Home - Knowledge - Details

The US ITC has made a partial final ruling: Aiqiqi and other companies have been identified as defendants in absentia

The US ITC has made a partial final ruling: Aiqiqi and other companies have been identified as defendants in absentia

美国ITC部分终裁:爱奇迹等多家企业被认定为缺席被告

The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) made a final ruling on some e-cigarette cases, deciding to maintain the preliminary ruling on September 16, and identified Ai Miracle and other companies as absent defendants.

 

On October 8, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) issued an announcement that it had made a 337-part final ruling on certain e-cigarette products (Certain Disposable Vaporizer Devices, investigation code: 337-TA-1410).

 

The ruling is as follows:

 

The preliminary ruling (No. 17) made by the administrative judge (ALJ) on September 16, 2024 will not be reviewed, that is, Vapeonly Technology Co. Ltd. of Hong Kong, China, Nevera (HK) Ltd. of Hong Kong, China, Heaven Gifts International Ltd. of Hong Kong, China, Flumgio Technology Ltd. of Hong Kong, China, Shenzhen LC Technology Co., Ltd. of China, Shenzhen Aiersai Technology Co., Ltd. of China, iMiracle (Shenzhen) Technology Co., Ltd. of China, Wonder Ladies Ltd. of British Virgin Islands, Sailing South Ltd. of British Virgin Islands, Palma Terra Ltd. of British Virgin Islands, Marea Morada Ltd. of British Virgin Islands, VICA Trading Inc. d/b/a Vapesourcing of Tustin, CA, USA, Social Brands, LLC of Dallas, USA TX, Flawless Vape Wholesale & Distribution Inc. of Anaheim, CA, USA, Flawless Vape Shop Inc. of Anaheim, CA, Canada, LCF Labs, Inc. of Canada are the absent defendants.

 

On September 3, 2024, the ALJ issued an order requiring the absent respondent to respond by September 13, otherwise it will be ruled in absentia. On September 16, the ALJ formally ruled that the absent respondent was absent in accordance with relevant regulations, and no respondent or other relevant party applied for review of this ruling. The committee decided not to review the ruling, and the absent respondent was ultimately found to be absent.

Send Inquiry

You Might Also Like