2025-06335NoticeWallet

Eye Cosmetics from Taiwan, Korea Blocked by US Trade Commission

Published Date: 4/14/2025

Notice

Summary

The U.S. International Trade Commission has blocked certain eye cosmetics and their packaging from entering the U.S. if they come from four companies in Taiwan, South Korea, Israel, and Hungary. This action protects Amarte USA Holdings, a California company, from unfair competition and trademark infringement. The investigation is now over, and these products can no longer be imported, helping U.S. businesses stay strong.

Analyzed Economic Effects

4 provisions identified: 2 benefits, 2 costs, 0 mixed.

100% Bond Required During Presidential Review

The Commission set the bond during the period of Presidential review at 100 percent of the entered value of the imported articles subject to the limited exclusion order. This requires importers to post a bond equal to the full declared value of the blocked shipments while the Presidential review is pending.

Imports Blocked from Four Foreign Suppliers

The U.S. International Trade Commission issued a limited exclusion order on April 9, 2025 that bars the unlicensed entry into the United States of certain eye cosmetics and their packaging when imported by or on behalf of these defaulting respondents: Kaibeauty (Taipei City, Taiwan); I'll Global Co., Ltd. (Seoul, South Korea); Hikari Laboratories, Ltd. (Bnei Atarot, Israel); and Kelz Beauty (Budapest, Hungary). The order applies to products that the Commission found infringe U.S. Trademark Registration No. 4,328,655 or constitute unfair competition under 15 U.S.C. 1125(a).

U.S. Company Amarte USA Protected

Amarte USA Holdings, Inc. of Redding, California obtained protection when the Commission issued the limited exclusion order on April 9, 2025 to bar unlicensed imports of certain eye cosmetics and packaging that infringe its U.S. Trademark Registration No. 4,328,655. The Commission found the unlicensed imports threatened to destroy or substantially injure a U.S. industry and determined the public interest did not preclude the LEO.

No Cease-and-Desist Orders Against Respondents

The Commission determined not to issue cease-and-desist orders (CDOs) against the defaulting respondents because there was a lack of evidence that those respondents maintain commercially significant inventories or significant commercial operations in the United States. Chair Karpel disagreed and supported issuing CDOs in addition to the LEO.

Personalized for You

How does this regulation affect your finances?

Personalize government policy and PRIA will tell you what this federal register document means for your household, plus every other regulation we track. PRIA reads each provision against your financial profile to show you exactly what matters to your wallet.

Key Dates

Effective Date
Published Date
4/9/2025
4/14/2025

Department and Agencies

Department
Independent Agency
Agency
International Trade Commission
Source: View HTML

Related Federal Register Documents

Previous / Next Documents

Back to Federal Register