Notice2026-01816
Certain Chocolate Milk Powder and Packaging Thereof; Notice of a Commission Determination Not To Review an Initial Determination Granting a Motion for Summary Determination of Violation of the General Exclusion Order and Cease and Desist Orders; Request for Briefing on the Recommended Remedy for Violation of the Cease and Desist Orders
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
January 30, 2026
Issuing agencies
International Trade Commission
Abstract
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission ("Commission") has determined not to review an enforcement initial determination ("EID") (Order No. 9) of the presiding administrative law judge ("ALJ") granting a motion for summary determination of violation of the General Exclusion Order ("GEO") and Cease and Desist Orders ("CDOs"). The Commission requests written submissions from the parties, interested government agencies, and other interested persons on the recommended remedy for violation of the CDOs, under the schedule set forth below.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 20 (Friday, January 30, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 20 (Friday, January 30, 2026)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4108-4110]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-01816]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-1232 (Enforcement II)]
Certain Chocolate Milk Powder and Packaging Thereof; Notice of a
Commission Determination Not To Review an Initial Determination
Granting a Motion for Summary Determination of Violation of the General
Exclusion Order and Cease and Desist Orders; Request for Briefing on
the Recommended Remedy for Violation of the Cease and Desist Orders
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade
Commission (``Commission'') has determined not to review an enforcement
initial determination (``EID'') (Order No. 9) of the presiding
administrative law judge (``ALJ'') granting a motion for summary
determination of violation of the General Exclusion Order (``GEO'') and
Cease and Desist Orders (``CDOs''). The Commission requests written
submissions from the parties, interested government agencies, and other
interested persons on the recommended remedy for violation of the CDOs,
under the schedule set forth below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Panyin Hughes, Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3042. Copies of non-
confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation may
be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at <a href="https://edis.usitc.gov">https://edis.usitc.gov</a>. For help accessing EDIS, please email
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a7e2e3eef494efc2cbd7e7d2d4ced3c489c0c8d1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1f5a5b564c2c577a736f5f6a6c766b7c31787069">[email protected]</span></a>. General information concerning the Commission may
also be obtained by accessing its internet server at <a href="https://www.usitc.gov">https://www.usitc.gov</a>. Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on
this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal
on (202) 205-1810.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission instituted the original
investigation on December 1, 2020, based on a complaint filed on behalf
of Meenaxi Enterprise Inc. (``Meenaxi'') of Edison, New Jersey. 85 FR
77237-38 (Dec. 1, 2020). The complaint alleged violations of section
337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, based upon the
importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the
sale within the United States after importation of certain chocolate
milk powder and packaging thereof by reason of infringement of U.S.
Trademark Registration No. 4,206,026 (``the '026 mark''). The
Commission's notice of investigation named several respondents,
including but not limited to Bharat Bazar Inc. of Union City,
California (``Bharat Bazaar''); Coconut Hill Inc. d/b/a Coconut Hill of
Sunnyvale, California (``Coconut Hill''); Organic Food d/b/a Namaste
Plaza Indian Super Market (``Organic Food'') of Fremont, California;
and New India Bazar Inc. d/b/a New India Bazar of San Jose, California
(``New India''). Id. at 77237. The Office of Unfair Import
Investigations (``OUII'') was also a party to the investigation. Id.
In the underlying investigation, all respondents were found in
default. See Order No. 6 (Feb. 10, 2021), unreviewed by Comm'n Notice
(Mar. 2, 2021); Order No. 23 (May 19, 2022), unreviewed by Comm'n
Notice (Jun. 14, 2022). On May 24, 2021, Meenaxi moved for summary
determination of violation of section 337 by the respondents found in
default by Order No. 6 and requested a GEO. On December 1, 2021, the
former chief administrative law judge granted the motion as an initial
determination (``ID'') (Order No. 15), but noted discrepancies with
respect to respondent Organic Food, calling into question whether that
respondent was ever properly served with the complaint and notice of
investigation and with the CALJ's order to show cause why the
respondents should not be found in default, Order No. 5 (Jan. 13,
2021). See Order No. 15 at 1, n.1. No petitions for review of the ID
were filed. The Commission determined sua sponte to review Order No. 15
and ordered reconsideration of Order No. 6 as to Organic Food and/or
any other respondents who may not have been properly served with
documents in the underlying investigation. See Comm'n Notice at 3 (Jan.
18, 2022). The Commission remanded the investigation to an ALJ for
further proceedings. Id.
On remand, the current chief administrative law judge (``CALJ'')
issued Order No. 18, granting Meenaxi's unopposed motion for leave to
amend the complaint and notice of investigation to (i) substitute
Organic Food with proposed respondent Organic Ingredients Inc. d/b/a
Namaste Plaza Indian Super Market (``Organic Ingredients'') of San
Diego, California; (ii) correct the address of respondent New India;
(iii) correct the address of respondent Bharat Bazar; and (iv)
supplement the complaint with Exhibits
[[Page 4109]]
9-a, 9-b, and 9-c, concerning Organic Food and/or Organic Ingredients.
Order No. 18 at 1-5 (Mar. 11, 2022), unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (Apr.
12, 2022); see also 87 FR 22940-41 (Apr. 18, 2022). Meenaxi also
demonstrated that Bharat Bazar actually had been served with all of the
documents in the investigation (prior to remand) despite incorrectly
spelling Bharat Bazar's address as being on ``Niled Road'' instead of
``Niles Road.'' See Order No. 18 at 4.
The CALJ conducted remand proceedings as to Organic Ingredients and
New India to respond to the amended complaint and notice of
investigation, and then ordered them to respond to an order to show
cause why they should not be found in default. See Order No. 19 (Mar.
11, 2022); Order No. 21 at 2-3 (May 3, 2022). On May 19, 2022, the CALJ
issued an ID finding Organic Ingredients and New India in default.
Order No. 23 (May 19, 2022), unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (June 14,
2022). Accordingly, the Commission found all respondents in default
(collectively with the respondents previously found in default, the
``Defaulting Respondents'').
Subsequently, on June 15, 2022, following the remand determination
of default, Meenaxi again moved for summary determination of violation
by the Defaulting Respondents and requested a GEO. On July 6, 2022,
OUII filed a response supporting the motion.
On August 3, 2022, the CALJ issued a remand ID (``RID'') (Order No.
27), granting the second motion for summary determination and finding a
violation of section 337 with respect to the '026 mark. The RID found
that all Defaulting Respondents met the importation requirement and
that Meenaxi satisfied the domestic industry requirement. See 19 U.S.C.
1337(a)(1-3). No party petitioned for review of the ID.
On September 19, 2022, the Commission determined not to review the
RID. See 87 FR 58130-32 (Sept. 23, 2022). On November 15, 2022, the
Commission issued a final determination finding a violation, issuing a
GEO prohibiting the unlicensed importation of chocolate milk powder and
packaging thereof that infringe the '026 mark, and terminating the
investigation. See 87 FR 70864-66 (Nov. 21, 2022). The GEO prohibits
the unlicensed importation of ``chocolate milk powder in consumer-sized
container with the Bournvita label.'' Id. That same day, the Commission
issued an opinion explaining the basis for its final determination.
On November 9, 2023, the Commission determined to institute an
enforcement proceeding (``Enforcement I'') under Commission Rule 210.75
to investigate alleged violations of the GEO by four respondents: (1)
Organic Ingredients; (2) New India; (3) Bharat Bazar; and (4) Coconut
Hill (collectively the ``Enforcement Respondents''). See 88 FR 78786-87
(Nov. 16, 2023); 89 FR 15220 (Mar. 1, 2024). OUII was also named as a
party. Id.
On January 10, 2024, the presiding ALJ issued an order directing
the Enforcement Respondents to show cause why they should not be found
in default and why judgment should not be rendered against them for
failing to respond to the enforcement complaint and notice of
investigation. See Enforcement I, Order No. 6 (Jan. 10, 2024).
Enforcement I, Order No. 6, directed the Enforcement Respondents to
make any showing of good cause by no later than February 2, 2024. Id.
at 3. No party responded to Order No. 6. See Enforcement I, Order No. 8
at 1 (Feb. 13, 2024).
On March 14, 2024, the Commission determined that the four
Enforcement Respondents were in default. See Order No. 8 (Feb. 13,
2024), unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (Mar. 14, 2024). On March 15, 2024,
Meenaxi filed a motion requesting summary determination of violation of
the GEO and the issuance of CDOs against the four Enforcement
Respondents. See Enforcement I, Initial Determination (``EID-1'') at 5.
On August 16, 2024, the ALJ granted Meenaxi's motion and
recommended issuance of CDOs. See Enforcement I, Order No. 9 (Aug. 16,
2024). On November 18, 2024, the Commission issued a final
determination finding that all four Enforcement Respondents had
violated the GEO and issued CDOs against each of the four Enforcement
Respondents. 89 FR 92,722-723 (Nov. 18, 2024).
On February 24, 2025, Meenaxi filed a complaint requesting that the
Commission institute a second enforcement proceeding to investigate
alleged violations of the GEO and CDOs by the same four Enforcement
Respondents: (1) Organic Ingredients; (2) New India; (3) Bharat Bazar;
and (4) Coconut Hill Inc. See EID at 5. On March 26, 2025, the
Commission determined to institute an enforcement proceeding under
Commission Rule 210.75 to investigate alleged violations of the GEO and
CDOs by the four Enforcement Respondents. See 90 FR 14,381-382 (Apr. 1,
2025). OUII is also named as a party. Id. Meenaxi filed proof that the
notice was served on each of the four Enforcement Respondents. See July
29, 2025 Letter from Anil Gandhi to Secretary Barton, EDIS Doc. ID
857933.
On May 9, 2025, the ALJ issued an order directing the Enforcement
Respondents to show cause why they should not be found in default and
why judgment should not be rendered against them for failing to respond
to the second enforcement complaint and notice of investigation.
Enforcement II, Order No. 5 (May 9, 2025). Order No. 5 directed the
Enforcement Respondents to make any showing of good cause by no later
than June 13, 2025. Id. at 3. No party responded to Order No. 5, the
show-cause order. Meenaxi filed proof that Order No. 5 was served on
each of the four Enforcement Respondents. See May 19, 2025 Letter from
Anil Gandhi to Secretary Barton, EDIS Doc. ID 851448, 851447. On July
15, 2025, the Commission determined that the four Enforcement
Respondents were in default. Order No. 6 (June 16, 2025), unreviewed by
Comm'n Notice (July 15, 2025). Meenaxi filed proof that Order No. 6 was
served on each of the four Enforcement Respondents. See July 29, 2025
Letter from Anil Gandhi to Secretary Barton, EDIS Doc. ID 857933.
On July 10, 2025, Meenaxi filed a motion for summary determination
of violation of the GEO and CDOs by the four Enforcement Respondents
and requested issuance of civil penalties against the four Enforcement
Respondents. See EID at 6. Meenaxi argued that the Enforcement
Respondents have violated the Commission's GEO and CDOs by continuing
to import, sell for importation, advertise, market, distribute, offer
to sell, and sell the ``Bournvita'' products that infringe the '026
mark. EID at 18.
On December 15, 2025, the presiding ALJ issued the subject EID
(Order No. 9), granting Meenaxi's motion and recommending issuance of
the requested civil penalties. The ALJ concluded that the unrebutted
evidence demonstrates that the Enforcement Respondents have imported
and/or sold after importation chocolate milk powder products bearing
the ``Bournvita'' label in violation of the GEO and CDOs. No party
filed a petition seeking review of EID.
Having reviewed the record of the investigation, including the
enforcement complaint, EID, and the parties' submissions to the ALJ,
the Commission has determined not to review the ALJ's findings that the
Enforcement Respondents have violated the GEO and CDOs.
In connection with the final disposition of this enforcement
proceeding, the statute authorizes
[[Page 4110]]
issuance of civil penalties for violation of CDOs. 19 U.S.C.
1337(f)(2); see also, Certain Two-Way Glob. Satellite Commc'n Devices,
Sys. & Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-854 (Enforcement), Comm'n
Op. at 26 (July 1, 2014); Certain Ink Cartridges & Components Thereof,
Inv. No. 337-TA-565 (Enforcement), Comm'n Op. at 17 (Aug. 28, 2009).
When calculating a proportionate penalty, the Commission considers,
inter alia, the six factors set forth in Certain Erasable Programmable
Read Only Memories (``EPROMs''), Inv. No. 337-TA-276 (Enforcement),
Comm'n Op. at 23-24, 26 (July 19, 1991). Accordingly, the Commission is
interested in receiving written submissions that address the form of
remedy and the amount of civil penalties, if any, that should be
ordered.
Written Submissions: The parties to the investigation are requested
to file written submissions on the form of remedy and the amount of any
civil penalty to be imposed for the violation of the CDOs by the
defaulting four Enforcement Respondents. The parties' submissions
should cite all evidence in support of such amounts and shall address
the factors set forth in EPROMs. The parties' submissions regarding the
EPROMs public interest factor should discuss the potential effect of a
civil penalty on the public health and welfare. Parties are also
requested to provide detailed information regarding sales of infringing
products after the effective date of the CDOs relevant to calculating
the amount of civil penalties and the total number of days in violation
of the CDOs. Specifically, for each day of sale after violation of the
CDOs, please provide the following information: (1) identity of the
products sold; (2) number of products sold; and (3) value of the
products sold. The written submissions must be filed no later than
close of business on February 10, 2025. Reply submissions must be filed
no later than the close of business on February 17, 2025. No further
submissions on these issues will be permitted unless otherwise ordered
by the Commission.
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document
electronically on or before the deadlines stated above pursuant to 19
CFR 210.4(f). Submissions should refer to the investigation number
(``Inv. No. 337-TA-1232 Enforcement II'') in a prominent place on the
cover page and/or the first page. (See Handbook for Electronic Filing
Procedures, <a href="https://www.usitc.gov/documents/handbook_on_filing_procedures.pdf">https://www.usitc.gov/documents/handbook_on_filing_procedures.pdf</a>). Persons with questions regarding
filing should contact the Secretary, (202) 205-2000.
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in
confidence must request confidential treatment by marking each document
with a header indicating that the document contains confidential
information. This marking will be deemed to satisfy the request
procedure set forth in Rules 201.6(b) and 210.5(e)(2) (19 CFR 201.6(b)
& 210.5(e)(2)). Documents for which confidential treatment by the
Commission is properly sought will be treated accordingly. Any non-
party wishing to submit comments containing confidential information
must serve those comments on the parties to the investigation pursuant
to the applicable Administrative Protective Order. A redacted non-
confidential version of the document must also be filed with the
Commission and served on any parties to the investigation within two
business days of any confidential filing. All information, including
confidential business information and documents for which confidential
treatment is properly sought, submitted to the Commission for purposes
of this investigation may be disclosed to and used: (i) by the
Commission, its employees and Offices, and contract personnel (a) for
developing or maintaining the records of this or a related proceeding,
or (b) in internal investigations, audits, reviews, and evaluations
relating to the programs, personnel, and operations of the Commission
including under 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3; or (ii) by U.S. government
employees and contract personnel, solely for cybersecurity purposes.
All contract personnel will sign appropriate nondisclosure agreements.
All nonconfidential written submissions will be available for public
inspection on EDIS.
The Commission's vote on this determination took place on January
27, 2026.
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.
Issued: January 27, 2026.
Lisa Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2026-01816 Filed 1-29-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on January 30, 2026.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.