to give any documents free to prove
`our response to the Complaint of Deere & Company.
`Pursuant to this response we see no reason to answer the sets of document
`requests and the seta of interrogatories coming from Deere & Company.
`We hope that the Commission will take this personal response in consideration.
`
`Y.
`en
`
`er
`
`ent rum-B ane lux
`
`Baarle-Nassau
`The Netherlands
`
`

`
`Pagina 1 van 1
`
`Hans Bastlaansen
`
`"Kory Taylor' <kory@taylorii.com>
`Van:
`.
`<aib@skynet.be>
`Aan:
`vrijdag 21 juni 2002 21:38
`Venonden:
`Ondennmrp: New Forage Equipment
`
`Hans-
`
`I am a John Drrrc dealer located in the United States in the state of Kansas. The name of our d e a l d i p is Taylor
`Implement Company. I would like to inquire about !he possibility of purchasing new forage equipment from you. We
`would like to be able to purchase both new John Deem and Claas Self-propelled forage harvesters and outfit them with
`new Kcmpcr Rotary Hcaders. Please fce frcc to contact me at your convenience.
`
`Kory Taylor
`Taylor Implement Co., Inc.
`Hoxie, Kansas
`(785) 675-3272
`k o ~ h 9 t a v l o r i c ~
`
`... .
`.::: ....
`. ,.,. ...*
`
`.; .I
`. .:
`. .
`..d'.'
`.
`.
`
`. .
`
`..'.:.I
`
`. .
`
`.,. .
`'. :':
`... 1
`
`

`
`Pagina I van 1
`
`Kory Taylor <kory@tayloric.com>
`Van:
`aib@skynet.be <aib@skynet,be>
`Aan:
`dinsdag 25 junt 2002 0:31
`Datum:
`Onderwerp: Forage Equipment!
`
`Hans-
`
`Thank you for the telephone conversation we had earlier today. As we discussed over the telephone, I told
`you I would talk to my customer in reference to the possibility of a new JD 6850 S.P.F.H. instead of a new
`JD 6950 S.P.F.H. My customer told me that he would be interested in a new JD 6850 S.P.F.H. if the JD
`6950 S.P.F.H. was not available. The customer would like the machine to arrive in the United States by the
`middle of August. Please let me know the availability and pricing of the following equipment.
`
`1. New JD 6850 S.P.F.H. with all codes listed, my customer would prefer a 2-WD machine, but a 4-WD
`machine would be acceptable. My customer would also like the Kernel Processor and Auto Lube options.
`The 56-Knife Drum will work, but he prefers a 48-WFe Drum with angled corn knives.
`2. New Kemper 4500 Rotary Header to put mount on the new JD 6850 S.P.F.H.
`As discussed over the phone, I would want this unit shipped into the pod of Galveston, Texas and that we
`would pick-up the equipment via one of our company trucks.
`
`1 have tried to get in touch with some contacts with interest in the Kemper Champion 3000 Forage Headers
`for John Deere 5000 Series Forage Harvesters. I had no luck trying to get in touch with these contacts
`today, but I will keep trying. Could you please let me know the availability and pricing on a new Kernper
`Champion 3000 Forage Header for 5000 series forage harvesters.
`
`If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact m e at your convenience.
`
`Best regards,
`
`Kory Taylor
`Taylor Implement Co., Inc.
`Hoxie, Kansas
`Phone: (785) 675-3272
`Fax:
`(785) 675-2370
`E-mail: kxy@tayloric.corn
`
`

`
`EXHIBIT B
`
`EXHIBIT B
`
`

`
`BURNS DOANE SWECKER & MATHIS U P
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`ALEXANORIA, VIRGINIA
`REDWOOD SHORES, CALIFORNIA
`DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA
`
`April 1, 2003
`
`Mr. Hans Bastiaansen
`President / Owner
`Agra-Infocentrum-Benelux
`Postbus 49
`5 1 10 AA Baarle-Nassau
`The Netherlands
`
`Correspondence To:
`P.O. Bax 1404
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1404
`
`Office Address:
`Suite 500
`1737 King Street
`Alexandria, Virginia 22314-2727
`
`Telephone: +1.703.836.6620
`Group 3 Fax: +I ,703.836.2021
`Group 4 Fax: +i .703.836.0028
`
`ROBERT s.’ SWECKER
`E-MAIL - ROBERTS@BURNSDOANE.COM
`TELEPHONE: f 1.703.838.6568
`
`VIA FACSINI LE
`(Confirmation by Air Mail)
`
`Re:
`
`In the Matter of Certain Agricultural Vehicles and
`Components Thereof, Investigation No. 337-TA-487
`
`Dear Mr. Bastiaansen:
`
`In your letter of March 11, 2003 addressed to the Secretary of the Commission, you
`acknowledged receipt of the Complaint and Notice of Investigation on February 19, 2003.
`
`Included in the package that you received from the Commission is a copy of the Commission
`Rules of Practice. Subparagraph (b) of 5210.13 describes the information that is required in your
`response. Specifically, you are to admit or deny each of the numbered paragraphs in the Complaint.
`Further, you should include statistical data on the quantity and value of imports of these forage
`harvesters. Other provisions of subparagraph (b) may apply to your situation.
`
`As you note in your letter, you have not responded within twenty (20) days after the date of
`service of the Complaint, but we will accept your responses now if you send them to the Secretary, and
`to me at the address indicated above.
`
`Very truly yours,
`
`RSS : j
`
`Robert S. Swecker
`
`cc:
`
`David 0. Lloyd, Esquire
`
`

`
`EXHIBIT C
`
`EXHIBIT C
`
`

`
`BURNS DOANE SWECKER & MATHIS U p
`
`ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA
`REDWOOD SHORES, CALIFORNIA
`DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA
`
`April 14,2003
`
`Mr. Hans Bastiaansen
`President / Owner
`AGRA-INFOCENTRUM-BENELUX
`Postbus 49
`5 1 10 AA Baarle-Nassau
`The Netherlands
`
`Correspondence To:
`PO. Box 1404
`Alexandria. Virginia 22313-1404
`
`Office Address:
`Suite 500
`1737 King Street
`Alexandria, Virginia 22314-2727
`
`Telephone: +1.703.836.6620
`Group 3 Fax: +1.703.836.2021
`Group 4 Fax: *1.703.836.0028
`
`REGIS E. SLU-ITER
`E-MAIL: REGISS@BURNSWANE.COM
`TELEPHONE: + 1 -703.83 6.6620
`BY FACSIMILE
`
`Re:
`
`In the Matter of Certain Agricultural Vehicles and Components
`ThereoJ; Investigation No. 337-TA-487
`
`Dear Mr. Bastiaansen:
`
`We represent Deere & Company, the Complainant in the above-identified investigation now
`proceeding at the United States International Trade Commission (the “ITC”).
`
`At your earliest convenience, but not later than 5:OO mm. (EDT) on Wednesdav, ADril
`-
`16,2003, I would like to hear from you to discuss your intentions regarding this investigation. You
`may respond to me (i) by facsimile to +1.703.836.2031, (ii) by e-mail to the address given above,
`or (iii) by telephone during normal business hours (9:OO a.m. to 5:30 p.m. EDT). I can also phone
`you if you suggest a mutually convenient time. If you happen to be traveling in the United States,
`I can arrange to speak with you by telephone while you are here; and may even be able to meet with
`you in person.
`
`The investigation was instituted by the ITC on February 6,2003, naming Agra-Infocentrum-
`Benelux and others as respondents. The Notice of Investigation and the Complaint (along with
`copies of the ITC Rules and Regulations) were served on and received by you on February 25,2003.
`Your letter of March 1 1 , 2003, to Secretary Abbott does not comply with ITC rules concerning the
`response to the Complaint and the Notice of Investigation (1 9 C.F.R. $ 2 10.13), or the manner of
`service (1 9 C.F.R. $ 201.16). Your letter of March 1 1,2003, confirms that you have received the
`interrogatories and document requests from Deere & Company, but continues that you see “no
`reason to answer”.
`
`Failure to properly respond to the Complaint and Notice of Investigation are grounds for
`
`

`
`Mr. Hans Bastiaansen
`April 14,2003
`PaPe 2
`
`default. Failure to respond to the interrogatories and document requests .are independent grounds
`for an order to compel and, ultimately, for sanctions. The investigation started over two months ago
`and is scheduled for hearing in September. Your posture of refusing to participate must now end.
`Where a respondent defaults, the defaulting respondent waives its right to appear, waives its right
`to be served with copies of documents, and waives it right to contest the allegations in the
`investigation. Furthermore, the ITC can issue an exclusion order against the defaulting respondent.
`
`Agra-Infocentrum-Benelux’s position in this investigation is at serious risk. We urgently
`need to communicate with you or your attorney, if you have one, because we plan to file motions to
`hold Agra-Infocentrum-Benelux in default and to order responses to the interrogatories and
`document requests which have already been served upon you.
`
`Very truly yours,
`BURNS, DOANE, SWECKER & MATHIS L.L.P.
`
`cc: David 0. Lloyd, Esq.
`
`

`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that true copies of the DEERE'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO
`SHOW CAUSE WHY AGRA-INFOCENTRUM-BENELUX SHOULD NOT BE HELD IN
`DEFAULT was served on this 18th day of April, 2003 as follows:
`
`(The original and six copies)
`
`(Two copies)
`
`The Honorable Marilyn R. Abbott
`Secretary
`United States International Trade Commission
`500 E Street, S.W.
`Washington, D. C. 20436
`
`The Honorable Paul J. Luckern
`Administrative Law Judge
`United States International Trade Commission
`500 E Street, S.W.
`Room 317
`Washington, D.C. 20436
`
`David 0. Lloyd, Esq.
`Office of Unfair Import Investigations
`United States International Trade Commission
`500 E Street, S.W.
`Room 401
`Washington, D.C. 20436
`
`BY:
`
`Hans Bastiaansen
`President/Owner
`Agra-Infocentrum-Benelux
`Postbus 49
`5 1 10 AA Baarle-Nassau
`The Netherlands
`
`Facsimile: 01 1-321-465-0409
`
`

`
`Gary M. Hnath, Esq.
`Venable, Baetjer, Howard & Civiletti, LLP
`1201 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Suite 1000
`Washington, D. C. 20005-39 17
`
`(Counsel for Respondents Dongfeng Agricultural Machinery Group and Jiangling Tractor Co .)
`
`J. M. Scott Beard, Jr., Esq.
`Shoffner & Associates
`176 Newbury Street
`Floor 3
`Boston, MA 02116
`
`(Counsel for Respondent Bolton Power Equipment)
`
`William A. Zeitler, Esq.
`Thompson Coburn LLP
`1909 K Street, N.W.
`Suite 600
`Washington, D. C. 20006
`
`(Counsel for Respondents Co-Ag LLC, Fitzpatrick Farms, J & T Farms and Stanley Farm)
`
`David P. Miranda, Esq.
`HESLIN ROTHENBERG FARLEY & MESITI P. C.
`5 Columbia Circle
`Albany, NY 12203-5160
`
`(One COPY)
`
`(Counsel for Respondents Erntetechnik Franz Becker, Sunova Implement Co.,
`Bourdeau Bros., Inc., and OK Enterprises)
`
`

`
`-:
`
`(Cont.)
`
`John D. Pellegrin, Esq.
`Law Offices of John D. Pellegrin, P.C.
`9306 Old Keene Mill Road
`Burke, Virginia 22015
`
`(Counsel for Respondents Jiangsu Yueda Co. Ltd. and Agracat, Inc.)
`
`Robert Parsons, Esq.
`Parsons & Goldtry
`340 East Palm Lane
`Suite 260
`Phoenix, AZ 85004
`
`(Counsel for Respondent Workhorse Tractors)
`
`Paul Legaignoux
`Agrideal
`Chemi