Duty Drawback Practice in Antidumping Proceedings, 37764-37766 [E5-3441]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
37764
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2005 / Notices
changes to its practice. All comments
responding to this notice will be a
matter of public record and will be
available for public inspection and
copying at Import Administration’s
Central Records Unit, Room B–099,
between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5
p.m. on business days. The Department
requires that comments be submitted in
written form. The Department
recommends submission of comments
in electronic form to accompany the
required paper copies. Comments filed
in electronic form should be submitted
either by e–mail to the Webmaster
below, or on CD–ROM, as comments
submitted on diskettes are likely to be
damaged by postal radiation treatment.
Comments received in electronic form
will be made available to the public in
Portable Document Format (PDF) on the
Internet at the Import Administration
website at the following address: http:/
/ia.ita.doc.gov/.
Any questions concerning file
formatting, document conversion,
access on the Internet, or other
electronic filing issues should be
addressed to Andrew Lee Beller, Import
Administration Webmaster, at (202)
482–0866, e–mail address: webmaster–
support@ita.doc.gov.
Dated: June 23, 2005.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. 05–12862 Filed 6–29–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
Exemption of Foreign Air Carriers
From Excise Taxes; Review of Finding
of Reciprocity (Bolivia), 26 U.S.C. 4221
International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce.
ACTION: Solicitation of public comments
concerning a review of the existing
exemption for aircraft registered in the
Republic of Bolivia from certain internal
revenue taxes on the purchase of
supplies in the United States for such
aircraft in connection with their
international commercial operations.
AGENCY:
Notice is hereby given that
the Department of Commerce is
conducting a review to determine,
pursuant to Section 4221 of the Internal
Revenue Code, as amended (26 U.S.C.
4221), whether the Government of
Bolivia has discontinued allowing
substantially reciprocal tax exemptions
to aircraft of U.S. registry in connection
SUMMARY:
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:26 Jun 29, 2005
Jkt 205001
with international commercial
operations similar to those exemptions
currently granted to aircraft of Bolivian
registry by the United States under the
aforementioned statute.
The above-cited statute provides
exemptions for aircraft of foreign
registry from payment of certain internal
revenue taxes on the purchase of
supplies in the United States for such
aircraft in connection with their
international commercial operations.
These exemptions apply upon a finding
by the Secretary of Commerce, or his
designee, and communicated to the
Department of the Treasury, that such
country allows, or will allow,
‘‘substantially reciprocal privileges’’ to
aircraft of U.S. registry with respect to
purchases of such supplies in that
country. If a foreign country
discontinues the allowance of such
substantially reciprocal exemption, the
exemption allowed by the United States
will not apply after the Secretary of the
Treasury is notified by the Secretary of
Commerce, or his designee, of the
discontinuance.
Interested parties are invited to
submit their views, comments and
supporting documentation in writing
concerning this matter to Mr. Douglas B.
Baker, Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Services, Room 1128, U.S. Department
of Commerce, Washington, DC, 20230.
Submissions should be sent
electronically to OSImail@ita.doc.gov.
All submissions should be received no
later than forty-five days from the date
of this notice.
Comments received, with the
exception of information marked
‘‘business confidential,’’ will be
available for public inspection between
Monday-Friday, 8:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m.
in the Trade Reference and Assistance
Center Help Desk, Suite 800M, USA
Trade Information Center, Ronald
Reagan Building, 1300 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.
Information marked ‘‘business
confidential’’ shall be protected from
disclosure to the full extent permitted
by law.
It is suggested that those desiring
additional information contact Mr.
Eugene Alford, Office of Service
Industries, Room 1124, U.S. Department
of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, or
telephone 202–482–5071.
Dated: June 27, 2005.
David F. Long,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Services.
[FR Doc. E5–3436 Filed 6–29–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DR–P
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
Duty Drawback Practice in
Antidumping Proceedings
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Request for comments.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(the Department) has a long–standing
policy in antidumping proceedings,
based on section 772(c)(1)(B) of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act),
of granting a duty drawback adjustment
to export price where a respondent
party establishes that: (1) the import
duty paid and the rebate payment are
directly linked to, and dependent upon,
one another (or the exemption from
import duties is linked to exportation);
and (2) there were sufficient imports of
the imported raw material to account for
the drawback received upon the exports
of the manufactured product.
In a number of recent proceedings, the
Department has received comments
expressing concerns about its current
duty drawback adjustment policy and
practice. This notice describes various
issues that have been raised concerning
the Department’s practice and provides
the public with an opportunity to
comment on whether any changes to the
Department’s current practice would be
warranted and specifically what such
changes would entail.
DATES: Comments must be submitted by
July 25, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Written comments (original
and six copies) should be sent to the
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, Central Records Unit, Room
1870, Pennsylvania Avenue and 14th
Street NW, Washington, DC 20230.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John
C. Kalitka, Office of Policy, Import
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, Room 3712, Pennsylvania
Avenue and 14th Street, NW,
Washington, DC 20230, (202) 482–2730.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
With respect to the duty drawback
adjustment, the Department is directed
by section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act, which
states that ‘‘[t]he price used to establish
export price and constructed export
price shall be -- (1) increased by (B) the
amount of any import duties imposed
by the country of exportation which
have been rebated, or which have not
been collected, by reason of the
E:\FR\FM\30JNN1.SGM
30JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2005 / Notices
exportation of the subject merchandise
to the United States.’’
Based upon this statutory language,
the Department applies a two–prong test
to determine entitlement to a duty
drawback adjustment. That is, the party
claiming such adjustment must
establish that: (1) the import duty paid
and the rebate payment are directly
linked to, and dependent upon, one
another (or the exemption from import
duties is linked to exportation); and (2)
there were sufficient imports of the
imported raw material to account for the
drawback received upon the exports of
the manufactured product. See, e.g.,
Stainless Steel Wire Rods From India:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, Intent To
Revoke Order In Part, and Extension of
Time for the Final Results of Review, 70
FR 1413, 1420 (January 7, 2005); Light–
Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube
From Turkey: Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value, 69 FR 53675 (September 2,
2004) and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 1
(Pipe & Tube from Turkey). Moreover,
the courts have sustained the
Department’s traditional two–prong test.
See, e.g., Allied Tube & Conduit Corp.
v. United States, 05–56, slip op. at 16–
17 (CIT, May 12, 2005); Allied Tube &
Conduit Corp. v. United States, 132 F.
Supp. 2d 1087, 1093 (CIT 2001); Far
East Machinery Co., Ltd. v. United
States, 699 F. Supp. 309, 311 (CIT
1988); Carlisle Tire & Rubber Co. v.
United States, 657 F. Supp. 1287, 1289–
90 (CIT 1987).
One economic justification that
parties have offered for the duty
drawback adjustment is that the
measure seeks to preserve accurate price
comparability between home market
and United States prices. See, e.g., Pipe
& Tube from Turkey at Comment 1.
Under this rationale, an adjustment is
required for price differences created
entirely by the imposition of import
duties, which increase the cost of raw
materials used to produce the product
sold in the home market. Even where
materials are sourced domestically and
thus no import duties are paid on
certain raw materials used in producing
merchandise sold in the home market,
an addition to United States price equal
to the import duty is still appropriate to
neutralize the effect of the increase in
prices of domestically sourced raw
material that is caused by the
imposition of the duty. In these
circumstances, it is argued, domestic
suppliers of raw materials will raise the
home market price of inputs as high as
they can without facing competition
from imported raw materials. For
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:26 Jun 29, 2005
Jkt 205001
example, home market suppliers of
domestically produced raw material
inputs used in the production of the
foreign like product likely would price
their material just short of or equal to
the total duty–inclusive cost of
imported raw material inputs. Thus, the
duty drawback adjustment seeks to
account for the difference between the
price of imported and locally sourced
raw material inputs created solely by
the duty on imported raw material
inputs. Id. Furthermore, parties have
argued, the price of the foreign like
product would still be influenced by a
respondent’s home market competition,
which may have paid import duties on
the raw material. Id.
The Department is considering
whether changes to its practice,
including the two–prong test detailed
above, may be appropriate. For instance,
some parties have argued that the
Department’s practice should be
modified by requiring a respondent
party seeking a duty drawback
adjustment to demonstrate payment of
import duties on raw material inputs
used to produce merchandise sold in
the home market. They argue that such
a requirement is consistent with
principles of price comparability and
the implementation of Congressional
intent with respect to the duty drawback
adjustment. In addition, according to
such parties, any duty drawback
adjustment made should also be limited
to the amount of duties actually paid on
material inputs used to produce
merchandise sold in the home market.
See, e.g., Certain Welded Carbon Steel
Pipes and Tubes from Thailand: Final
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 69 FR 61649
(October 20, 2004); Antidumping
Administrative Review: Certain Welded
Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube From
Turkey, 69 FR 48843 (August 11, 2004);
Circular Welded Non–Alloy Steel Pipe
From the Republic of Korea; Final
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 69 FR 32492
(June 10, 2004). Certain parties have
also argued that the Department should
allocate the total pool of relevant
drawback available under some systems
to total exports of subject merchandise
to ensure that the adjustment claimed
on U.S. sales is not overstated. See
Notice of Final Results of the Tenth
Administrative Review and New
Shipper Review of the Antidumping
Duty Order on Certain Corrosion–
Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products
from the Republic of Korea, 70 FR 12443
(March 14, 2005) and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 4.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
37765
Parties advocating a change in
Department practice argue that in
creating the duty drawback adjustment,
Congress intended that an increase in
the export price resulting from the duty
drawback adjustment was designed to
offset an increase in the home market
price resulting from the payment of
import duties on inputs. As a result, the
duty drawback adjustment was designed
to prevent dumping margins from
arising simply because of the rebate (or
non–collection) of import duties on the
inputs resulting from the export of
subject merchandise to the United
States. Yet, these parties argue, to
permit a drawback adjustment where
home market sales do not include
import duties leaves nothing for the
rebate or exemption to offset.
In order to fully consider and address
these claims as well as other concerns
about the Department’s practice
regarding duty drawback, the
Department is providing an opportunity
for the public to comment. Such
comments should be submitted by the
date specified above. The Department is
particularly interested in comments
relating to questions and possible
approaches set forth in the Appendix to
this notice, including comments on the
consistency with the statute and
Congressional intent.
Comments
Persons wishing to comment should
file a signed original and six copies of
each set of comments by the date
specified above. The Department will
consider all comments received before
the close of the comment period.
Comments received after the end of the
comment period will be considered, if
possible, but their consideration cannot
be assured. The Department will not
accept comments accompanied by a
request that a part or all of the material
be treated confidentially because of its
business proprietary nature or for any
other reason. The Department will
return such comments and materials to
the persons submitting the comments
and will not consider them in
development of any changes to its
practice. All comments responding to
this notice will be a matter of public
record and will be available for public
inspection and copying at Import
Administration’s Central Records Unit,
Room B–099, between the hours of 8:30
a.m. and 5 p.m. on business days. The
Department requires that comments be
submitted in written form. The
Department recommends submission of
comments in electronic form to
accompany the required paper copies.
Comments filed in electronic form
should be submitted either by e–mail to
E:\FR\FM\30JNN1.SGM
30JNN1
37766
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2005 / Notices
the webmaster below, or on CD–ROM,
as comments submitted on diskettes are
likely to be damaged by postal radiation
treatment.
Comments received in electronic form
will be made available to the public in
Portable Document Format (PDF) on the
Internet at the Import Administration
Web site at the following address: http:/
/ia.ita.doc.gov/.
Any questions concerning file
formatting, document conversion,
access on the Internet, or other
electronic filing issues should be
addressed to Andrew Lee Beller, Import
Administration Webmaster, at (202)
482–0866, e–mail address: webmaster–
support@ita.doc.gov.
Dated: June 24, 2005.
Joseph. A Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
APPENDIX
The following questions are for
consideration in commentary on the
duty drawback adjustment in
antidumping duty proceedings. In
particular, the Department is interested
in comments regarding the legal, policy
and commercial rationale for the duty
drawback adjustment and any proposed
modifications to the Department’s
practice.
(1) What should the requirements be
for making a duty drawback
adjustment in an antidumping
proceeding? For example, should a
party seeking such adjustment be
required to demonstrate that it
actually paid import duties that
were not rebated on some portion of
raw material inputs during the
relevant period, i.e., that exports
did not account for all of the
imported material in question?
Please explain, in detail, any
changes to the Department’s current
practice that would be required to
implement such a modification.
(2) How do you propose the amount
of the adjustment should be
determined, assuming that some
domestically sourced and some
imported material was used?
(3) If duty drawback (or exemption) is
claimed for some, but not all,
exports incorporating the material
input in question, how do you
propose the amount of any duty
drawback adjustment should be
determined?
(4) Please provide any additional
views on any other matter
pertaining to the Department’s
practice regarding duty drawback
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:26 Jun 29, 2005
Jkt 205001
adjustments.
[FR Doc. E5–3441 Filed 6–29–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
NOAA Project Competitions
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
[Docket No. 030602141–567–18; I.D.
061505A]
RIN 0648–ZB55
Availability of Grant Funds for Fiscal
Year 2006
National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Omnibus notice announcing the
availability of grant funds for fiscal year
2006.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
announces the availability of grant
funds for Fiscal Year 2006. The purpose
of this notice is to provide the general
public with a single source of program
and application information related to
the Agency’s competitive grant
offerings, and it contains the
information about those programs
required to be published in the Federal
Register. This omnibus notice is
designed to replace the multiple Federal
Register notices that traditionally
advertised the availability of NOAA’s
discretionary funds for its various
programs. It should be noted that
additional program initiatives
unanticipated at the time of the
publication of this notice may be
announced through both subsequent
Federal Register notices and the NOAA
Web site. These announcements will
also be available through Grants.gov.
DATES: Proposals must be received by
the date and time indicated under each
program listing in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section.
ADDRESSES: Proposals must be
submitted to the addresses listed in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for
each program. The FR notices may be
found on the NOAA Web site at
https://www.ofa.noaa.gov/%7Egrants/
funding.shtml. The URL for Grants.gov
is https://www.grants.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
a copy of the full funding opportunity
announcement and/or application kit,
please contact the person listed as the
information contact under each
program.
This
omnibus notice describes funding
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4703
opportunities for the following NOAA
discretionary grant programs:
Sfmt 4703
National Environmental Satellite, Data,
and Information Service
1. Research in Satellite Oceanography
2. Research in Satellite Data
Assimilation for Numerical and Climate
Prediction Models.
3. Research in Primary Vicarious
Calibration of Ocean Color Satellite
Sensors.
National Marine Fisheries Service
1. Protected Species Conservation and
Recovery with States.
2. John H. Prescott Marine Mammal
Rescue Assistance Grant Program.
3. Community-based Marine Debris
Prevention and Removal Project Grants.
4. Projects to Improve or Amend Coral
Reef Fishery Management Plans.
5. Community-based Habitat
Restoration Project Grants.
6. Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Education & Training (B–WET) Program.
7. FY06 Western Pacific
Demonstration Projects.
8. MARFIN Fisheries Initiative
Program (MARFIN) FY 2006.
9. Cooperative Research Program
(CRP) FY 2006.
10. North Atlantic Right Whale
Research Programs.
11. General Coral Reef Conservation.
National Ocean Service.
1. NOAA Coral Reef Conservation
Grant Program—State and Territory
Coral Reef Management.
2. NOAA Coral Reef Conservation
Grant Program—State and Territory
Coral Reef Ecosystem Monitoring.
3. South Florida Program.
4. Northern Gulf of Mexico Ecosystem
Research Program (NGOMEX).
5. Ecological Forecasting.
6. NOAA Coral Reef Conservation
Grant Program—International Coral Reef
Conservation.
7. FY 2006 Bay Watershed Education
& Training (B–WET) Program, Hawai’i.
8. Bay Watershed Education &
Training (B–WET) Program, Monterey
Bay Watershed.
9. National Estuarine Research
Reserves System FY2006 Land
Acquisition and Construction
Competitive Program.
10. FY 2006 Coastal Services Center
Environmental Characterization of a
U.S. Coastal Region.
11. FY2006 Coastal Services Center
Leadership Training for Coastal
Managers and Scientists.
12. FY2006 Coastal Services Center
Application of Spatial Technology for
Coastal Management.
E:\FR\FM\30JNN1.SGM
30JNN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 125 (Thursday, June 30, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37764-37766]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-3441]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
Duty Drawback Practice in Antidumping Proceedings
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) has a long-
standing policy in antidumping proceedings, based on section
772(c)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), of
granting a duty drawback adjustment to export price where a respondent
party establishes that: (1) the import duty paid and the rebate payment
are directly linked to, and dependent upon, one another (or the
exemption from import duties is linked to exportation); and (2) there
were sufficient imports of the imported raw material to account for the
drawback received upon the exports of the manufactured product.
In a number of recent proceedings, the Department has received
comments expressing concerns about its current duty drawback adjustment
policy and practice. This notice describes various issues that have
been raised concerning the Department's practice and provides the
public with an opportunity to comment on whether any changes to the
Department's current practice would be warranted and specifically what
such changes would entail.
DATES: Comments must be submitted by July 25, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Written comments (original and six copies) should be sent to
the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, Central Records Unit, Room 1870, Pennsylvania Avenue and 14th
Street NW, Washington, DC 20230.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John C. Kalitka, Office of Policy,
Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 3712,
Pennsylvania Avenue and 14th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20230, (202)
482-2730.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
With respect to the duty drawback adjustment, the Department is
directed by section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act, which states that ``[t]he
price used to establish export price and constructed export price shall
be -- (1) increased by (B) the amount of any import duties imposed by
the country of exportation which have been rebated, or which have not
been collected, by reason of the
[[Page 37765]]
exportation of the subject merchandise to the United States.''
Based upon this statutory language, the Department applies a two-
prong test to determine entitlement to a duty drawback adjustment. That
is, the party claiming such adjustment must establish that: (1) the
import duty paid and the rebate payment are directly linked to, and
dependent upon, one another (or the exemption from import duties is
linked to exportation); and (2) there were sufficient imports of the
imported raw material to account for the drawback received upon the
exports of the manufactured product. See, e.g., Stainless Steel Wire
Rods From India: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, Intent To Revoke Order In Part, and Extension of Time for the
Final Results of Review, 70 FR 1413, 1420 (January 7, 2005); Light-
Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube From Turkey: Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 69 FR 53675 (September
2, 2004) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1
(Pipe & Tube from Turkey). Moreover, the courts have sustained the
Department's traditional two-prong test. See, e.g., Allied Tube &
Conduit Corp. v. United States, 05-56, slip op. at 16-17 (CIT, May 12,
2005); Allied Tube & Conduit Corp. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d
1087, 1093 (CIT 2001); Far East Machinery Co., Ltd. v. United States,
699 F. Supp. 309, 311 (CIT 1988); Carlisle Tire & Rubber Co. v. United
States, 657 F. Supp. 1287, 1289-90 (CIT 1987).
One economic justification that parties have offered for the duty
drawback adjustment is that the measure seeks to preserve accurate
price comparability between home market and United States prices. See,
e.g., Pipe & Tube from Turkey at Comment 1. Under this rationale, an
adjustment is required for price differences created entirely by the
imposition of import duties, which increase the cost of raw materials
used to produce the product sold in the home market. Even where
materials are sourced domestically and thus no import duties are paid
on certain raw materials used in producing merchandise sold in the home
market, an addition to United States price equal to the import duty is
still appropriate to neutralize the effect of the increase in prices of
domestically sourced raw material that is caused by the imposition of
the duty. In these circumstances, it is argued, domestic suppliers of
raw materials will raise the home market price of inputs as high as
they can without facing competition from imported raw materials. For
example, home market suppliers of domestically produced raw material
inputs used in the production of the foreign like product likely would
price their material just short of or equal to the total duty-inclusive
cost of imported raw material inputs. Thus, the duty drawback
adjustment seeks to account for the difference between the price of
imported and locally sourced raw material inputs created solely by the
duty on imported raw material inputs. Id. Furthermore, parties have
argued, the price of the foreign like product would still be influenced
by a respondent's home market competition, which may have paid import
duties on the raw material. Id.
The Department is considering whether changes to its practice,
including the two-prong test detailed above, may be appropriate. For
instance, some parties have argued that the Department's practice
should be modified by requiring a respondent party seeking a duty
drawback adjustment to demonstrate payment of import duties on raw
material inputs used to produce merchandise sold in the home market.
They argue that such a requirement is consistent with principles of
price comparability and the implementation of Congressional intent with
respect to the duty drawback adjustment. In addition, according to such
parties, any duty drawback adjustment made should also be limited to
the amount of duties actually paid on material inputs used to produce
merchandise sold in the home market. See, e.g., Certain Welded Carbon
Steel Pipes and Tubes from Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 69 FR 61649 (October 20, 2004); Antidumping
Administrative Review: Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube From
Turkey, 69 FR 48843 (August 11, 2004); Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel
Pipe From the Republic of Korea; Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 69 FR 32492 (June 10, 2004). Certain parties
have also argued that the Department should allocate the total pool of
relevant drawback available under some systems to total exports of
subject merchandise to ensure that the adjustment claimed on U.S. sales
is not overstated. See Notice of Final Results of the Tenth
Administrative Review and New Shipper Review of the Antidumping Duty
Order on Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from
the Republic of Korea, 70 FR 12443 (March 14, 2005) and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 4.
Parties advocating a change in Department practice argue that in
creating the duty drawback adjustment, Congress intended that an
increase in the export price resulting from the duty drawback
adjustment was designed to offset an increase in the home market price
resulting from the payment of import duties on inputs. As a result, the
duty drawback adjustment was designed to prevent dumping margins from
arising simply because of the rebate (or non-collection) of import
duties on the inputs resulting from the export of subject merchandise
to the United States. Yet, these parties argue, to permit a drawback
adjustment where home market sales do not include import duties leaves
nothing for the rebate or exemption to offset.
In order to fully consider and address these claims as well as
other concerns about the Department's practice regarding duty drawback,
the Department is providing an opportunity for the public to comment.
Such comments should be submitted by the date specified above. The
Department is particularly interested in comments relating to questions
and possible approaches set forth in the Appendix to this notice,
including comments on the consistency with the statute and
Congressional intent.
Comments
Persons wishing to comment should file a signed original and six
copies of each set of comments by the date specified above. The
Department will consider all comments received before the close of the
comment period. Comments received after the end of the comment period
will be considered, if possible, but their consideration cannot be
assured. The Department will not accept comments accompanied by a
request that a part or all of the material be treated confidentially
because of its business proprietary nature or for any other reason. The
Department will return such comments and materials to the persons
submitting the comments and will not consider them in development of
any changes to its practice. All comments responding to this notice
will be a matter of public record and will be available for public
inspection and copying at Import Administration's Central Records Unit,
Room B-099, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. on business days.
The Department requires that comments be submitted in written form. The
Department recommends submission of comments in electronic form to
accompany the required paper copies. Comments filed in electronic form
should be submitted either by e-mail to
[[Page 37766]]
the webmaster below, or on CD-ROM, as comments submitted on diskettes
are likely to be damaged by postal radiation treatment.
Comments received in electronic form will be made available to the
public in Portable Document Format (PDF) on the Internet at the Import
Administration Web site at the following address: https://
ia.ita.doc.gov/.
Any questions concerning file formatting, document conversion,
access on the Internet, or other electronic filing issues should be
addressed to Andrew Lee Beller, Import Administration Webmaster, at
(202) 482-0866, e-mail address: webmaster-support@ita.doc.gov.
Dated: June 24, 2005.
Joseph. A Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
APPENDIX
The following questions are for consideration in commentary on the
duty drawback adjustment in antidumping duty proceedings. In
particular, the Department is interested in comments regarding the
legal, policy and commercial rationale for the duty drawback adjustment
and any proposed modifications to the Department's practice.
(1) What should the requirements be for making a duty drawback
adjustment in an antidumping proceeding? For example, should a party
seeking such adjustment be required to demonstrate that it actually
paid import duties that were not rebated on some portion of raw
material inputs during the relevant period, i.e., that exports did not
account for all of the imported material in question? Please explain,
in detail, any changes to the Department's current practice that would
be required to implement such a modification.
(2) How do you propose the amount of the adjustment should be
determined, assuming that some domestically sourced and some imported
material was used?
(3) If duty drawback (or exemption) is claimed for some, but not
all, exports incorporating the material input in question, how do you
propose the amount of any duty drawback adjustment should be
determined?
(4) Please provide any additional views on any other matter
pertaining to the Department's practice regarding duty drawback
adjustments.
[FR Doc. E5-3441 Filed 6-29-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
