Certain Pasta from Italy: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony, 61118 [E5-5794]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
61118
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 202 / Thursday, October 20, 2005 / Notices
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–475–818]
Certain Pasta from Italy: Notice of
Court Decision Not in Harmony
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On September 14, 2005, the
United States Court of International
Trade (‘‘CIT’’) held void ab initio the
Department of Commerce’s (‘‘the
Department’’) initiation of the sixth
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order with regard to
PAM, S.p.A. and JCM, Ltd. (‘‘PAM’’) in
all respects. See PAM S.p.A. & JCM, Ltd.
v. United States, Court No. 04–00082,
Slip. Op. 05–124 (CIT, Sept. 14, 2005)
(‘‘PAM v. United States’’). Consistent
with the decision of the United States
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
(‘‘Federal Circuit’’) in Timken Co. v.
United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir.
1990) (‘‘Timken’’), the Department is
notifying the public that the PAM v.
United States decision was ‘‘not in
harmony’’ with the Department’s
original results.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 24, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Preeti Tolani, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 3, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, Room
4012, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–0395.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
Background
On July 1, 2002, the Department
published a notice of opportunity to
request an administrative review of the
antidumping duty order for certain
pasta from Italy. See Antidumping or
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or
Suspended Investigation: Opportunity
To Request Administrative Review, 67
FR 44172 (July 1, 2002). In response, the
Department received requests for review
of thirteen respondent companies,
including PAM, from domestic
petitioners.1 Petitioners served their
requests for administrative reviews
upon all respondent companies except
for PAM. On August 27, 2002, the
Department published a notice of
initiation of its sixth antidumping duty
administrative review covering the
period of July 1, 2001, through June 30,
2002, listing PAM and twelve other
1 New World Pasta Company, Dakota Growers
Pasta Company, Borden Foods Corporation, and
American Italian Pasta Company.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:14 Oct 19, 2005
Jkt 208001
companies as respondents. See
Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews and Requests for Revocation in
Part, 67 FR 55000 (August 27, 2002).
Thereafter, PAM notified the
Department that PAM was not served
properly with a request for review. On
August 7, 2003, the Department
published its preliminary results of the
sixth administrative review of the
antidumping duty order where it
applied adverse facts available for PAM
to arrive at an antidumping margin of
45.49 percent. See Notice of Preliminary
Results and Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review and Intent Not to Revoke in Part:
For the Sixth Administrative Review of
the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain
Pasta from Italy, 68 FR 47020 (August
7, 2003). On February 10, 2004, the
Department published its final results,
which affirmed its decisions in the
preliminary results. See Notice of Final
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and
Determination Not to Revoke in Part:
For the Sixth Administrative Review of
the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain
Pasta from Italy, 69 FR 6255 (Feb. 10,
2004).
PAM challenged that the initiation of
this review, as well as its subsequent
results, should be void ab initio because
petitioners failed to serve their request
for initiation of the review in violation
of 19 C.F.R. § 351.303(f)(3)(ii) (2002).
The CIT granted PAM’s motions for
judgment on the agency record, held
void ab initio the initiation of the sixth
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order with respect to
PAM, and directed the Department to
rescind the sixth administrative review
of the antidumping duty order with
respect to PAM.
Timken Notice
In its decision in Timken, the Federal
Circuit held that, pursuant to 19 U.S.C.
§ 1516a(e), the Department must publish
notice of a decision of the CIT which is
‘‘not in harmony’’ with the
Department’s results. The CIT’s decision
in PAM v. United States was not in
harmony with the Department’s final
antidumping duty results. Therefore,
publication of this notice fulfills the
obligation imposed upon the
Department by the decision in Timken.
In addition, this notice will serve to
continue the suspension of liquidation.
If this decision is not appealed, or if
appealed, it is upheld, the Department
will rescind the sixth administrative
review of the antidumping duty order
with respect to PAM.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Dated: October 7, 2005.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E5–5794 Filed 10–19–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–580–807]
Polyethylene Terephthalate Film from
Korea; Continuation of Antidumping
Duty Order
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: As a result of the
determinations by the Department of
Commerce (the Department) and the
International Trade Commission (ITC)
that revocation of the antidumping duty
order on polyethylene terephthalate
(PET) film from Korea would likely lead
to continuation or recurrence of
dumping and material injury to an
industry in the United States, the
Department is publishing this notice of
continuation of this antidumping duty
order.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 20, 2005.
FOR INFORMATION CONTACT: Dana
Mermelstein or Robert James, AD/CVD
Operations, Offices 6 and 7, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–1391 or (202) 482–
0649, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
Scope of the Order
The antidumping duty order on PET
film from Korea covers shipments of all
gauges of raw, pre–treated, or primed
polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet,
and strip, whether extruded or co–
extruded. The films excluded from this
order are metallized films and other
finished films that have had at least one
of their surfaces modified by the
application of a performance–enhancing
resinous or inorganic layer of more than
0.00001 inches (0.254 micrometers)
thick. Roller transport cleaning film
which has at least one of its surfaces
modified by the application of 0.5
micrometers of SBR latex has also been
ruled as not within the scope of the
order. PET film is currently classifiable
under Harmonized Tariff Schedule
(HTS) subheading 3920.62.00.00.1
1 Effective July 1, 2003, the HTS subheading
3920.62.00.00 was divided into 3920.62.00.10
E:\FR\FM\20OCN1.SGM
20OCN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 202 (Thursday, October 20, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 61118]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-5794]
[[Page 61118]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-475-818]
Certain Pasta from Italy: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On September 14, 2005, the United States Court of
International Trade (``CIT'') held void ab initio the Department of
Commerce's (``the Department'') initiation of the sixth administrative
review of the antidumping duty order with regard to PAM, S.p.A. and
JCM, Ltd. (``PAM'') in all respects. See PAM S.p.A. & JCM, Ltd. v.
United States, Court No. 04-00082, Slip. Op. 05-124 (CIT, Sept. 14,
2005) (``PAM v. United States''). Consistent with the decision of the
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (``Federal
Circuit'') in Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir.
1990) (``Timken''), the Department is notifying the public that the PAM
v. United States decision was ``not in harmony'' with the Department's
original results.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 24, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Preeti Tolani, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 4012, 14\th\ Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0395.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On July 1, 2002, the Department published a notice of opportunity
to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order for
certain pasta from Italy. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order,
Finding, or Suspended Investigation: Opportunity To Request
Administrative Review, 67 FR 44172 (July 1, 2002). In response, the
Department received requests for review of thirteen respondent
companies, including PAM, from domestic petitioners.\1\ Petitioners
served their requests for administrative reviews upon all respondent
companies except for PAM. On August 27, 2002, the Department published
a notice of initiation of its sixth antidumping duty administrative
review covering the period of July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2002,
listing PAM and twelve other companies as respondents. See Initiation
of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and
Requests for Revocation in Part, 67 FR 55000 (August 27, 2002).
Thereafter, PAM notified the Department that PAM was not served
properly with a request for review. On August 7, 2003, the Department
published its preliminary results of the sixth administrative review of
the antidumping duty order where it applied adverse facts available for
PAM to arrive at an antidumping margin of 45.49 percent. See Notice of
Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Intent Not to Revoke in Part: For the Sixth
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Pasta
from Italy, 68 FR 47020 (August 7, 2003). On February 10, 2004, the
Department published its final results, which affirmed its decisions in
the preliminary results. See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review and Determination Not to Revoke in Part: For
the Sixth Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on
Certain Pasta from Italy, 69 FR 6255 (Feb. 10, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ New World Pasta Company, Dakota Growers Pasta Company,
Borden Foods Corporation, and American Italian Pasta Company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PAM challenged that the initiation of this review, as well as its
subsequent results, should be void ab initio because petitioners failed
to serve their request for initiation of the review in violation of 19
C.F.R. Sec. 351.303(f)(3)(ii) (2002). The CIT granted PAM's motions
for judgment on the agency record, held void ab initio the initiation
of the sixth administrative review of the antidumping duty order with
respect to PAM, and directed the Department to rescind the sixth
administrative review of the antidumping duty order with respect to
PAM.
Timken Notice
In its decision in Timken, the Federal Circuit held that, pursuant
to 19 U.S.C. Sec. 1516a(e), the Department must publish notice of a
decision of the CIT which is ``not in harmony'' with the Department's
results. The CIT's decision in PAM v. United States was not in harmony
with the Department's final antidumping duty results. Therefore,
publication of this notice fulfills the obligation imposed upon the
Department by the decision in Timken. In addition, this notice will
serve to continue the suspension of liquidation. If this decision is
not appealed, or if appealed, it is upheld, the Department will rescind
the sixth administrative review of the antidumping duty order with
respect to PAM.
Dated: October 7, 2005.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E5-5794 Filed 10-19-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
