• ALJ Charneski Issues Public Version of Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bonding in Certain Cast Steel Railway Wheels (337-TA-655)
  • March 19, 2010 | Author: Eric W. Schweibenz
  • Law Firm: Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, L.L.P. - Alexandria Office
  • On March 9, 2010, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued the public version of the Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bonding (“RD”) (dated October 29, 2009) in Certain Cast Steel Railway Wheels, Certain Processes For Manufacturing Or Relating To Same And Certain Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-655).

    By way of background, the Complainant in this investigation is Amsted Industries Inc. (“Amsted”).  The Respondents are Tianrui Group Co. Ltd, Tianrui Group Foundry Co. Ltd, Standard Car Truck Company, Inc., and Barber Tianrui Railway Supply (collectively, “Respondents”).  On October 16, 2009, ALJ Charneski issued an Initial Determination (“ID”) finding that a violation of Section 337 had occurred in the importation into the U.S., the sale for importation, and the sale within the U.S. after importation of certain cast steel railway wheels or products containing the same by reason of trade secret misappropriation.  See our October 19, 2009 and December 4, 2009 posts for more details.  On December 17, 2009, the Commission issued a notice determining not to review the ID.  See our December 18, 2009 post for more details.  On February 16, 2010, the Commission issued a notice of Issuance Of A Limited Exclusion Order and Cease and Desist Order; Termination of the Investigation.  See our February 19, 2010 post for more details.

    sIn the RD, ALJ Charneski recommended the issuance of a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders with respect to any respondent found to be in violation of Section 337.  Regarding Amsted’s request for the issuance of a general exclusion order, ALJ Charneski determined that Amsted waived the opportunity to obtain such an order since Respondents and the Commission Investigative Staff “were not given adequate prior notice that they would need to address the issues relating to a general exclusion order.”  ALJ Charneski further determined that “even if this argument were timely raised, the evidence does not support the issuance of a general exclusion order.”  With respect to the duration of the limited exclusion order, ALJ Charneski found that “the record supports a duration of 10 years for any limited exclusion order.”  Regarding the amount of bond to be required of Respondents during the Presidential review period, the exact amount recommended by ALJ Charneski was redacted from the public version.