Notice of Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China, 60280-60281 [E5-5714]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
60280
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 199 / Monday, October 17, 2005 / Notices
transfer of pipe facilities did not change
the ultimate ownership of the two
entities. One family member in
particular served and currently serves as
a chairman for Yieh Phui and a board
member for Yieh Hsing; thus, all major
company strategy and policy decisions
are primarily set, influenced and
approved by the same person for both
companies. The management for the
sales and marketing divisions are also
similar. This is evidenced by Yieh
Hsing’s previous deputy manager of
‘‘Pipe, Plate and Sheet’’ serving as the
section manager of ‘‘Pipe Marketing and
Sales’’ for Yieh Phui. Furthermore, Yieh
Phui maintains the same order
processing, distribution channels and
sales correspondence as Yieh Hsing did
prior to the transfer of the pipe facilities.
See SQR dated April 29, 2005, at pages
4–11 and Exhibits 3–6.
The record evidence establishes that
the pipe production facilities under
Yieh Phui’s control have remained
largely unchanged since the transfer of
assets from Yieh Hsing. Although Yieh
Phui appointed a new general manager
of its pipe operations, Yieh Phui hired
the vast majority of former Yieh Hsing
employees and supervisors to operate
the facility. The Buy/Sell Agreement
between Yieh Hsing and Yieh Phui
provides a detailed description of the
production facilities that were
transferred to Yieh Phui, indicating that
the identical processes and facilities
were used to produce steel pipe
products prior to and after the transfer.
See SQR dated February 15, 2005, at 3
and Exhibits 1 and 3.
Regarding suppliers, Yieh Phui and
Yieh Hsing did not purchase major raw
material inputs (i.e. hot rolled coils)
from identical suppliers. Prior to the
transfer of the pipe facilities in 2003,
Yieh Hsing had purchased hot rolled
coils from certain suppliers at a fixed
price pursuant to an annual purchase
agreement. This annual purchase
agreement expired at the end of 2002
and the associated suppliers refused to
renew the agreement as a result of the
rapid variation of market prices at that
time. Yieh Phui provided price statistics
published by the Taiwan Steel and Iron
Industrial Association to illustrate this
upward market trend in hot rolled coil
prices throughout 2002 and early 2003.
See questionnaire response (QR) dated
April 29, 2005, at Exhibit 7. Since Yieh
Hsing’s suppliers refused to renew the
purchase agreement, Yieh Phui opted to
purchase the hot rolled coils necessary
for its newly–acquired pipe operations
through one of its established supplier
lines. As Yieh Phui had already been
purchasing hot rolled coils for its
galvanizing operations prior to 2003, it
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:43 Oct 14, 2005
Jkt 208001
sought to maintain its business
relationships with its major supplier of
hot rolled coils at that time. Thus, the
record shows that Yieh Phui was not in
a position to establish the same supply
channels as Yieh Hsing and reasonably
maintained its relationship with an
existing supplier. The difference in
suppliers, therefore, does not
demonstrate that the companies are
materially dissimilar in this particular
case.
With respect to customers, Yieh Phui
indicated it assumed the same customer
base and sales practices that Yieh Hsing
had maintained prior to the transfer of
assets. Yieh Phui provided charts and
sale documentation illustrating that the
same customers, importers and
negotiating parties were involved in the
sales of pipes as when Yieh Hsing was
selling subject pipes. See SQR dated
April 29, 2005, at 17–19 and Exhibits 9–
10 and SQR dated June 13, 2005, at
Exhibits 2 and 3. The majority of the
persons responsible for negotiating sales
of pipe and tubes for Yieh Hsing were
hired and assigned such tasks by Yieh
Phui after the transfer took place. See
SQR dated April 29, 2005, at 7–8.
Preliminary Results of the Review
In analyzing the totality of the factors
on the record, we preliminarily
conclude that Yieh Phui operates in
essentially the same manner in terms of
production, management, and customer
base as Yieh Hsing prior to the transfer
of Yieh Hsing’s pipe facilities to Yieh
Phui. The change in supplier
relationships does not demonstrate that
the companies are materially dissimilar
in this case. Morever, the current
structure of Yieh Phui and the previous
structure of Yieh Hsing are sufficiently
similar to support a finding that Yieh
Phui is the successor–in-interest to Yieh
Hsing. As a result, we have
preliminarily determined, in fact, that
Yieh Phui is the successor–in-interest to
Yieh Hsing and ought to be accorded the
same antidumping duty treatment as its
predecessor. Should these preliminary
results be adopted in our final results of
this changed circumstance review, Yieh
Hsing’s cash deposit rate (i.e., 1.61
percent) will be applied to Yieh Phui’s
entries of subject merchandise entered,
or withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the date of
publication of the final results. Until
that time, the cash deposit rate assigned
to Yieh Phui’s entries is the rate in effect
at the time of entry (i.e., the ‘‘all–others’’
rate).
Public Comment
Interested parties are invited to
comment on these preliminary results.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Parties who submit argument in this
proceeding are requested to submit with
the argument: (1) a statement of the
issue, (2) a brief summary of the
argument. Any interested party may
request a hearing within 10 days of the
date of publication of this notice. Any
hearing, if requested, will be held no
later than 25 days after the date of
publication of this notice, or the first
workday thereafter. Case briefs may be
submitted by interested parties not later
than 15 days after the date of
publication of this notice. Rebuttal
briefs, limited to the issues raised in the
case briefs, may be filed not later than
20 days after the date of publication of
this notice. All written comments shall
be submitted in accordance with 19 CFR
§ 351.303.
Consistent with 19 CFR § 351.216(e),
the Department will publish the final
results of this changed circumstance
review, including its analysis of issues
raised in any written comments, no later
than 270 days after the date of
publication of the Initiation Notice. This
notice is in accordance with sections
751(b) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended, and 19 C.F.R.
§ 351.221(c)(3)(i) of the Department’s
regulations.
Dated: October 3, 2005.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretaryfor Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E5–5712 Filed 10–14–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–851]
Notice of Amended Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review: Certain Preserved Mushrooms
from the People’s Republic of China
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On September 14, 2005 the
Department of Commerce (the
‘‘Department’’) published the final
results and final rescission, in part, of
the administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on certain
preserved mushrooms from the People’s
Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’), covering the
period of review (POR) February 1,
2003, through January 31, 2004. See
Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the
People’s Republic of China: Final
Results and Final Rescission, In Part, of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 70 FR 54361 (September 14,
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM
17OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 199 / Monday, October 17, 2005 / Notices
2005) (‘‘Final Results’’). We are
amending our Final Results to correct
ministerial errors made in the
calculations of the dumping margins for
Xiamen International Trade & Industrial
Co., Ltd. (‘‘XITIC’’), Shandong Jiufa
Edible Fungus Corporation, Ltd.
(‘‘Jiufa’’) and Guangxi Hengxian Pro–
Lights Foods, Inc. (‘‘Guangxi
Hengxian’’) pursuant to section 751(h)
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
(the Act).
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 17, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: P.
Lee Smith or Christopher Riker, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 9, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–1655 or (202) 482–
3441, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Scope of Order
The products covered by this order
are certain preserved mushrooms,
whether imported whole, sliced, diced,
or as stems and pieces. The certain
preserved mushrooms covered under
this order are the species Agaricus
bisporus and Agaricus bitorquis.
‘‘Certain Preserved Mushrooms’’ refer to
mushrooms that have been prepared or
preserved by cleaning, blanching, and
sometimes slicing or cutting. These
mushrooms are then packed and heated
in containers including, but not limited
to, cans or glass jars in a suitable liquid
medium, including, but not limited to,
water, brine, butter or butter sauce.
Certain preserved mushrooms may be
imported whole, sliced, diced, or as
stems and pieces. Included within the
scope of this order are ‘‘brined’’
mushrooms, which are presalted and
packed in a heavy salt solution to
provisionally preserve them for further
processing.
Excluded from the scope of this order
are the following: (1) All other species
of mushroom, including straw
mushrooms; (2) all fresh and chilled
mushrooms, including ‘‘refrigerated’’ or
‘‘quick blanched mushrooms’’; (3) dried
mushrooms; (4) frozen mushrooms; and
(5) ‘‘marinated,’’ ‘‘acidified,’’ or
‘‘pickled’’ mushrooms, which are
prepared or preserved by means of
vinegar or acetic acid, but may contain
oil or other additives.1
1 On June 19, 2000, the Department affirmed that
‘‘marinated,’’ ‘‘acidified,’’ or ‘‘pickled’’ mushrooms
containing less than 0.5 percent acetic acid are
within the scope of the antidumping duty order.
See ‘‘Recommendation Memorandum-Final Ruling
of Request by Tak Fat, et al. for Exclusion of Certain
Marinated, Acidified Mushrooms from the Scope of
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:43 Oct 14, 2005
Jkt 208001
The merchandise subject to this order
is classifiable under subheadings:
2003.10.0127, 2003.10.0131,
2003.10.0137, 2003.10.0143,
2003.10.0147, 2003.10.0153 and
0711.51.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States
(‘‘HTSUS’’). Although the HTSUS
subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, the
written description of the scope of this
order is dispositive.
Background
On September 14, 2005, the
Department of Commerce published the
Final Results and corresponding issues
and decision memorandum. See
Memorandum from Barbara E. Tillman
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Import Administration to Joseph A.
Spetrini Acting Assistant Secretary for
Import Administration, Issues and
Decision Memorandum for the Final
Results in the 2003/2004 Administrative
Review of Certain Preserved Mushrooms
from the People’s Republic of China.
On September 13, 2005, Jiufa, XITIC
and the Coalition for Fair Preserved
Mushroom Trade (‘‘petitioners’’) filed
timely allegations that the Department
made various ministerial errors in the
Final Results. On September 16, 2005,
China Processed Food Import & Export
Company and its affiliates (‘‘COFCO’’)
filed rebuttal comments to ministerial
error allegations submitted by the
petitioners.2 No other interested party
submitted ministerial error allegations.
A ministerial error is defined in
Section 751(h) of the Act and further
clarified in 19 CFR 351.224(f) as ‘‘an
error in addition, subtraction, or other
arithmetic function, clerical error
resulting from inaccurate copying,
duplication, or the like, and any other
similar type of unintentional error
which the Secretary considers
ministerial.’’
After analyzing all interested parties’
comments, we have determined, in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(e), that
ministerial errors existed in the
calculations for the Final Results. For a
detailed discussion of these ministerial
errors, as well as the Department’s
the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Preserved
Mushrooms from the People’s Republic of China,’’
dated June 19, 2000. On February 9, 2005, this
decision was upheld by the United States Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit. See Tak Fat v.
United States, 396 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
2 We have not addressed comments pertaining to
clerical allegations relating to COFCO’s margin in
the Final Results because the U.S. Court of
International Trade has obtained jurisdiction those
results pursuant to COFCO’s appeal. See China
Processed Food Import & Export Company v.
United States, Court No. 05-00515 (Complaint filed
September 19, 2005); see also, Zenith Elecs. Corp.
v. United States, 884 F.2d 556, 561 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
60281
analysis, see memorandum from
Christopher D. Riker to James C. Doyle,
Analysis of Ministerial Error
Allegations, dated October 7, 2005
(‘‘Ministerial Error Allegation
Memorandum’’). The Ministerial Error
Allegation Memorandum is on file in
the Central Records Unit, room B–099 in
the main Department building.
Therefore, in accordance with Section
751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e),
we are amending the Final Results of the
administrative review of certain
preserved mushrooms from the PRC.
The revised weighted–average dumping
margins are detailed in the
‘‘Antidumping Duty Order’’ section,
below. For company–specific
calculations see Memorandum from
John Conniff, through Christopher D.
Riker to the File, Analysis Memorandum
for the Amended Final Results for XITIC
(October 7, 2005); Memorandum from
John Conniff through Christopher D.
Riker, to the File, Analysis
Memorandum for the Amended Final
Results for Jiufa (October 7, 2005);
Memorandum from Amber Musser
through Christopher D. Riker to the File,
Analysis Memorandum for the
Amended Final Results for Guangxi
Hengxian (October 7, 2005). The revised
final weighted–average dumping
margins are as follows:
Exporter
Shandong Jiufa Edible
Fungus Corporation
Ltd. ............................
Xiamen International
Trade & Industrial
Co., Ltd. ....................
Guangxi Hengxian Pro–
Light Foods
(Zhangzhou) Co., Ltd.
Percent
3.60
0.00
21.38
The Department shall determine, and
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
shall assess, antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries based on the
amended final results. For details on the
assessment of antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries, see Final Results.
These amended final results are
published in accordance with sections
751(h) and 777(I)(1) of the Act.
Dated: October 7, 2005.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretaryfor Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E5–5714 Filed 10–14–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM
17OCN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 199 (Monday, October 17, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60280-60281]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-5714]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-851]
Notice of Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's
Republic of China
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On September 14, 2005 the Department of Commerce (the
``Department'') published the final results and final rescission, in
part, of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on
certain preserved mushrooms from the People's Republic of China
(``PRC''), covering the period of review (POR) February 1, 2003,
through January 31, 2004. See Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the
People's Republic of China: Final Results and Final Rescission, In
Part, of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 54361 (September
14,
[[Page 60281]]
2005) (``Final Results''). We are amending our Final Results to correct
ministerial errors made in the calculations of the dumping margins for
Xiamen International Trade & Industrial Co., Ltd. (``XITIC''), Shandong
Jiufa Edible Fungus Corporation, Ltd. (``Jiufa'') and Guangxi Hengxian
Pro-Lights Foods, Inc. (``Guangxi Hengxian'') pursuant to section
751(h) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 17, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: P. Lee Smith or Christopher Riker, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
1655 or (202) 482-3441, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Scope of Order
The products covered by this order are certain preserved mushrooms,
whether imported whole, sliced, diced, or as stems and pieces. The
certain preserved mushrooms covered under this order are the species
Agaricus bisporus and Agaricus bitorquis. ``Certain Preserved
Mushrooms'' refer to mushrooms that have been prepared or preserved by
cleaning, blanching, and sometimes slicing or cutting. These mushrooms
are then packed and heated in containers including, but not limited to,
cans or glass jars in a suitable liquid medium, including, but not
limited to, water, brine, butter or butter sauce. Certain preserved
mushrooms may be imported whole, sliced, diced, or as stems and pieces.
Included within the scope of this order are ``brined'' mushrooms, which
are presalted and packed in a heavy salt solution to provisionally
preserve them for further processing.
Excluded from the scope of this order are the following: (1) All
other species of mushroom, including straw mushrooms; (2) all fresh and
chilled mushrooms, including ``refrigerated'' or ``quick blanched
mushrooms''; (3) dried mushrooms; (4) frozen mushrooms; and (5)
``marinated,'' ``acidified,'' or ``pickled'' mushrooms, which are
prepared or preserved by means of vinegar or acetic acid, but may
contain oil or other additives.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ On June 19, 2000, the Department affirmed that
``marinated,'' ``acidified,'' or ``pickled'' mushrooms containing
less than 0.5 percent acetic acid are within the scope of the
antidumping duty order. See ``Recommendation Memorandum-Final Ruling
of Request by Tak Fat, et al. for Exclusion of Certain Marinated,
Acidified Mushrooms from the Scope of the Antidumping Duty Order on
Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China,''
dated June 19, 2000. On February 9, 2005, this decision was upheld
by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. See
Tak Fat v. United States, 396 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The merchandise subject to this order is classifiable under
subheadings: 2003.10.0127, 2003.10.0131, 2003.10.0137, 2003.10.0143,
2003.10.0147, 2003.10.0153 and 0711.51.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS''). Although the HTSUS
subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the
written description of the scope of this order is dispositive.
Background
On September 14, 2005, the Department of Commerce published the
Final Results and corresponding issues and decision memorandum. See
Memorandum from Barbara E. Tillman Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Import Administration to Joseph A. Spetrini Acting Assistant
Secretary for Import Administration, Issues and Decision Memorandum for
the Final Results in the 2003/2004 Administrative Review of Certain
Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China.
On September 13, 2005, Jiufa, XITIC and the Coalition for Fair
Preserved Mushroom Trade (``petitioners'') filed timely allegations
that the Department made various ministerial errors in the Final
Results. On September 16, 2005, China Processed Food Import & Export
Company and its affiliates (``COFCO'') filed rebuttal comments to
ministerial error allegations submitted by the petitioners.\2\ No other
interested party submitted ministerial error allegations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ We have not addressed comments pertaining to clerical
allegations relating to COFCO's margin in the Final Results because
the U.S. Court of International Trade has obtained jurisdiction
those results pursuant to COFCO's appeal. See China Processed Food
Import & Export Company v. United States, Court No. 05-00515
(Complaint filed September 19, 2005); see also, Zenith Elecs. Corp.
v. United States, 884 F.2d 556, 561 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A ministerial error is defined in Section 751(h) of the Act and
further clarified in 19 CFR 351.224(f) as ``an error in addition,
subtraction, or other arithmetic function, clerical error resulting
from inaccurate copying, duplication, or the like, and any other
similar type of unintentional error which the Secretary considers
ministerial.''
After analyzing all interested parties' comments, we have
determined, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(e), that ministerial
errors existed in the calculations for the Final Results. For a
detailed discussion of these ministerial errors, as well as the
Department's analysis, see memorandum from Christopher D. Riker to
James C. Doyle, Analysis of Ministerial Error Allegations, dated
October 7, 2005 (``Ministerial Error Allegation Memorandum''). The
Ministerial Error Allegation Memorandum is on file in the Central
Records Unit, room B-099 in the main Department building.
Therefore, in accordance with Section 751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.224(e), we are amending the Final Results of the administrative
review of certain preserved mushrooms from the PRC. The revised
weighted-average dumping margins are detailed in the ``Antidumping Duty
Order'' section, below. For company-specific calculations see
Memorandum from John Conniff, through Christopher D. Riker to the File,
Analysis Memorandum for the Amended Final Results for XITIC (October 7,
2005); Memorandum from John Conniff through Christopher D. Riker, to
the File, Analysis Memorandum for the Amended Final Results for Jiufa
(October 7, 2005); Memorandum from Amber Musser through Christopher D.
Riker to the File, Analysis Memorandum for the Amended Final Results
for Guangxi Hengxian (October 7, 2005). The revised final weighted-
average dumping margins are as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exporter Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shandong Jiufa Edible Fungus Corporation Ltd........ 3.60
Xiamen International Trade & Industrial Co., Ltd.... 0.00
Guangxi Hengxian Pro-Light Foods (Zhangzhou) Co., 21.38
Ltd................................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border
Protection shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries
based on the amended final results. For details on the assessment of
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries, see Final Results.
These amended final results are published in accordance with
sections 751(h) and 777(I)(1) of the Act.
Dated: October 7, 2005.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretaryfor Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E5-5714 Filed 10-14-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
