Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or Without Handles, From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Final Rescission and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 54897-54900 [05-18587]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 2005 / Notices
0266, Department of Commerce, Room
6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC 20230. E-mail:
dHynek@doc.gov.
Written comments and
recommendations for the proposed
information collection should be sent to
David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer,
David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov or fax
(202) 395–7285 within 30 days of the
publication of this notice in the Federal
Register.
Dated: September 13, 2005.
Madeleine Clayton,
Management Analyst, Office of the Chief
Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 05–18500 Filed 9–16–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–FP–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–803]
Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or
Unfinished, With or Without Handles,
From the People’s Republic of China:
Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Reviews and Final
Rescission and Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Reviews
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On March 10, 2005, the
Department of Commerce (the
‘‘Department’’) published in the Federal
Register the preliminary results of the
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on heavy forged
hand tools, finished or unfinished, with
or without handles (‘‘HFHTs’’), from the
People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). See
Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or
Unfinished, With or Without Handles,
From the People’s Republic of China:
Preliminary Results of Administrative
Reviews and Preliminary Partial
Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Reviews, 70 FR 11934
(March 10, 2005) (‘‘Preliminary
Results’’). We gave interested parties an
opportunity to comment on the
Preliminary Results and conducted
verification of two Respondents. Based
upon our analysis of the comments and
information received, we made changes
to the dumping margin calculations for
the final results. We find that certain
manufacturers/exporters sold subject
merchandise at less than normal value
during the POR.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 19, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul
Walker or Julia Hancock, AD/CVD
AGENCY:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:48 Sep 16, 2005
Jkt 205001
Operations, Office 9, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–0413 or (202) 482–
1394, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Case History
The Preliminary Results in this
administrative review were published
on March 10, 2005. Since the
Preliminary Results, the following
events have occurred:
On March 18, 2005, the Department
sent pre–verification questionnaires to
TMC and Huarong. On March 22, 2004,
the Department served the verification
schedules for TMC and Huarong on all
interested parties. On March 28, 2005,
TMC and Huarong submitted their
responses to the Department’s March 18,
2005 pre–verification questionnaires.
On April, 4, 2005, TMC submitted a
request for an extension of time to
prepare for verification. On April 5,
2005, TMC withdrew its request for an
extension of time to prepare for
verification. On April 5, 2005, the
Department sent a second pre–
verification questionnaire to TMC. On
April 8, 2005, TMC submitted its
response to the Department’s second
pre–verification questionnaire. The
Department conducted verification of
the data submitted by Huarong and
TMC on April 11–15, 2005 and April
18–20, 2005, respectively.
On April 18, 2005, the Department
received Huarong’s verification
Exhibits. On April 22, 2005, the
Department received TMC’s verification
Exhibits. On April 27, 2005, Shandong
Jinma Industrial Group Company, Ltd.
(‘‘Jinma’’) requested that the reviews be
rescinded with respect to Jinma. On
May 17, 2005, the verification report for
Huarong was completed. On May 23,
2005, the verification report for TMC
was completed.
On June 7, 2005, the Department
preliminarily rescinded the review with
respect to Jinma and requested that
parties comment on this rescission in
their briefs. On June 13, 2005, the
Petitioner1 and Respondents submitted
their case briefs. On June 20, 2005, the
Petitioner and Respondents submitted
their rebuttal briefs.
On June 27, 2005, the Department
extended the time limit for completion
of the final results of the instant
administrative review. See Heavy
Forged Hand Tools, Finished or
Unfinished, With or Without Handles,
From the People’s Republic of China:
1 Ames
PO 00000
True Temper.
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
54897
Extension of Time Limit for the Final
Results of the Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 70 FR 36928
(June 27, 2005).
Scope of the Order
The products covered by these orders
are HFHTs comprising the following
classes or kinds of merchandise: (1)
Hammers and sledges with heads over
1.5 kg (3.33 pounds) (hammers/sledges);
(2) bars over 18 inches in length, track
tools and wedges (bars/wedges); (3)
picks and mattocks (picks/mattocks);
and (4) axes, adzes and similar hewing
tools (axes/adzes).
HFHTs include heads for drilling
hammers, sledges, axes, mauls, picks
and mattocks, which may or may not be
painted, which may or may not be
finished, or which may or may not be
imported with handles; assorted bar
products and track tools including
wrecking bars, digging bars, and
tampers; and steel woodsplitting
wedges. HFHTs are manufactured
through a hot forge operation in which
steel is sheared to required length,
heated to forging temperature, and
formed to final shape on forging
equipment using dies specific to the
desired product shape and size.
Depending on the product, finishing
operations may include shot blasting,
grinding, polishing and painting, and
the insertion of handles for handled
products. HFHTs are currently provided
for under the following Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States
(‘‘HTSUS’’) subheadings: 8205.20.60,
8205.59.30, 8201.30.00, and 8201.40.60.
Specifically excluded from these
investigations are hammers and sledges
with heads 1.5 kg. (3.33 pounds) in
weight and under, hoes and rakes, and
bars 18 inches in length and under.
The Department has issued six
conclusive scope rulings regarding the
merchandise covered by these orders:
(1) On August 16, 1993, the Department
found the ‘‘Max Multi–Purpose Axe,’’
imported by the Forrest Tool Company,
to be within the scope of the axes/adzes
order; (2) on March 8, 2001, the
Department found ‘‘18–inch’’ and ‘‘24–
inch’’ pry bars, produced without dies,
imported by Olympia Industrial, Inc.
and SMC Pacific Tools, Inc., to be
within the scope of the bars/wedges
order; (3) on March 8, 2001, the
Department found the ‘‘Pulaski’’ tool,
produced without dies by TMC, to be
within the scope of the axes/adzes
order; (4) on March 8, 2001, the
Department found the ‘‘skinning axe,’’
imported by Import Traders, Inc., to be
within the scope of the axes/adzes
order; (5) on December 9, 2004, the
Department found the ‘‘MUTT,’’
E:\FR\FM\19SEN1.SGM
19SEN1
54898
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 2005 / Notices
imported by Olympia Industrial, Inc.,
under HTSUS 8205.59.5510, to be
within the scope of the axes/adzes
order; and (6) on May 23, 2005, the
Department found 8 inch by 8 inch and
10 inch by 10 inch cast tampers,
imported by Olympia Industrial, Inc. to
be outside the scope of the orders.
We also note that on May 12, 2005,
the Department initiated a formal scope
inquiry on the ‘‘Mean Green Splitting
Machine’’ imported by Avalanche
Industries. This decision is currently
due on September 23, 2005.
Rescission of Review
We preliminarily rescinded these
reviews with respect to Shanghai Xinike
Trading Company, Ltd. (‘‘Olympia
Shanghai’’), Ningbo Tiangong Great Star
Tools Company, Ltd. (‘‘Ningbo’’), Fexian
Hualu Tool Company, Ltd. (‘‘Fexian’’),
Jinhua Twin–Star Tools Company
(‘‘Jinhua’’), Ltd. and ZhangJiagang
Tianda Special Hardware Company,
Ltd. (‘‘ZhangJiagang’’), which reported
that they did not sell merchandise
subject to any of the four HFHT
antidumping orders during the POR. See
Preliminary Results at 11937. As stated
above, on June 7, 2005, the Department
preliminarily rescinded the reviews
with respect to Jinma, which requested
on April 27, 2005, that the reviews be
rescinded because it did not sell
merchandise subject to any of the four
HFHT antidumping orders during the
POR. See the Department’s June 7, 2005
letter to All Interested Parties.
For Olympia Shanghai, Ningbo,
Fexian, Jinhua, ZhangJiagang and Jinma,
the Department reviewed data from
Customs and Border Protection
(‘‘Customs’’), which supports the claims
that these companies did not export
subject merchandise during the POR.
Furthermore, no party has placed
evidence on the record demonstrating
that these companies exported the
merchandise identified above during the
POR. Therefore, in accordance with 19
CFR 351.213(d)(3) and consistent with
the Department’s practice, we are
rescinding these administrative reviews
with respect to the companies and
merchandise identified above.
In addition, we also preliminarily
rescinded the review of Huarong with
respect to the hammers/sledges and
picks/mattocks orders, since Huarong
reported that they made no shipments of
subject hammers/sledges and picks/
mattocks during the POR. See
Preliminary Results at 11937.
The Department reviewed Customs
data which supports the claim that
Huarong did not export hammers/
sledges and picks/mattocks during the
POR. Furthermore, no party has placed
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:48 Sep 16, 2005
Jkt 205001
evidence on the record demonstrating
that Huarong exported the merchandise
identified above during the POR.
Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR
351.213(d)(3) and consistent with the
Department’s practice, we are
rescinding these administrative reviews
on hammers/sledges and picks/mattocks
with respect to Huarong.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and
rebuttal briefs by parties to this
proceeding and to which we have
responded are listed in the Appendix to
this notice and addressed in the Issues
and Decision Memorandum, which is
hereby adopted by this notice. Parties
can find a complete discussion of the
issues raised in this administrative
review and the corresponding
recommendations in this public
memorandum which is on file in the
Central Records Unit (CRU), room B–
099 of the main Department building. In
addition, a complete version of the
Issues and Decision Memorandum can
be accessed directly on the internet at
https://ia.ita.doc.gov/. The paper copy
and electronic version of the Issues and
Decision Memorandum are identical in
content.
Verification
As provided in section 782(i) of the
Act, we verified the information
submitted by TMC and Huarong for use
in our final results. See the
Department’s verification reports on the
record of this investigation in the CRU
with respect to TMC and Huarong. For
all verified companies, we used
standard verification procedures,
including examination of relevant
accounting and production records, as
well as original source documents
provided by the Respondents.
During verification, TMC informed
the Department that its supplier of
picks/mattocks had all accounting books
seized by the Tianjin Tax Authority,
thereby rendering the Department
unable to verify any of TMC’s factors of
production for picks/mattocks. See
Memorandum to the File from Paul
Walker, Verification of Sales for Tianjin
Machinery Import & Export Corporation
in the 13th Administrative Review of
Heavy Forged Hand Tools from the
People’s Republic of China, dated May
23, 2005.
Facts Available
In the Preliminary Results, we based
the dumping margins for Huarong and
TMC on total adverse facts available
(‘‘AFA’’) for their sales of merchandise
subject to certain HFHTs orders
pursuant to sections 776(a) and 776(b)
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
(the ‘‘Act’’). See Preliminary Results, 70
FR 11934 at 11938–39. We continue to
apply total AFA to Huarong for bars/
wedges and TMC for bars/wedges, axes/
adzes and hammers/sledges because
they significantly impeded our ability to
(1) conduct the reviews of these orders,
and (2) instruct Customs to assess the
correct antidumping duties, as
mandated by section 731 of the Act.
Huarong and TMC participated in an
‘‘agent’’ sales scheme whereby one PRC
company allowed another PRC company
to enter subject merchandise using the
first company’s invoices. In addition,
we have applied total AFA to TMC in
the review of the picks/mattocks order
due to TMC’s failed FOP verification.
See Issues and Decision Memorandum
at Comment 9 (a). Lastly, we continue
to find that the companies that
constitute the PRC–wide entity, which
did not establish entitlement to a
separate rate, failed to provide requested
information. For this reason, we
continue to find that, in accordance
with sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), and (C)
of the Act, it is appropriate to base the
PRC–wide margin in these reviews on
total AFA.
Section 776(b)(4) of the Act permits
the Department to use, as AFA,
information from the less than fair value
(‘‘LTFV’’) investigation or any prior
review. Thus, in selecting an AFA rate,
the Department’s practice has been to
assign Respondents who fail to
cooperate with the Department’s
requests for information the highest
margin determined for any party in the
LTFV investigation or in any
administrative review. See, e.g.,
Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from
Taiwan; Preliminary Results and
Rescission in Part of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 67 FR 5789
(February 7, 2002). As AFA, we are
assigning to the PRC–wide entity’s sales
of axes/adzes, bars/wedges, hammers/
sledges, and picks/mattocks the rates of
174.58, 139.31, 45.42, and 98.77
percent, respectively. The rates selected
for bars/wedges was published in the
most recently completed review of the
HFHTs orders. See Heavy Forged Hand
Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or
Without Handles, From the People’s
Republic of China: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Reviews, Final Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Reviews, and Determination Not To
Revoke in Part, 69 FR 55581 (September
15, 2004) (‘‘Final Results of the 12th
Review’’) as amended. The rate selected
as AFA for hammers/sledges was
originally from the LTFV investigation
E:\FR\FM\19SEN1.SGM
19SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 2005 / Notices
and is currently the PRC–wide rate. See
Final Results of the 12th Review as
amended. The rate for axes/adzes was
calculated in the instant review. The
rate for picks/mattocks was calculated
in the 5th review and corroborated in
the Final Results of the 12th Review as
amended.
A complete explanation of the
selection, corroboration, and application
of AFA can be found in the Preliminary
Results. See Preliminary Results, 70 FR
at 11938–41. The Department received
comments and rebuttal comments with
regard to certain aspects of our selection
and application of AFA. See Issues and
Decision Memorandum, at Comments 2,
3, 8 and 9. Nothing has changed since
the Preliminary Results that would
affect the Department’s selection,
corroboration, and application of facts
available for the above–referenced
companies and orders, except for the
AFA rate used for picks/mattocks.
Accordingly, for the final results, we
continue to apply AFA as noted above.
merchandise from the PRC who does
not have its own rate will be the rate
applicable to the PRC exporter that
supplied the non–PRC exporter. These
deposit requirements, when imposed,
shall remain in effect until publication
of the final results of the next
administrative reviews.
The PRC–Wide Cash Deposit Rates
The current PRC–wide cash deposit
rates are 174.58 percent for axes/adzes,
139.31 percent for bars/wedges, 45.42
percent for hammers/sledges, and 98.77
percent for picks/mattocks. These
deposit requirements shall remain in
effect until publication of the final
results of the next administrative
reviews.
Assessment Rates
Upon completion of these
administrative reviews, the Department
will determine, and Customs shall
assess, antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries. In accordance with
Final Results of Review
19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), for the respondent
The weighted–average dumping
receiving a calculated dumping margin,
margins for the POR are as follows:
we calculated importer–specific per–
unit duty assessment rates based on the
Manufacturer/exporter
Margin (percent)
ratio of the total amount of the dumping
duties calculated for the examined sales
Huarong:.
Axes/Adzes ...................
174.58 to the total quantity of those same sales.
These importer–specific per–unit rates
PRC–Wide Entity2:.
Axes/Adzes ...................
174.58 will be assessed uniformly on all entries
Bars/Wedges ................
139.31 of each importer that were made during
Hammers/Sledges ........
45.42 the POR. In accordance with 19 CFR
Picks/Mattocks ..............
98.77
351.106(c)(2), we will instruct Customs
2 Including TMC for all four orders (hamto liquidate without regard to
mers/sledges, bars/wedges, axes/adzes and antidumping duties any entries for
picks/mattocks) and Huarong for the bars/ which the importer–specific assessment
wedges order.
rate is de minimis (i.e., less than 0.5
Cash Deposit Requirements
percent ad valorem). In testing whether
any importer–specific assessment rate is
The following deposit requirements
will be effective upon publication of the de minimis, we used the reported data
to calculate the freight on board at the
final results of these administrative
port of export (‘‘FOB’’) price of U.S.
reviews for all shipments of HFHTs
sales and used this FOB price as an
from the PRC entered, or withdrawn
from warehouse, for consumption on or estimate for the entered value. For all
shipments of subject merchandise for
after the publication date of this notice,
the four antidumping orders covering
as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of
HFHTs from the PRC, exported by the
the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for
respondents and imported by entities
the reviewed companies named above
not identified by the respondents in
will be the rates for those firms
their questionnaire responses, we will
established in the final results of these
instruct Customs to assess antidumping
administrative reviews; (2) for any
previously reviewed or investigated PRC duties at the cash deposit rate in effect
on the date of the entry. Lastly, for the
or non–PRC exporter, not covered in
respondents receiving dumping rates
these reviews, with a separate rate, the
based upon AFA, the Department, upon
cash deposit rate will be the company–
completion of these reviews, will
specific rate established in the most
recent segment of these proceedings; (3) instruct Customs to liquidate entries
according to the AFA ad valorem rate.
for all other PRC exporters, the cash
deposit rates will be the PRC–wide rates The Department will issue appraisement
established in the final results of these
instructions directly to Customs upon
reviews; and (4) the cash deposit rate for the completion of the final results of
any non–PRC exporter of subject
these administrative reviews.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:48 Sep 16, 2005
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
54899
Reimbursement of Duties
This notice also serves as a final
reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)
to file a certificate regarding the
reimbursement of antidumping duties
prior to liquidation of the relevant
entries during this POR. Failure to
comply with this requirement could
result in the Secretary’s presumption
that reimbursement of antidumping
duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of doubled antidumping
duties.
Administrative Protective Orders
This notice also serves as a reminder
to parties subject to administrative
protective orders (‘‘APO’’) of their
responsibility concerning the return or
destruction of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues
to govern business proprietary
information in this segment of the
proceeding. Timely written notification
of the return/destruction of APO
materials or conversion to judicial
protective order is hereby requested.
Failure to comply with the regulations
and terms of an APO is a violation
which is subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing these
results and notice in accordance with
sections 751(a) and 777(i) of the Act.
Dated: September 6, 2005.
Joseph A Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
Appendix I – Decision Memorandum
I. General Comments:
Comment 1: Inclusion of Cast Picks
within the Scope
Comment 2: Adverse Facts Available
(‘‘AFA’’) for ‘‘Agent’’ Sales
Comment 3: AFA Rate for Bars/Wedges
Comment 4: Subsidy Suspicion Policy
for Surrogate Value Sources in the Bars/
Wedges Order
Comment 5: Denial of Due Process
Rights
Comment 6: Changed Circumstance
Reviews for the 10th and 11th AD
Reviews of HFHTs
Comment 7: Combination Rates &
Master List Assessment Instructions
II. Company Specific Comments
Comment 8: Huarong
A. Price Adjustment
B. AFA for Movement Expense
C. AFA for Labor
D. AFA for Packing
E. Scrap Offset
F. Surrogate Value for Steel Billet
G. Surrogate Value for Brokerage &
E:\FR\FM\19SEN1.SGM
19SEN1
54900
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 2005 / Notices
Handling (‘‘B&H’’)
H. Inclusion of Packing Weight in
Movement Expenses’ Calculation
I. Factors of Production for Pallets
J. Application of Packing Materials
and the Byproduct Offset in the
Calculation of Normal Value
Comment 9: TMC
A. AFA for Failure at Verification
B. Separate Rate
C. AFA for Suppliers
D. Discounts
E. Surrogate Value for Scrap Rail
Comment 10: Jinma
[FR Doc. 05–18587 Filed 9–16–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
(C–533–063)
Certain Iron–Metal Castings from India:
Notice of Amended Final Results
Pursuant to Final Court Decision
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On June 16, 2005, the United
States Court of International Trade (CIT)
sustained the Department of
Commerce’s (the Department) July 9,
2004, Final Results of Redetermination
on Remand Pursuant to Kiswok
Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. United States,
pursuant to Slip Op. 04–54 (CIT May 20,
2004), (Remand Determination), which
pertains to Certain Iron–Metal Castings
from India: Final Results of
Countervailing Duty Administrative
Review, 65 FR 31515 (May 18, 2000)
(Iron–Metal Castings). See Kiswok
Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Calcutta Ferrous
Ltd. v. United States, Court No. 00–03–
00127, Slip. Op. 05–73 (CIT, June 16,
2005). Because all litigation in this
matter has concluded, the Department is
issuing amended final results for Iron–
Metal Castings in accordance with the
CIT’s decision.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 20, 2005
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert Copyak, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 3, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Ave., N.W.,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202)
482–2209.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
Background
On May 18, 2000, the Department
published its final results of
administrative review in Iron–Metal
Castings. Calcutta Ferrous Ltd. and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:48 Sep 16, 2005
Jkt 205001
Kiswok Industries Pvt. Ltd. (collectively
‘‘respondents’’) challenged the
Department’s final results before the
CIT. In the administrative review,
Calcutta Ferrous Ltd. argued that ‘‘in
calculating the benefits received by
castings exporters from export loans,
Commerce failed to take into account
penalty interest paid at interest rates
higher than the benchmark.’’ See
Comment 7 of the May 18, 2000, Issues
and Decision Memorandum that
accompanied Iron–Metal Castings. In
Kiswok Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Calcutta
Ferrous Ltd. v. United States, Slip Op.
04–54 (CIT May 20, 2004) (Kiswok v.
United States), the Court concurred
with Calcutta Ferrous Ltd.’s position. Id.
at 15–18. The Court also disagreed with
Commerce’s position in Iron–Metal
Castings that the overdue portion of the
loan becomes a new loan with a new
applicable interest rate. Id. at 17–18.
In light of the Court’s instructions in
Kiswok v. United States, the
Department, in its redetermination,
recalculated the benefit Calcutta Ferrous
Ltd. realized from its preferential loans,
taking into account all of the interest
paid thereon. See Remand
Determination. The Department
recalculated the program rate with
respect to Calcutta Ferrous’ export
credit loans to be 0.22 percent ad
valorem. With this change in the
program rate, the final rate for Calcutta
Ferrous changed to 9.25 percent ad
valorem. No party submitted comments
regarding the Department’s Remand
Determination. On June 16, 2005, the
CIT sustained the Department’s
redetermination in all respects and thus
affirmed the Department’s
recalculations.
On July 20, 2005, the Department,
consistent with the decision of the
United States Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit in Timken Co. v. United
States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 1990),
notified the public that the Kiswok v.
United States decision was ‘‘not in
harmony’’ with the Department’s
original results. See Certain Iron–Metal
Castings from India: Notice of Court
Decision and Suspension of Liquidation,
70 FR 41687 (July 20, 2005) (Timken
Notice). The Timken Notice continued
the suspension of liquidation, and
further informed that if the CIT’s
decision was not appealed, or if
appealed and the appeal was upheld,
the Department would publish amended
final countervailing duty results. Id.
Amended Final Determination
Because there is now a final and
conclusive decision in the court
proceeding, we are amending the final
results and establishing for Calcutta
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Ferrous the revised countervailing duty
rate of 9.25 percent, effective as of July
20, 2005, the publication date of the
Timken Notice. Accordingly, we will
instruct the CBP to assess countervailing
duties at 9.25 percent ad valorem on all
shipments of the subject merchandise
from Calcutta Ferrous Ltd., entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after January 1,
1997, through Decemeber 31, 1997.
This determination is published
pursuant to sections 751(3)(c) and 777(i)
of the Act.
Dated: September 7, 2005.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. 05–18586 Filed 9–16–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
Export Trade Certificate of Review
Notice of Application to Amend
an Export Trade Certificate of Review.
ACTION:
SUMMARY: Export Trading Company
Affairs (‘‘ETCA’’) of the International
Trade Administration, Department of
Commerce, has received an application
to amend an Export Trade Certificate of
Review (‘‘Certificate’’). This notice
summarizes the proposed amendment
and requests comments relevant to
whether the Certificate should be
issued.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jeffrey Anspacher, Director, Export
Trading Company Affairs, International
Trade Administration, (202) 482–5131
(this is not a toll-free number) or e-mail
at oetca@ita.doc.gov.
Title III of
the Export Trading Company Act of
1982 (15 U.S.C. 4001–21) authorizes the
Secretary of Commerce to issue Export
Trade Certificates of Review. An Export
Trade Certificate of Review protects the
holder and the members identified in
the Certificate from state and federal
government antitrust actions and from
private treble damage antitrust actions
for the export conduct specified in the
Certificate and carried out in
compliance with its terms and
conditions. Section 302(b)(1) of the
Export Trading Company Act of 1982
and 15 CFR 325.6(a) require the
Secretary to publish a notice in the
Federal Register identifying the
applicant and summarizing its proposed
export conduct.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
E:\FR\FM\19SEN1.SGM
19SEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 180 (Monday, September 19, 2005)]
[NOTI]
[Pages 54897-54900]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18587]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-803]
Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or Without
Handles, From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Final Rescission and
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On March 10, 2005, the Department of Commerce (the
``Department'') published in the Federal Register the preliminary
results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on
heavy forged hand tools, finished or unfinished, with or without
handles (``HFHTs''), from the People's Republic of China (``PRC''). See
Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or Without
Handles, From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of
Administrative Reviews and Preliminary Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 70 FR 11934 (March 10, 2005)
(``Preliminary Results''). We gave interested parties an opportunity to
comment on the Preliminary Results and conducted verification of two
Respondents. Based upon our analysis of the comments and information
received, we made changes to the dumping margin calculations for the
final results. We find that certain manufacturers/exporters sold
subject merchandise at less than normal value during the POR.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 19, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Walker or Julia Hancock, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202)
482-0413 or (202) 482-1394, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Case History
The Preliminary Results in this administrative review were
published on March 10, 2005. Since the Preliminary Results, the
following events have occurred:
On March 18, 2005, the Department sent pre-verification
questionnaires to TMC and Huarong. On March 22, 2004, the Department
served the verification schedules for TMC and Huarong on all interested
parties. On March 28, 2005, TMC and Huarong submitted their responses
to the Department's March 18, 2005 pre-verification questionnaires.
On April, 4, 2005, TMC submitted a request for an extension of time
to prepare for verification. On April 5, 2005, TMC withdrew its request
for an extension of time to prepare for verification. On April 5, 2005,
the Department sent a second pre-verification questionnaire to TMC. On
April 8, 2005, TMC submitted its response to the Department's second
pre-verification questionnaire. The Department conducted verification
of the data submitted by Huarong and TMC on April 11-15, 2005 and April
18-20, 2005, respectively.
On April 18, 2005, the Department received Huarong's verification
Exhibits. On April 22, 2005, the Department received TMC's verification
Exhibits. On April 27, 2005, Shandong Jinma Industrial Group Company,
Ltd. (``Jinma'') requested that the reviews be rescinded with respect
to Jinma. On May 17, 2005, the verification report for Huarong was
completed. On May 23, 2005, the verification report for TMC was
completed.
On June 7, 2005, the Department preliminarily rescinded the review
with respect to Jinma and requested that parties comment on this
rescission in their briefs. On June 13, 2005, the Petitioner\1\ and
Respondents submitted their case briefs. On June 20, 2005, the
Petitioner and Respondents submitted their rebuttal briefs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Ames True Temper.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 27, 2005, the Department extended the time limit for
completion of the final results of the instant administrative review.
See Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or Without
Handles, From the People's Republic of China: Extension of Time Limit
for the Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70
FR 36928 (June 27, 2005).
Scope of the Order
The products covered by these orders are HFHTs comprising the
following classes or kinds of merchandise: (1) Hammers and sledges with
heads over 1.5 kg (3.33 pounds) (hammers/sledges); (2) bars over 18
inches in length, track tools and wedges (bars/wedges); (3) picks and
mattocks (picks/mattocks); and (4) axes, adzes and similar hewing tools
(axes/adzes).
HFHTs include heads for drilling hammers, sledges, axes, mauls,
picks and mattocks, which may or may not be painted, which may or may
not be finished, or which may or may not be imported with handles;
assorted bar products and track tools including wrecking bars, digging
bars, and tampers; and steel woodsplitting wedges. HFHTs are
manufactured through a hot forge operation in which steel is sheared to
required length, heated to forging temperature, and formed to final
shape on forging equipment using dies specific to the desired product
shape and size. Depending on the product, finishing operations may
include shot blasting, grinding, polishing and painting, and the
insertion of handles for handled products. HFHTs are currently provided
for under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(``HTSUS'') subheadings: 8205.20.60, 8205.59.30, 8201.30.00, and
8201.40.60. Specifically excluded from these investigations are hammers
and sledges with heads 1.5 kg. (3.33 pounds) in weight and under, hoes
and rakes, and bars 18 inches in length and under.
The Department has issued six conclusive scope rulings regarding
the merchandise covered by these orders: (1) On August 16, 1993, the
Department found the ``Max Multi-Purpose Axe,'' imported by the Forrest
Tool Company, to be within the scope of the axes/adzes order; (2) on
March 8, 2001, the Department found ``18-inch'' and ``24-inch'' pry
bars, produced without dies, imported by Olympia Industrial, Inc. and
SMC Pacific Tools, Inc., to be within the scope of the bars/wedges
order; (3) on March 8, 2001, the Department found the ``Pulaski'' tool,
produced without dies by TMC, to be within the scope of the axes/adzes
order; (4) on March 8, 2001, the Department found the ``skinning axe,''
imported by Import Traders, Inc., to be within the scope of the axes/
adzes order; (5) on December 9, 2004, the Department found the
``MUTT,''
[[Page 54898]]
imported by Olympia Industrial, Inc., under HTSUS 8205.59.5510, to be
within the scope of the axes/adzes order; and (6) on May 23, 2005, the
Department found 8 inch by 8 inch and 10 inch by 10 inch cast tampers,
imported by Olympia Industrial, Inc. to be outside the scope of the
orders.
We also note that on May 12, 2005, the Department initiated a
formal scope inquiry on the ``Mean Green Splitting Machine'' imported
by Avalanche Industries. This decision is currently due on September
23, 2005.
Rescission of Review
We preliminarily rescinded these reviews with respect to Shanghai
Xinike Trading Company, Ltd. (``Olympia Shanghai''), Ningbo Tiangong
Great Star Tools Company, Ltd. (``Ningbo''), Fexian Hualu Tool Company,
Ltd. (``Fexian''), Jinhua Twin-Star Tools Company (``Jinhua''), Ltd.
and ZhangJiagang Tianda Special Hardware Company, Ltd.
(``ZhangJiagang''), which reported that they did not sell merchandise
subject to any of the four HFHT antidumping orders during the POR. See
Preliminary Results at 11937. As stated above, on June 7, 2005, the
Department preliminarily rescinded the reviews with respect to Jinma,
which requested on April 27, 2005, that the reviews be rescinded
because it did not sell merchandise subject to any of the four HFHT
antidumping orders during the POR. See the Department's June 7, 2005
letter to All Interested Parties.
For Olympia Shanghai, Ningbo, Fexian, Jinhua, ZhangJiagang and
Jinma, the Department reviewed data from Customs and Border Protection
(``Customs''), which supports the claims that these companies did not
export subject merchandise during the POR. Furthermore, no party has
placed evidence on the record demonstrating that these companies
exported the merchandise identified above during the POR. Therefore, in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3) and consistent with the
Department's practice, we are rescinding these administrative reviews
with respect to the companies and merchandise identified above.
In addition, we also preliminarily rescinded the review of Huarong
with respect to the hammers/sledges and picks/mattocks orders, since
Huarong reported that they made no shipments of subject hammers/sledges
and picks/mattocks during the POR. See Preliminary Results at 11937.
The Department reviewed Customs data which supports the claim that
Huarong did not export hammers/sledges and picks/mattocks during the
POR. Furthermore, no party has placed evidence on the record
demonstrating that Huarong exported the merchandise identified above
during the POR. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3) and
consistent with the Department's practice, we are rescinding these
administrative reviews on hammers/sledges and picks/mattocks with
respect to Huarong.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to
this proceeding and to which we have responded are listed in the
Appendix to this notice and addressed in the Issues and Decision
Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice. Parties can find a
complete discussion of the issues raised in this administrative review
and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum which
is on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU), room B-099 of the main
Department building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and
Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the internet at https://
ia.ita.doc.gov/. The paper copy and electronic version of the Issues
and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.
Verification
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified the
information submitted by TMC and Huarong for use in our final results.
See the Department's verification reports on the record of this
investigation in the CRU with respect to TMC and Huarong. For all
verified companies, we used standard verification procedures, including
examination of relevant accounting and production records, as well as
original source documents provided by the Respondents.
During verification, TMC informed the Department that its supplier
of picks/mattocks had all accounting books seized by the Tianjin Tax
Authority, thereby rendering the Department unable to verify any of
TMC's factors of production for picks/mattocks. See Memorandum to the
File from Paul Walker, Verification of Sales for Tianjin Machinery
Import & Export Corporation in the 13th Administrative Review of Heavy
Forged Hand Tools from the People's Republic of China, dated May 23,
2005.
Facts Available
In the Preliminary Results, we based the dumping margins for
Huarong and TMC on total adverse facts available (``AFA'') for their
sales of merchandise subject to certain HFHTs orders pursuant to
sections 776(a) and 776(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the
``Act''). See Preliminary Results, 70 FR 11934 at 11938-39. We continue
to apply total AFA to Huarong for bars/wedges and TMC for bars/wedges,
axes/adzes and hammers/sledges because they significantly impeded our
ability to (1) conduct the reviews of these orders, and (2) instruct
Customs to assess the correct antidumping duties, as mandated by
section 731 of the Act. Huarong and TMC participated in an ``agent''
sales scheme whereby one PRC company allowed another PRC company to
enter subject merchandise using the first company's invoices. In
addition, we have applied total AFA to TMC in the review of the picks/
mattocks order due to TMC's failed FOP verification. See Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 9 (a). Lastly, we continue to find that
the companies that constitute the PRC-wide entity, which did not
establish entitlement to a separate rate, failed to provide requested
information. For this reason, we continue to find that, in accordance
with sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), and (C) of the Act, it is appropriate
to base the PRC-wide margin in these reviews on total AFA.
Section 776(b)(4) of the Act permits the Department to use, as AFA,
information from the less than fair value (``LTFV'') investigation or
any prior review. Thus, in selecting an AFA rate, the Department's
practice has been to assign Respondents who fail to cooperate with the
Department's requests for information the highest margin determined for
any party in the LTFV investigation or in any administrative review.
See, e.g., Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Taiwan; Preliminary
Results and Rescission in Part of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 67 FR 5789 (February 7, 2002). As AFA, we are assigning to the
PRC-wide entity's sales of axes/adzes, bars/wedges, hammers/sledges,
and picks/mattocks the rates of 174.58, 139.31, 45.42, and 98.77
percent, respectively. The rates selected for bars/wedges was published
in the most recently completed review of the HFHTs orders. See Heavy
Forged Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or Without Handles,
From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Reviews, Final Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Reviews, and Determination Not To Revoke in Part, 69 FR
55581 (September 15, 2004) (``Final Results of the 12th Review'') as
amended. The rate selected as AFA for hammers/sledges was originally
from the LTFV investigation
[[Page 54899]]
and is currently the PRC-wide rate. See Final Results of the 12th
Review as amended. The rate for axes/adzes was calculated in the
instant review. The rate for picks/mattocks was calculated in the 5th
review and corroborated in the Final Results of the 12th Review as
amended.
A complete explanation of the selection, corroboration, and
application of AFA can be found in the Preliminary Results. See
Preliminary Results, 70 FR at 11938-41. The Department received
comments and rebuttal comments with regard to certain aspects of our
selection and application of AFA. See Issues and Decision Memorandum,
at Comments 2, 3, 8 and 9. Nothing has changed since the Preliminary
Results that would affect the Department's selection, corroboration,
and application of facts available for the above-referenced companies
and orders, except for the AFA rate used for picks/mattocks.
Accordingly, for the final results, we continue to apply AFA as noted
above.
Final Results of Review
The weighted-average dumping margins for the POR are as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer/exporter Margin (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Huarong:............................................
Axes/Adzes.......................................... 174.58
PRC-Wide Entity\2\:.................................
Axes/Adzes.......................................... 174.58
Bars/Wedges......................................... 139.31
Hammers/Sledges..................................... 45.42
Picks/Mattocks...................................... 98.77
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Including TMC for all four orders (hammers/sledges, bars/wedges,
axes/adzes and picks/mattocks) and Huarong for the bars/wedges order.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following deposit requirements will be effective upon
publication of the final results of these administrative reviews for
all shipments of HFHTs from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of this
notice, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash
deposit rates for the reviewed companies named above will be the rates
for those firms established in the final results of these
administrative reviews; (2) for any previously reviewed or investigated
PRC or non-PRC exporter, not covered in these reviews, with a separate
rate, the cash deposit rate will be the company-specific rate
established in the most recent segment of these proceedings; (3) for
all other PRC exporters, the cash deposit rates will be the PRC-wide
rates established in the final results of these reviews; and (4) the
cash deposit rate for any non-PRC exporter of subject merchandise from
the PRC who does not have its own rate will be the rate applicable to
the PRC exporter that supplied the non-PRC exporter. These deposit
requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of
the final results of the next administrative reviews.
The PRC-Wide Cash Deposit Rates
The current PRC-wide cash deposit rates are 174.58 percent for
axes/adzes, 139.31 percent for bars/wedges, 45.42 percent for hammers/
sledges, and 98.77 percent for picks/mattocks. These deposit
requirements shall remain in effect until publication of the final
results of the next administrative reviews.
Assessment Rates
Upon completion of these administrative reviews, the Department
will determine, and Customs shall assess, antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), for the
respondent receiving a calculated dumping margin, we calculated
importer-specific per-unit duty assessment rates based on the ratio of
the total amount of the dumping duties calculated for the examined
sales to the total quantity of those same sales. These importer-
specific per-unit rates will be assessed uniformly on all entries of
each importer that were made during the POR. In accordance with 19 CFR
351.106(c)(2), we will instruct Customs to liquidate without regard to
antidumping duties any entries for which the importer-specific
assessment rate is de minimis (i.e., less than 0.5 percent ad valorem).
In testing whether any importer-specific assessment rate is de minimis,
we used the reported data to calculate the freight on board at the port
of export (``FOB'') price of U.S. sales and used this FOB price as an
estimate for the entered value. For all shipments of subject
merchandise for the four antidumping orders covering HFHTs from the
PRC, exported by the respondents and imported by entities not
identified by the respondents in their questionnaire responses, we will
instruct Customs to assess antidumping duties at the cash deposit rate
in effect on the date of the entry. Lastly, for the respondents
receiving dumping rates based upon AFA, the Department, upon completion
of these reviews, will instruct Customs to liquidate entries according
to the AFA ad valorem rate. The Department will issue appraisement
instructions directly to Customs upon the completion of the final
results of these administrative reviews.
Reimbursement of Duties
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding
the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the
relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this
requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
Administrative Protective Orders
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective orders (``APO'') of their responsibility
concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues
to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the
proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of
APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby
requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO
is a violation which is subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing these results and notice in
accordance with sections 751(a) and 777(i) of the Act.
Dated: September 6, 2005.
Joseph A Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix I - Decision Memorandum
I. General Comments:
Comment 1: Inclusion of Cast Picks within the Scope
Comment 2: Adverse Facts Available (``AFA'') for ``Agent'' Sales
Comment 3: AFA Rate for Bars/Wedges
Comment 4: Subsidy Suspicion Policy for Surrogate Value Sources in the
Bars/Wedges Order
Comment 5: Denial of Due Process Rights
Comment 6: Changed Circumstance Reviews for the 10th and 11th AD
Reviews of HFHTs
Comment 7: Combination Rates & Master List Assessment Instructions
II. Company Specific Comments
Comment 8: Huarong
A. Price Adjustment
B. AFA for Movement Expense
C. AFA for Labor
D. AFA for Packing
E. Scrap Offset
F. Surrogate Value for Steel Billet
G. Surrogate Value for Brokerage &
[[Page 54900]]
Handling (``B&H'')
H. Inclusion of Packing Weight in Movement Expenses' Calculation
I. Factors of Production for Pallets
J. Application of Packing Materials and the Byproduct Offset in the
Calculation of Normal Value
Comment 9: TMC
A. AFA for Failure at Verification
B. Separate Rate
C. AFA for Suppliers
D. Discounts
E. Surrogate Value for Scrap Rail
Comment 10: Jinma
[FR Doc. 05-18587 Filed 9-16-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
