UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`Washington, D.C.
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN AUTOMOTIVE PARTS
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-557
`
`REPLY BRIEF OF THE OFFICE OF UNFAIR IMPORT
`INVESTIGATIONS ON REMEDY,
`THE PUBLIC INTEREST, AND BONDING
`
`Lynn I. Levine, Director
`Thomas S. Fusco, Supervisory Attorney
`Juan Cockburn, Investigative Attorney
`
`OFFICE OF UNFAIR IMPORT INVESTIGATIONS
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E Street, S.W., Suite 401
`Washington, D.C. 20436
`(202) 205-2572
`(202) 205-2158 (Facsimile)
`
`April 6, 2007
`
`
`Washington, D.C.
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN AUTOMOTIVE PARTS
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-557
`
`REPLY BRIEF OF THE OFFICE OF UNFAIR IMPORT
`INVESTIGATIONS ON REMEDY,
`THE PUBLIC INTEREST, AND BONDING
`
`Lynn I. Levine, Director
`Thomas S. Fusco, Supervisory Attorney
`Juan Cockburn, Investigative Attorney
`
`OFFICE OF UNFAIR IMPORT INVESTIGATIONS
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E Street, S.W., Suite 401
`Washington, D.C. 20436
`(202) 205-2572
`(202) 205-2158 (Facsimile)
`
`April 6, 2007
`
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
`
`REPLY TO FORD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Cease and Desist Orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
`
`Bond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
`
`III.
`
`REPLY TO RESPONDENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
`
`A. General Exclusion Order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
`
`B. Public Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
`
`IV.
`
`REPLY TO THIRD PARTIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`Washington, D.C.
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN AUTOMOTIVE PARTS
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-557
`
`REPLY BRIEF OF THE OFFICE OF UNFAIR IMPORT
`INVESTIGATIONS ON REMEDY, THE PUBLIC
`INTEREST, AND BONDING
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`On March 30, 2007, Complainant Ford Global Technologies, LLC
`
`(“Ford”); Respondents Keystone Automotive Industries, Inc.; U.S. Auto Parts
`
`Network, Inc.; Gordon Auto Body Parts CO., Ltd.; Y.C.C. Parts Manufacturing
`
`Co., Ltd.; TYC Brother Industrial Co., Ltd.; and Depo Auto Parts Ind. Co., Ltd.
`
`(collectively “Respondents”); and the Office of Unfair Import Investigations
`
`(“OUII”) filed their submissions in response to the Notice of Commission Not to
`
`Review a Final Determination of Violation of Section 337; Schedule for Filing
`
`Written Submissions on Remedy, Public Interest, and Bonding (“Notice”) (March
`
`21, 2007). On the same date, third parties Public Citizens, Inc., Center for Auto
`
`Safety, Automotive Aftermarket Industry Association, American Insurance
`
`Association, National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, and Property
`
`Casualty Insurers Association of America (collectively “Third Parties”) filed a
`
`submission. OUII will separately address each of the submissions below.
`
`
`
`II.
`
`REPLY TO FORD
`
`2
`
`Ford requests that the Commission issue a general exclusion order, cease
`
`and desist orders directed against the domestic Respondents, and impose a bond in
`
`the amount of 200% of entered value during the presidential review period.
`
`Ford’s Brief at 1-3. Finally, Ford contends that the public interest does not
`
`preclude a general exclusion order, cease and desist orders and the imposition of a
`
`bond in the amount of 200%. Id. at 3.
`
`OUII does not object to Ford’s proposed general exclusion order. 1
`
`However, OUII believes that the Commission should reject Ford’s requests for
`
`issuance of cease and desist orders and the imposition of a bond of 200%. As
`
`demonstrated below, Ford’s requests that the Commission issue cease and desist
`
`orders based upon its newly submitted “evidence” would be contrary to
`
`Commission precedent and a bond of 200% is not supported by the record. In any
`
`event, even if Ford’s new “evidence” were to be considered, it would not provide
`
`a sufficient basis for issuing cease and desist orders.
`
`The Intellectual Property Rights Branch of U.S. Customs and Border
`rotection (“Customs”) has advised OUII of certain changes that it would like to
`see in the order proposed in OUII’s Brief on Remedy, Bonding and the Public
`Interest. OUII has attached hereto a copy of the modified proposed general
`exclusion order. Attachment A.
`
`1 P
`
`
`
`A. Cease and Desist Orders
`
`3
`
`In support of its request for issuance of cease and desist orders, Ford
`
`quotes an excerpt from OUII’s post-hearing brief wherein, OUII stated:
`
`The Staff believes that a cease and desist order directed against the
`domestic respondents may be appropriate in this investigation as
`long as they maintain commercially significant domestic
`inventories.
`
`The Commission Investigative Staff’s Post-Hearing Brief at 75 (emphasis added).
`
`Thus, OUII intimated that cease and desist orders might be appropriate assuming
`
`that evidence supporting such orders was present. However, as the Judge
`
`correctly determined, such evidence was not in the record. Hence, he correctly
`
`recommended against issuing cease and desist orders. ID at 179.
`
`Ford directly challenges the Judge’s statement that it did not request cease
`
`and desist orders. Ford’s Brief at 3. However, Ford ignores the Judge’s correct
`
`determination that Ford failed to submit any evidence that would support issuance
`
`of cease and desist orders. Rather, Ford contends that the “commercial reality” of
`
`Respondents’ business model requires maintenance of significant inventory. Id. at
`
`4. Ford’s only support for this contention is a collection of pages obtained by an
`
`employee of its counsel from the web sites of the domestic Respondents that
`
`contain information counsel’s employee entered on those pages. Notably, that
`
`information was never before the Judge, and is only now being presented directly
`
`to the Commission as part of Ford’s remedy submission.
`
`
`
`4
`
`Contrary to Commission precedent, Ford contends that,“the more relevant
`
`time frame for evaluating the domestic Respondents’ inventory is now, and the
`
`evidence shows that now their inventory is commercially significant. Ford’s Brief
`
`at 3 (original emphasis). In making the foregoing argument, Ford ignores long-
`
`standing Commission precedent that rejects information relied upon by a
`
`Complainant if such information had not been previously introduced into evidence
`
`at the evidentiary hearing. See, e.g. Certain Audio Digital-to-Analog Converters
`
`and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-499, Com. Op. at 17-18 (March 3,
`
`2005 (Public Version)) (“ADA”); Certain Integrated Repeaters, Switches,
`
`Transceivers and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-435, Com. Op. at
`
`27 (Pub. 3547, October 2002) (cease and desist order) (“Integrated Repeaters”);
`
`Certain Flash Memory Circuits and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-
`
`382, Com. Op. at 21 (Pub. 3046 July 1997) (downstream products) (“Flash
`
`Memories”). Indeed, in ADA, the Commission rejected the proffered evidence
`
`stating:
`
`As we have emphasized in prior opinions, submission of relevant
`evidence to the ALJ is not only necessary to allow the ALJ to
`consider the information in crafting his RD on remedy, but also
`serves a critical purpose of allowing full development of the
`evidentiary record. See Flash Memory Circuits, Comm’n
`Opinion, p. 21 (“Even though our rules permit us to receive
`‘submissions’ from the parties . . . it is the ALJ who takes evidence
`or other information from the parties . . . to prepare ‘findings of
`fact’ to support his recommendations. . . . [E]vidence regarding
`remedy ‘should, whenever possible, be presented to the ALJ, so
`that its accuracy and probative value can be evaluated by the ALJ
`
`
`
`5
`
`and other parties prior to its presentation to the Commission in the
`remedy phase of the investigation.’”) (underlined emphasis
`original, italized emphasis added, citations omitted).
`
`ADA, Com. Op. at 17-18. Similarly, in Integrated Repeaters, Complainants, like
`
`Ford, submitted a declaration in support of their request for issuance of a cease
`
`and desist order. The Commission declined to consider the new evidence
`
`submitted by Complainants, stating:
`
`Under section 337(f)(l), the Commission has discretion to issue
`cease and desist orders in addition to, or instead of, an exclusion
`order. The Commission issues cease and desist orders where
`“commercially significant” inventories of infringing products are
`present in the United State, and complainants bear the burden of
`proving that respondent has such an inventory. Because
`complainants failed to sustain their burden, we have determined
`not to issue a cease and desist order. See ID at 207
`
`Integrated Repeaters, Com. Op. at 27. Ford has not offered any justification for its
`
`failure to follow long-standing Commission practice, particularly since the web
`
`sites presumably existed prior to the hearing and, thus, the same information could
`
`have been obtained prior to the hearing. Rather, as set forth above, Ford contends
`
`that the appropriate time to present information in support of a requested remedy is
`
`in connection with remedy submissions to the Commission. Ford, like the
`
`complainants in ADA, Integrated Repeaters and Flash Memories, submitted
`
`“evidence” to the Commission that had not previously been presented to the Judge.
`
`OUII submits that the Commission should similarly reject Ford’s attempt to use
`
`
`
`6
`
`evidence that was not presented to the Judge, particularly since such evidence
`
`appears to have been available prior to the conclusion of the hearing.
`
`Finally, the “evidence” Ford is suspect. Such “evidence” was allegedly
`
`obtained by Mr. Steven Johnson, an employee of Ford’s counsel, Brooks &
`
`Kushman. In his declaration, Mr. Johnson states that he is an employee of Brooks
`
`Kushman, that he visited the websites of various entities, and that he printed out
`
`screen shots of various pages. Ford contends that these screen shots show that
`
`Keystone “maintains an inventory of 1000 units or more of each of the infringing
`
`parts” and US Autoparts maintains an inventory of at least 50 units of each
`
`infringing part. Ford’s Brief at 2. However, the screen shots are of pages where
`
`Mr. Johnson entered ordering information, i.e., quantities. Mr. Johnson apparently
`
`entered numbers of how much he wanted “to purchase” on a page, and printed that
`
`page. Nothing in Mr. Johnson’s declaration or the attached exhibits indicates that
`
`those volumes of products are, in fact, available - - merely that Mr. Johnson
`
`entered those numbers.
`
`Ford’s submission also states these products are available for immediate
`
`delivery (citing Exhibits 4 and 5 to Johnson Declaration), but with respect to
`
`getcrashparts.com, Exhibit 4 states under “Product Availability:”
`
`Although availability may be indicated on the Site, we cannot
`guarantee product availability and products, nonetheless, may not be
`available for immediate delivery.
`
`
`
`7
`
`Therefore, neither Mr. Johnson’s declaration nor the attached exhibits are reliable
`
`evidence that the domestic Respondents in fact maintain commercially significant
`
`inventories of the infringing articles.
`
`In view of the foregoing, the Commission should not consider Mr.
`
`Johnson’s declaration, the attached exhibits or Ford’s arguments based thereon. In
`
`any event, the Johnson declaration and accompanying exhibits are not sufficiently
`
`reliable evidence that Respondents’ maintain commercially significant inventories
`
`of infringing articles. Accordingly, Ford’s request for issuance of cease and desist
`
`orders should be rejected.
`
`B. The Bond
`
`Ford requests that the Commission adopt the Judge’s recommendation that
`
`the bond during the presidential review period be set at 200% of entered value.
`
`Ford’s Brief at 1. In making this request, Ford states that the Staff supported such
`
`a bond in such amount. Id. While this statement is correct, the Judge’s basis for
`2
`
`this amount is that the prices of Respondents’ products are approximately half of
`
`Ford’s. Therefore, a bond of 100% would serve the function statutorily set forth,
`
`Specifically, OUII stated: “Ford’s proposed bond appears to be
`easonable. Therefore, the Staff would not object to the imposition of a bond of
`200% of entered value in this investigation.” The Commission Investigative
`Staff’s Post-Hearing Brief at 76 (emphasis added).
`
`2 r
`
`
`
`8
`
`i.e., prevent harm to the complainant, by equalizing the prices charged by
`
`complainants and respondents. 3
`
`In view of the foregoing, a bond in an amount greater than 100% would be
`
`punitive. Therefore, Ford’s request should be denied.
`
`III.
`
`REPLY TO RESPONDENTS
`
`Respondents assert that public interest factors preclude any remedy, if the
`
`Commission issues a remedy, the remedy should be an exclusion order, and that
`
`any bond should not be greater than 5%, but if a bond were to be imposed, it
`
`should not exceed 100%. Respondents’ Brief at 1, 6. Respondents also contend
`
`that cease and desist orders are not warranted herein because Ford failed to provide
`
`supporting evidence at the hearing. Id. at 2. OUII agrees with Respondents that
`
`any bond imposed should not exceed 100% and that cease and desist orders are not
`
`warranted herein for the reasons set forth above. However, as demonstrated below,
`
`Respondents’ contentions regarding the alleged absence of evidence supporting a
`
`general exclusion order are without support. Moreover, Respondents’ public
`
`interest arguments are for the most part a rehash of the functionality arguments
`
`The Commission frequently sets the bond by attempting to eliminate the
`ifference in sales prices between the patented domestic product and the
`infringing product. See, e.g., Microsphere Adhesives, Process For Making Same,
`and Products Containing Same, Including Self-Stick Repositionable Notes, Inv.
`No. 337-TA-366, Commission Op. at 24, USITC Pub. No. 2949 (January 1996).
`
`3 d
`
`
`
`presented in their petition for review, and they also are contrary to U.S. patent law.
`
`9
`
`See, e.g. Respondents’ Petition at 127.
`
`A. General Exclusion Order
`
`Respondents contend that Ford did not offer any evidence that a general
`
`exclusion order is appropriate, asserting “Nor did Ford present anything more than
`
`scant or anecdotal evidence of any ‘pattern of violation.’” Respondents’ Brief at 5.
`
`As the Judge made clear in the ID, numerous sources of infringing automotive
`
`parts exists. ID at 182-187. Moreover, in OUII’s view, anyone who views the
`
`promotional DVD prepared by the Taiwanese automobile parts manufacturers
`
`association (CX- 114 (DVD of Taiwan Replacement Part Industry, Bates: FORD
`
`26875)) would conclude that a general exclusion order is appropriate in this
`
`investigation.
`
`The DVD touts the ability of a large number of Taiwanese manufacturers to
`
`quickly, accurately, and inexpensively produce clones of virtually any component
`
`of a motor vehicle upon demand. The information provided by the DVD is
`
`consistent with the evidence relied upon by the Judge and confirms the
`
`appropriateness of his recommendiation that the Commission issue a general
`
`exclusion order.
`
`
`
`B.
`
`The Public Interest
`
`10
`
`Respondents contend that any remedy would be against the public interest. 4
`
`In making this assertion, Respondents rely upon the alleged absence of non-
`
`infringing replacement parts and a recommendation to change the law of the
`
`European Economic Community by eliminating protection of the design of
`
`component parts of motor vehicles. Respondents’ Brief at 9-11, 14-15. OUII
`
`submits that each of Respondents’ arguments should be dismissed.
`
`Non-infringing replacement parts (so-called “custom parts”) for the 2004 F-
`
`150, including many produced by third parties, for each of the parts at issue,
`
`(except the fender) are commercially available. See, e.g., Motion Docket No.
`5
`
`557-15 (Ford Memorandum in support at 10-11, 14, n.4, 15-16, 17-18, 20, 22, 24,
`
`n.6; Exh. 5, ¶¶ 10, 12; Exhs. A-5A - 5B; A-5E; A-5G - A-5H; A-5J; A-9A - A-
`
`9G). Therefore, Respondents’ contentions based on the alleged absence of non-
`
`infringing parts are not supported by the record.
`
`Respondents also contend that the patents at issue are weak because of lax
`xamination of design patents by the PTO. Respondents’ Brief at 12.
`Respondents further contend that, if Ford is afforded a remedy, every automobile
`manufacturer would seek to obtain design patents on every external component,
`which would lead to demise of the replacement part aftermarket. Id. OUII
`believes that Respondents’ concerns related to alleged “lax” examination should
`be directed to the Patent and Trademark Office, and not to the Commission.
`
`4 e
`
`The ID correctly determined that the ‘912 patent (fender) was anticipated
`ased on public use. ID at 50.
`
`5 b
`
`
`
`11
`
`With respect to Respondents’ contentions based on an alleged price
`
`differential, to the extent that consumers would have to pay more to replace a part
`
`because they would have to purchase a part from Ford or a so-called custom part,
`
`that is a function of U.S. patent law. The current state of the law allows entities,
`
`such as Ford, to patent individual component parts of consumer products such as
`
`trucks and automobiles. Restricting the scope of a patentee’s protection is a matter
`
`for Congress, not the Commission. 6
`
`
`
`In OUII’s view, higher prices for components of the 2004 model Ford F-
`
`150 trucks do not give rise to the public interest considerations present in any of
`
`the investigations cited by Respondents at pages 8-9, and 13 of their Brief.
`
`Therefore, the Commission should reject Respondents’ public interest arguments.
`
`IV.
`
`REPLY TO THIRD PARTIES
`
`
`
`The Third Parties contend that issuance of any remedy would be against the
`
`public interest. Their arguments are essentially the same as those made by the
`
`Respondents - - elimination of competition by the infringing parts would increase
`
`consumer costs, and, if the Commission issues a remedy, all of the other motor
`
`In this regard, Respondents rely upon an opinion of the Committee on
`conomic and Monetary Affairs for the Committee on Legal Affairs, which
`recommended that the European Parliament cease providing design protection for
`automotive “‘must-match’ exterior spare parts.’” Respondents’ Brief at 14-15.
`OUII does not know whether the European parliament has followed the
`Committee’s recommendation.
`
`6 E
`
`
`
`12
`
`vehicle manufacturers would follow Ford’s lead and seek to obtain design patents
`
`covering external components of motor vehicles. Third Parties Brief at 1-11. The
`
`Third Parties also assert that many states have encouraged the use of non-OEM
`
`replacement components. Id. at 12-13. As discussed above in response to
`
`Respondents’ essentially identical argument, supra at 10, restricting a patentee’s
`
`rights of patent protection is a function for Congress, not the Commission.
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For all of the above reasons, OUII is of the view that the Commission
`
`should enter a general exclusion order in this investigation. OUII is of the view
`
`
`
`13
`
`that no cease and desist orders should be issued. Finally, OUII is of the view that a
`
`bond of 100% of entered value should be set during the Presidential review period.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`__S/ Juan Cockburn_______________________
`Lynn I. Levine, Director
`Thomas S. Fusco, Supervisory Attorney
`Juan Cockburn, Investigative Attorney
`
`OFFICE OF UNFAIR IMPORT
` INVESTIGATIONS
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E Street, S.W., Suite 401
`Washington, D.C. 20436
`(202) 205-2572
`(202) 205-2158 (Facsimile)
`
`April 6, 2007
`
`
`
`ATTACHMENT A
`
`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`Washington, D.C.
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN AUTOMOTIVE PARTS
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-557
`
`GENERAL EXCLUSION ORDER
`[PROPOSED]
`
`The Commission has determined that there is a violation of section 337 of
`
`the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1337 the unlawful importation and sale of
`
`certain automotive parts that infringe the following design patents:
`
`
`
`1. D496,890 (“the ‘890 patent”) covering a vehicle grille;
`
`2. D493,552 (“the ‘552 patent’) covering a vehicle head lamp;
`
`3. D503,135 (“the ‘135 patent”) covering a bumper lower valance;
`
`4. D497,579 (“the ‘579 patent”) covering a bumper lower valance;
`
`5 D496,615 (“the ‘615 patent”) covering a vehicle side view mirror;
`
`6. D502,561 (‘the ‘561 patent’) covering a vehicle tail lamp; and
`
`7. D492,044 (“the ‘044 patent”) covering a vehicle tail lamp.
`
`Having reviewed the record in this investigation, including the written
`
`submissions of the parties, the Commission has made its determination on the
`
`issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding. The Commission has
`
`
`
`2
`
`determined that a general exclusion from entry for consumption is necessary to
`
`prevent circumvention of an exclusion order limited to products of named persons
`
`and because there is a pattern of violation of section 337. Accordingly, the
`
`Commission has determined to issue a general exclusion order prohibiting the
`
`unlicensed importation of infringing automotive parts.
`
`The Commission has further determined that the public interest factors
`
`enumerated in 19 U.S.C. § 1337(d) do not preclude issuance of the general
`
`exclusion order, and that the bond during the Presidential review period shall be
`
`in the amount of 100 percent of the entered value of the articles in question.
`
`Accordingly, the Commission hereby ORDERS that:
`
`1. Motor vehicle grilles covered the ‘890 patent are excluded from entry
`
`into the United States for consumption, entry for consumption from a foreign
`
`trade zone, or withdrawal from a warehouse for consumption, for the remaining
`
`term of the patent, except under license of the patent owner or as provided by law.
`
`2. Vehicle head lamps covered the ‘552 patent are excluded from entry
`
`into the United States for consumption, entry for consumption from a foreign
`
`trade zone, or withdrawal from a warehouse for consumption, for the remaining
`
`term of the patent, except under license of the patent owner or as provided by law.
`
`3. Lower bumper valances covered the ‘135 patent are excluded from
`
`entry into the United States for consumption, entry for consumption from a
`
`foreign trade zone, or withdrawal from a warehouse for consumption, for the
`
`
`
`3
`
`remaining term of the patent, except under license of the patent owner or as
`
`provided by law.
`
`4. Lower bumper valances covered the ‘579 patent are excluded from
`
`entry into the United States for consumption, entry for consumption from a
`
`foreign trade zone, or withdrawal from a warehouse for consumption, for the
`
`remaining term of the patent, except under license of the patent owner or as
`
`provided by law.
`
`5. Vehicle side view mirrors covered the ‘615 patent are excluded from
`
`entry into the United States for consumption, entry for consumption from a
`
`foreign trade zone, or withdrawal from a warehouse for consumption, for the
`
`remaining term of the patent, except under license of the patent owner or as
`
`provided by law.
`
`6. Vehicle tail lamps covered the ‘561 patent are excluded from entry into
`
`the United States for consumption, entry for consumption from a foreign trade
`
`zone, or withdrawal from a warehouse for consumption, for the remaining term of
`
`the patent, except under license of the patent owner or as provided by law.
`
`7. Vehicle tail lamps covered the ‘044 patent are excluded from entry into
`
`the United States for consumption, entry for consumption from a foreign trade
`
`zone, or withdrawal from a warehouse for consumption, for the remaining term of
`
`the patent, except under license of the patent owner or as provided by law.
`
`
`
`4
`
`8. Notwithstanding paragraphs 1 through 7 of this Order, the aforesaid
`
`automotive parts are entitled to entry into the United States for consumption, entry
`
`for consumption from a foreign trade zone, or withdrawal from a warehouse for
`
`consumption, under bond in the amount of 100 percent of entered value pursuant
`
`to subsection (j) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1337(j)), from the day after this Order is received by the United States Trade
`
`Representative as delegated by the President, 70 Fed. Reg. 43251 (July 21, 2005),
`
`until such time as the United States Trade Representative notifies the Commission
`
`that this Order is approved or disapproved but, in any event, not later than 60 days
`
`after the date of receipt of this Order.
`
`9. At the discretion of U.S. Customs and Border Protection ("CBP") and
`
`pursuant to procedures it establishes, persons seeking to import automotive parts
`
`that are potentially subject to this Order may be required to certify that they are
`
`familiar with the terms of this Order, that they have made appropriate inquiry, and
`
`thereupon state that, to the best of their knowledge and belief, the products being
`
`imported are not excluded from entry under paragraphs 1 through 7 of this Order.
`
`At its discretion, Customs may require persons who have provided the
`
`certification described in this paragraph to furnish such records or analyses as are
`
`necessary to substantiate the certification.
`
`10. In accordance with 19 U.S.C. § 1337(l), the provisions of this Order
`
`shall not apply to automotive parts that are imported by and for the use of the
`
`
`
`5
`
`United States, or imported for, and to be used for, the United States with the
`
`authorization or consent of the Government.
`
`11. The Commission may modify this Order in accordance with the
`
`procedures described in section 210.76 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and
`
`Procedure (19 C.F.R. § 210.76).
`
`12. The Secretary shall serve copies of this Order upon each party of
`
`record in this investigation and upon the Department of Health and Human
`
`Services, the Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission, and the
`
`Bureau of Customs and Border Protection.
`
`13. Notice of this Order shall be published in the Federal Register.
`
`By Order of the Commission.
`
`
`Marilyn R. Abbott
`Secretary
`
`Issued:
`
`
`
`Certain Automotive Parts
`
` Inv. No. 337-TA-557
`
` PUBLIC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I, Juan Cockburn, hereby certify that on April 6, 2007, copes of the foregoing REPLY BRIEF OF
`THE OFFICE OF UNFAIR IMPORT INVESTIGATIONS ON REMEDY, THE PUBLIC
`INTEREST, AND BONDING were served by hand upon Administrative Law Judge Paul J.
`Luckern (three copies) and upon the following parties by electronic and regular mail.
`
`
`For Complainant Ford Global Technologies, LLC
`Ernie L. Brooks, Esq.
`V. James Adduci, II, Esq.
`Frank A. Angileri, Esq.
`Michael L. Doane, Esq.
`Sangeeta G. Shah, Esq.
`Rodney R. Sweetland III, Esq.
`ADDUCI, MASTRIANI
`Myron J. Lloyd, Esq.
` & SCHAUMBERG
`Ann Marie Stinnett, Esq.
`1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
`BROOKS & KUSHMAN P.C.
`Washington, DC 20036
`1000 Town Center
`(202) 467-6300 (Telephone)
`Twenty-Second Floor,
`(202) 466-2006 (Facsimile)
`Southfield, Michigan 48075
`(248) 358-4400 (Telephone)
`(248) 358-3351 (Facsimile)
`
`For Respondents Keystone Automotive Industries, Inc. And U.S. Autoparts Network, Inc.,
`Gordon Auto Body Parts Co., Ltd., Y.C.C. Parts Manufacturing Co., Ltd. and TYC Brother
`Industrial Co., Ltd.
`
`Basil J. Lewris, Esq.
`Robert D. Litowitz, Esq. (202) 408-4048
`Smith R. Brittingham IV, Esq. (202) 408-4158
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW
` & DUNNER, LLP
`901 New York Avenue, NW
`Washington, D.C. 20001-4413
`(202) 408-4000 (Telephone)
`(202) 408-4400 (Facsimile)
`
`
`
`2
`
`For Third Parties Public Citizens, Inc., Center for Auto Safety, Automotive Aftermarket
`Industry Association, American Insurance Association, National Association of Mutual
`Insurance Companies, and Property Casualty Insurers Association of America
`
`Charles Ossola, Esq.
`Nancy L. Perkins, Esq.
`YongSang Kim, Esq.
`ARNOLD & PORTER LLP
`th
`555 12 St., N.W
`Washington, D.C. 20004
`202-942-5000 (Telephone)
`202-942- 5999 (Facsimile)
`
`
`
`Regular Mail & Facsimile
`
`_S/ Juan Cockburn____
`Juan Cockburn, Esq.
`Office of Unfair Import Investigations
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E Street, S.W., Suite 401
`Washington, D.C. 20436
`(202) 205-2572 (Tele.)
`(202) 205-2158 (Fax.)
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
