[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 41 (Wednesday, March 1, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11081-11082]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-4905]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 [email protected].

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