H354124

H354124 February 20, 2026 OT:RR:BSTC:EOE H354124 ACC / RR CATEGORY: 19 U.S.C. § 1337; Unfair Competition Mr. Bryan Harrison Troutman Pepper Locke LLP 600 Peachtree Street, N.E. Suite 3000 Atlanta, GA 30308 VIA EMAIL: bryan.harrison@troutman.com RE: Ruling Request; U.S. International Trade Commission; Limited Exclusion Order; Investigation No. 337-TA-1415; Certain Pre-Stretched Synthetic Braiding Hair and Packaging Therefor Dear Mr. Harrison: Pursuant to 19 C.F.R. Part 177, the Exclusion Order Enforcement Branch (“EOE Branch”), Regulations and Rulings, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) issues this ruling letter, based on a request from A-Hair Import Inc. (“A-Hair”) dated October 9, 2025 (“Ruling Request”), holding that the articles at issue, as described below, are subject to the limited exclusion order (“LEO” or “1415 LEO”) that the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC” or “Commission”) issued as a result of Investigation No. 337-TA-1415 (“the 1415 investigation”) under Section 337 of the Tariff of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1337 (“Section 337”). We further note that determinations of the Commission resulting from the underlying investigation or a related proceeding under 19 C.F.R. Part 210 are binding authority on CBP and, in the case of conflict, will by operation of law modify or revoke any contrary CBP ruling or decision pertaining to Section 337 exclusion orders. This ruling letter is the result of a request for an administrative ruling under 19 C.F.R. Part 177 that was conducted on an inter partes basis. The proceeding involved the two parties with a direct and demonstrable interest in the question presented by the Ruling Request: (1) your client, A-Hair, the ruling requester and respondent in the 1415 investigation; and (2) JBS Hair, Inc. (“JBS Hair”), the patent owner and complainant in the 1415 investigation. See, e.g., 19 C.F.R. § 177.1(c). The parties were asked to identify in their submissions confidential information, including information subject to the administrative protective order in the underlying investigation, with [[red brackets]]. See 19 C.F.R. §§ 177.2, 177.8. Consistent with the above, the parties are directed 2 to identify information in this ruling that should be bracketed in red [[ ]] because it constitutes confidential information, as defined below, such that it should be redacted from the public version of this ruling that will be published in accordance with 19 C.F.R. § 177.10. The parties are to contact the EOE Branch within ten (10) business days of the date of this ruling letter to identify such information with brackets. See, e.g., 19 C.F.R. § 177.8(a)(3). Please note that disclosure of information related to administrative rulings under 19 C.F.R. Part 177 is governed by, for example, 6 C.F.R. Part 5, 31 C.F.R. Part 1, 19 C.F.R. Part 103, and 19 C.F.R. § 177.8(a)(3). See, e.g., 19 C.F.R. § 177.10(a). In addition, CBP is guided by the laws relating to confidentiality and disclosure, such as the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), as amended (5 U.S.C. § 552), the Trade Secrets Act (18 U.S.C. § 1905), and the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (5 U.S.C. § 552a). A request for confidential treatment of information submitted in connection with a ruling requested under 19 C.F.R. Part 177 faces a strong presumption in favor of disclosure. See, e.g., 19 C.F.R. § 177.8(a)(3). The person seeking this treatment must overcome that presumption with a request that is appropriately tailored and supported by evidence establishing that: the information in question is customarily kept private or closely-held and either that the government provided an express or implied assurance of confidentiality when the information was shared with the government or there were no express or implied indications at the time the information was submitted that the government would publicly disclose the information. See Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, 139 S. Ct. 2356, 2366 (2019) (concluding that “[a]t least where commercial or financial information is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner and provided to the government under an assurance of privacy, the information is ‘confidential’ within the meaning of exemption 4.”); see also U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Information Policy (OIP): Step-by-Step Guide for Determining if Commercial or Financial Information Obtained from a Person is Confidential Under Exemption 4 of the FOIA (updated 10/7/2019); see also OIP Guidance: Exemption 4 after the Supreme Court’s Ruling in Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media (updated 10/4/2019). I. BACKGROUND A. ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1415 1. Procedural History At The ITC The Commission instituted Investigation No. 337 TA-1415 on September 4, 2024, based on a complaint, as supplemented (“complaint”), that was filed by JBS Hair of Atlanta, Georgia. Certain Pre-Stretched Synthetic Braiding Hair and Packaging Therefor, Inv. 337-TA-1415, EDIS Doc. ID 831423, Notice of Institution of Investigation (Sept. 4, 2024) at 1. The complaint alleged a violation of Section 337 by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,786,026 (the ‘026 Patent), 10,945,478 (the ‘478 Patent), and 10,980,301 (the ‘301 Patent). Id. at 3-4. The notice of investigation, as amended, named the following respondents: (1) Vivace, Inc. of Levittown, New York; A-Hair Import Inc. of Norcross, Georgia (“A-Hair”); Crown Pacific Group Inc. of Doraville, Georgia (“Crown Pacific”); Loc N Products, LLC of Atlanta, Georgia (“Loc N”); and Zugoo Import Inc. of Norcross, Georgia (“Zugoo”) (collectively, “Defaulting Respondents”); (2) Chois International, Inc. of Norcross, GA (“Chois”); I & I Hair Corp. of Dallas, TX (“I & I Hair”); Kum Kang Trading USA, Inc. d/b/a BNGHAIR of Paramount, CA (“Kum 3 Kang”); Mink Hair, Ltd. d/b/a Sensual® Collection of Wayne, NJ (“Mink Hair”); Oradell International Corp. d/b/a MOTOWN TRESS of Manalapan, NJ (“Oradell”); and Twin Peak International, Inc. d/b/a Dejavu Hair of Atlanta, GA (“Twin Peak”) (collectively, “Consent Order Respondents”); and (3) Sun Taiyang Co., Ltd. d/b/a Outre® of Moonachie, NJ; Beauty Elements Corporation d/b/a Bijouz® of Miami Gardens, FL; Hair Zone, Inc. d/b/a Sensationnel® of Moonachie, NJ; Beauty Essence, Inc. d/b/a Supreme™ Hair US of Moonachie, NJ; SLI Production Corp. d/b/a It’s a Wig! of Moonachie, NJ; Royal Imex, Inc. d/b/a Zury® Hollywood of Santa Fe Springs, CA; GS Imports, Inc. d/b/a Golden State Imports, Inc. of Paramount, CA; Eve Hair, Inc. of Lakewood, CA; Midway International, Inc. d/b/a BOBBI BOSS of Cerritos, CA; Mayde Beauty Inc. of Port Washington, NY; Hair Plus Trading Co., Inc. d/b/a Femi Collection of Suwanee, GA; Optimum Solution Group LLC d/b/a Oh Yes Hair of Duluth, GA; Chade Fashions, Inc. of Niles, IL; Mane Concept Inc. of Moonachie, NJ; Beauty Plus Trading Co., Inc. d/b/a Janet Collection™ of Moonachie, NJ; Model Model Hair Fashion, Inc. of Port Washington, NY; New Jigu Trading Corp. d/b/a Harlem 125® of Port Washington, NY; Shake N Go Fashion, Inc. of Port Washington, NY; and Amekor Industries, Inc. d/b/a Vivica A. Fox® Hair Collection of Conshohocken, PA (collectively, “Remaining Respondents”). Id.; see also 89 FR 97068-69 (Dec. 6, 2024). Id. at 2-4 (as amended in Initial Determination Granting Complainant’s Motion to Amend the Complaint and Notice of Investigation (November 4, 2024), unrev’d by Commission, December 2, 2024). The Commission’s Office of Unfair Import Investigations (“OUII”) was named a party to the investigation. Id. at 4. Through various consent orders, the Commission terminated the investigation with respect to the Consent Order Respondents. Certain Pre-Stretched Synthetic Braiding Hair and Packaging Therefor, Inv. 337-TA-1415, EDIS Doc. Id. 863271, Notice of Commission Final Determination to Issue a Limited Exclusion Order and Cease and Desist Orders; Termination of the Investigation (Sept. 29, 2025) at 2. Additionally, on 

A. Whether the Redesigned Articles Were “Accused Products” in the 1415 Investigation 1 Although claim construction is a question of law, the consideration of extrinsic evidence may constitute a subsidiary finding of fact. Teva, 135 S. Ct. at 841, 190 L. Ed. 2d at 733. 
 14 As a preliminary matter, JBS Hair alleges that "A-Hair is barred from challenging the Commission’s LEO with respect to the alleged ‘New A-Hair Product,’ because the alleged ‘New A-Hair product’ was at issue in the 1415 Investigation and A-Hair Defaulted.” JBS Hair Response at 1. Specifically, JBS Hair alleges that “[o]n December 26, 2024, A-Hair served Supplemental Responses to Interrogatory No. 5, [[ ]]. Id. at 2. Moreover, JBS Hair contends that “A-Hair’s alleged New A-Hair Product is identical to the redesigned product it deliberately placed at issue in the 1415 Investigation ('A-Hair 1415 Redesign').” Id. at 3. To this end, JBS in its Response provides a side-by-side comparison of images of the New A-Hair Product and redesigned product, their SKUs, and manufacturer drawings. Id. at 3-4. Lastly, JBS Hair contends that “A-Hair [[ ]].” JBS Hair then alleges that “[o]n January 14, 2025, following [an] adverse Claim Construction Order, A-Hair filed a Default Notice (EDIS Doc ID 841078) and on February 4, 2025, the ALJ issued a [Corrected] Initial Determination finding Respondent A-Hair in default, noting that that ‘A-Hair ... waived the right ... to contest the allegations at issue in the investigation. (EDIS Doc ID 842597).” Id. at 4 (see also JBS Hair Sur Reply at 8). JBS then goes on to state that “[i]n short, A-Hair injected the New A-Hair Product into the 1415 Investigation, argued claim construction positions relevant to New A-Hair Product, and then intentionally defaulted after an unfavorable claim construction ruling. Thus A-Hair has waived its right to reassert the same, previously rejected, arguments here. As the Commission noted ‘A-Hair itself recognizes that as a defaulting respondent,