PUBLIC VERSION
`
`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`
`Washington, D.C.
`
`
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN CRAFTING MACHINES AND
`
`COMPONENTS THEREOF
`
`
`
`INV. NO. 337-TA-1426
`
`ORDERNO.7:
`
`REGARDING UNOPPOSED MOTION TO AMEND THE
`
`COMPLAINT AND NOTICE OF INVESTIGATION
`
`(January 27, 2025)
`
`On January 16, 2025, complainant Cricut, Inc. (“Cricut” or “complainant”) moved “to
`
`Amend the Complaint and Notice of Investigation to: (1) add anew HTVRONT Respondent, HK
`
`Sijiu International Share Co., Ltd. (HK Siu’), and (2) terminate a current HTVRONT
`
`Respondent, Hunan Sijiu Electronic Technology Co., Ltd. ((HSET’). Mot. No. 1426-002 at 1. No
`
`party opposes the requested relief. Jd.
`
`Commission Rule 210.14(b) governs amending the complaint and notice of investigation
`
`after an investigation has been instituted. It states, inferalia:
`
`the complaint or notice of
`After an investigation has been instituted,
`investigation may be amendedonly by leave of the Commission for good cause
`shown and upon such conditions as are necessary to avoid prejudicing the
`public interest and the rights of the parties to the vestigation. A motion for
`amendment must be madeto the presiding administrative law judge. A motion
`to amend the complaint and notice of investigation to name an additional
`respondentafter institution shall be served on the proposed respondent.
`
`19 C_F.R. § 210.14(b)(1).
`
`After reviewing Cricut’s motion, I have determined that additional information may be
`
`beneficial in analyzing Cricut’s request.
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`Cricut states that the “HTVRONTRespondents agreed to the addition of HK Sijiu.” Mot.
`
`No. 1426-002 at 3.
`
`It is not clear, however, whether HK Sijiu itself agrees to be added to the
`
`investigation. Noris it clear whether HK Sijiu has been served with a copy of the motion to amend
`
`as required by Commission Rule 210.14(b)(1) (“A motion to amend the complaint and notice of
`
`investigation to name an additional respondentafter institution shall be served on the proposed
`
`respondent.”). Finally, although Cricut’s motion seeks to add “HK Sijiu International Share Co.,
`
`Ltd.” as a party, Motion No. 1426-002 at 1, the proposed amended complaint appears to also add
`
`a party called “HK International Share Co.” Motion No. 1426-002, Ex. 3 at 1.
`
`To clarify the record, Cricut shall file a supplementto its motion by February 3, 2025, with
`
`the following information:
`
`e A clarification regarding the name of the party Cricut is seeking to add to the
`
`investigation.
`
`e An explanation regarding whether Cricut is asserting that HK Sijiuhas agreed to
`
`be addedto this investigation along with any support for that assertion.
`
`e An identification of any evidence indicating that HK Sijiu has been served a copy
`
`of the motion to amend andthe date of such service. Alternatively, an explanation
`
`of why such evidenceis not necessary to resolve Cricut’s motion.
`
`The Office of Unfair Import Investigations and the respondents to this investigation may
`
`file a response to Cricut’s supplemental filing by February 10, 2025. Motion No. 1426-002 will
`
`be held in abeyance until the supplementalbriefing 1s received.
`
`Within seven days of the date of this document, the parties shall jointly submit a single
`
`proposed public version of this document with any proposed redactions indicated in red. If the
`
`parties submit excessive redactions, they may be required to provide declarations from individuals
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`with personal knowledge, justifying each proposed redaction and specifically explaining why the
`
`information sought to be redacted meets the definition for confidential business information set
`
`forth in 19 C.F.R. § 201.6(a). To the extent possible, the proposed redactions should be made
`
`electronically in a single PDFfile with the proposed redactions submitted as “marked”but not yet
`
`“applied.” The proposed redactions should be submitted via email to Cheney1426@usitc.gov and
`
`not filed on EDIS.
`
`SO ORDERED.
`
`
`
`Clark S. Cheney
`Chief Administrative Law Judge
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.

We are unable to display this document.

PTO Denying Access

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket