U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review the presiding administrative law judge's (“ALJ”) initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 20) granting a motion to amend the complaint and notice of investigation to add new respondents, and to extend the target date for completion of the above-captioned investigation by four months.
Sidney A. Rosenzweig, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708–2532. Copies of non-confidential 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 Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at
The Commission instituted this investigation on September 23, 2014, based on a complaint filed by RevoLaze, LLC and TechnoLines, LLC, both of Westlake, Ohio (collectively, “RevoLaze”). 79
On January 7, 2015, RevoLaze filed an unopposed motion to amend the complaint and notice of investigation. In particular, RevoLaze sought to add as proposed respondents certain third-party suppliers of the existing respondents. The proposed new respondents are: Crystal Apparel Ltd. of Kowloon, Hong Kong; Denim Service S.p.A. of Mason Vincento, Italy; Denimatrix S.A. of Guatemala City, Guatemala; Eroglu Giyin San Tic AS of Avcilar-Istanbul, Turkey; Martelli Lavorazioni Tessili S.p.A. of Toscanella, Italy; Modelos Yasiro (Tepeji del Rio) SA DE CV of Tepeji del Rio, Mexico; Private Label Tehuacan, of Puebla, Mexico; Ropa Siete Leguas, Inc. of El Paso, Texas; and Ropa Siete Leguas S.A. de C.V. of Durango, Mexico (“RSL Durango”). RevoLaze also argued that it was necessary to extend the target date to avoid prejudicing the proposed respondents.
On January 20, 2015, the respondents and Commission investigative attorney filed separate responses indicating that they do not oppose RevoLaze's motion, provided that the target date is also extended.
On January 23, 2015, the ALJ issued the subject ID granting the motion. Order No. 20. (The ID, like RevoLaze's motion, includes two addresses for RSL Durango.
No petitions for review of the ID were filed. The Commission has determined not to review the 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 Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210). By order of the Commission.