Stainless Steel Bar from India: Notice of Intent to Rescind Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Ferro Alloys Corporation Limited, 70582-70584 [E5-6445]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
70582
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 224 / Tuesday, November 22, 2005 / Notices
Taiwan, Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews
of Antidumping Duty Orders; Final
Results, 70 FR 58187 (October 5, 2005).
On October 14, 2005, the ITC
determined, pursuant to section 751(c)
of the Act, that revocation of the
antidumping duty orders on Porcelain–
on-Steel Cooking Ware from the PRC
and Taiwan would likely lead to
continuation or recurrence of material
injury to an industry in the United
States within a reasonably foreseeable
time. See Porcelain–on-Steel Cooking
Ware From China and Taiwan; Top–ofthe–Stove Stainless Steel Cooking Ware
From Korea and Taiwan (Investigations
Nos. 731–TA–298 and 299 (Second
Review); Investigations Nos. 701–TA–
267 and 268 and 731–TA–304 and 305
(Second Review)), 70 FR 67740
(November 8, 2005).
Scope of the Orders
PRC
The merchandise covered by this
order is porcelain–on-steel cooking ware
from the PRC, including tea kettles,
which do not have self–contained
electric heating elements. All of the
foregoing are constructed of steel and
are enameled or glazed with vitreous
glasses. The merchandise is currently
classifiable under the United States
Harmonized Tariff Schedule (‘‘USHTS’’)
item 7323.94.00. USHTS items numbers
are provided for convenience and
customs purposes. The written
description of the scope remains
dispositive.
In response to a request from CGS
International, on January 30, 1991, the
Department clarified that high quality,
hand finished cookware, including the
small basin, medium basin, large basin,
small colander, large colander, 8’’ bowl,
6’’ bowl, mugs, ash tray, napkin rings,
utensil holder and utensils, ladle, cream
& sugar, and mixing bowls are properly
considered kitchen ware and are,
therefore, outside the scope of the order.
Further, the Department clarified that
CGS International’s casserole, 12–cup
coffee pot, 6–cup coffee pot, roasting
pan, oval roaster, and butter warmer are
within the scope of the order (see Notice
of Scope Rulings, 56 FR 19833 (April 30,
1991)).
In response to a request from
Texsport, on August 8, 1990, the
Department determined that camping
sets, with the exception of the cups and
plates included in those sets, are within
the scope of the order (see Notice of
Scope Rulings, 55 FR 43020 (October 25,
1990)).
On March 8, 2000, Tristar Products’
grill set with aluminum grill plate was
found to be outside the scope of the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:49 Nov 21, 2005
Jkt 208001
order (see Notice of Scope Rulings, 65
FR 41957 (July 7, 2000)).
On October 29, 2003, Target
Corporation’s certain enamel–clad
beverage holders and dispensers were
found to be outside the scope of the
order (see Notice of Scope Rulings, 70
FR 24533 (May 10, 2005)).
On January 4, 2005, Taybek
International’s Pro Popper professional
popcorn popper was found to be within
the scope of the order (see Notice of
Scope Rulings, 70 FR 41374 (July 19,
2005)).
Taiwan
The merchandise covered by this
order is porcelain–on-steel cooking ware
from Taiwan that do not have self–
contained electric heating elements. All
of the foregoing are constructed of steel
and are enameled or glazed with
vitreous glasses. Kitchen ware and
teakettles are not subject to this order.
The merchandise is currently
classifiable under the USHTS item
number 7323.94.00. The USHTS
subheading is provided for convenience
and customs purposes. The written
description of the scope remains
dispositive.
On August 23, 1990, in response to a
request from RSVP, BBQ grill baskets
were found to be outside the scope of
the order (see Notice of Scope Rulings,
55 FR 43020 (October 25, 1990)).
On September 3, 1992, in response to
a request from Mr. Stove Ltd., stove top
grills and drip pans were found to be
outside the scope of the order (see
Notice of Scope Rulings, 57 FR 57420
(December 4, 1992)).
On September 25, 1992, in response
to a request from Metrokane Inc., the
‘‘Pasta Time’’ pasta cooker was found to
be within the scope of the order (see
Notice of Scope Rulings, 57 FR 57420
(December 4, 1992)).
On August 18, 1995, Blair
Corporation’s Blair cooking ware items
#1101 (seven piece cookware set),
#271911 (eight–quart stock pot), and
#271921 (twelve–quart stock pot) were
found to be outside the scope of the
order (see Notice of Scope Rulings, 60
FR 54213 (October 20, 1995)).
On October 30, 1996, Cost Plus, Inc.’s
10 piece porcelain–on-steel fondue set
was found to be within the scope of the
order (see Notice of Scope Rulings, 62
FR 9176 (February 28, 1997)).
Determination
As a result of the determinations by
the Department and the ITC that
revocation of the antidumping duty
orders would likely lead to continuation
or recurrence of dumping and material
injury to an industry in the United
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
States, pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of
the Act, the Department hereby orders
the continuation of the antidumping
duty orders on Porcelain–on-Steel
Cooking Ware from the PRC and
Taiwan. U.S. Customs and Border
Protection will continue to collect
antidumping duty cash deposits at the
rates in effect at the time of entry for all
imports of subject merchandise.
The effective date of continuation of
these orders will be the date of
publication in the Federal Register of
this Notice of Continuation. Pursuant to
section 751(c)(2) of the Act, the
Department intends to initiate the next
five–year review of these orders not
later than October 2010.
These five–year (sunset) reviews and
notice are in accordance with section
751(c) of the Act and published
pursuant to section 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: November 15, 2005.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretaryfor Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E5–6442 Filed 11–21–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–533–810]
Stainless Steel Bar from India: Notice
of Intent to Rescind Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review of Ferro Alloys
Corporation Limited
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to requests from
interested parties, the Department of
Commerce is conducting an
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on stainless
steel bar from India for the period
February 1, 2004, through January 31,
2005. The Department intends to
rescind this review with respect to Ferro
Alloys Corporation Limited after
concluding that no entries of subject
merchandise were made during the
period of review.
AGENCY:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
November 22, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Devta Ohri, AD/CVD Operations, Office
1, Import Administration, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department
of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20230; telephone (202) 482–3853.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
E:\FR\FM\22NON1.SGM
22NON1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 224 / Tuesday, November 22, 2005 / Notices
Background
On February 1, 2005, the Department
of Commerce (‘‘the Department’’)
published a notice in the Federal
Register providing an opportunity for
interested parties to request an
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on stainless
steel bar (‘‘SSB’’) from India for the
period February 1, 2004, through
January 31, 2005. See Antidumping or
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity
To Request Administrative Review, 70
FR 5136. On February 22, 2005, we
received a timely request for review
from Shah Alloys Ltd. (‘‘Shah’’).1 On
February 25, 2005, we received a timely
request for review and revocation from
Venus Wire Industries Pvt. Limited
(‘‘Venus’’). On February 28, 2005, we
received timely review requests from
Ferro Alloys Corporation Limited
(‘‘Facor’’), Chandan Steel Limited
(‘‘Chandan’’), Isibars Limited (‘‘Isibars’’),
Mukand Limited (‘‘Mukand’’), and the
Viraj Group (‘‘Viraj’’).2 On February 28,
2005, Carpenter Technology
Corporation, Electralloy Corporation,
and Crucible Specialty Metals Division,
Crucible Materials Corporation
(collectively, ‘‘the petitioners’’) also
requested an administrative review of
Viraj. On March 23, 2005, the
Department initiated an administrative
review of the antidumping duty order
on SSB from India with respect to Facor,
Chandan, Isibars, Mukand, and Venus.3
See Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews and Requests for Revocation in
Part, 70 FR 14643.
On March 29, 2005, the Department
issued its antidumping duty
questionnaire to Facor. On May 4, 2005,
and May 31, 2005, after being granted a
series of extensions, Facor filed its
responses to section A and sections B–
D of the Department’s antidumping duty
1 On February, 28, 2005, the Department declined
Shah’s request for review because Shah explicitly
stated in its request that it did not have any export
sales to the United States during the period of
review.
2 We did not initiate with respect to Viraj because
the order for this company was revoked on
September 14, 2004. See Letter from the Department
to Peter J. Koenig, Esq. (counsel to Viraj),
‘‘Extension Requests,’’ dated April 19, 2005; see
also Stainless Steel Bar From India; Final Results,
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review in Part, and Determination To Revoke in
Part, 69 FR 55409 (Sept. 14, 2004); Initiation of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews and Requests for
Revocation in Part, 70 FR 14643 (Mar. 23, 2005).
3 This Federal Register notice only pertains to the
Department’s intent to rescind the current
administrative review with regard to Facor.
Therefore, this notice will not discuss
developments in the administrative review with
respect to Chandan, Isibars, Mukand, or Venus.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:22 Nov 21, 2005
Jkt 208001
questionnaire, respectively. Upon
reviewing Facor’s questionnaire
responses, the Department learned that
Facor had no entries of subject
merchandise during the period of
review, February 1, 2004, through
January 31, 2005 (‘‘POR’’).
On June 9, 2005, and October 5, 2005,
the Department issued supplemental
questionnaires to Facor requesting
additional information on Facor’s U.S.
sales process and date of sale. On June
16, 2005, and October 19, 2005, Facor
filed its responses to the Department’s
supplemental questionnaires.
To confirm that Facor made no entries
of subject merchandise during the POR,
the Department requested data from
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(‘‘CBP’’) on July 26, 2005. CBP provided
the Department with the requested data
on September 8, 2005. This data was
placed on the record on September 26,
2005. See Memorandum to the File,
‘‘U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Data,’’ dated September 26, 2005.
Scope of the Order
Merchandise covered by the order is
shipments of SSB. SSB means articles of
stainless steel in straight lengths that
have been either hot–rolled, forged,
turned, cold–drawn, cold–rolled or
otherwise cold–finished, or ground,
having a uniform solid cross section
along their whole length in the shape of
circles, segments of circles, ovals,
rectangles (including squares), triangles,
hexagons, octagons, or other convex
polygons. SSB includes cold–finished
SSBs that are turned or ground in
straight lengths, whether produced from
hot–rolled bar or from straightened and
cut rod or wire, and reinforcing bars that
have indentations, ribs, grooves, or
other deformations produced during the
rolling process.
Except as specified above, the term
does not include stainless steel semi–
finished products, cut–to-length flat–
rolled products (i.e., cut–to-length
rolled products which if less than 4.75
mm in thickness have a width
measuring at least 10 times the
thickness, or if 4.75 mm or more in
thickness having a width which exceeds
150 mm and measures at least twice the
thickness), wire (i.e., cold–formed
products in coils, of any uniform solid
cross section along their whole length,
which do not conform to the definition
of flat–rolled products), and angles,
shapes, and sections.
The SSB subject to this order is
currently classifiable under subheadings
7222.11.00.05, 7222.11.00.50,
7222.19.00.05, 7222.19.00.50,
7222.20.00.05, 7222.20.00.45,
7222.20.00.75, and 7222.30.00.00 of the
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
70583
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (‘‘HTSUS’’). Although the
HTSUS subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, our
written description of the scope of the
order is dispositive.
On May 23, 2005, the Department
issued a final scope ruling that SSB
manufactured in the United Arab
Emirates out of stainless steel wire rod
from India is not subject to the scope of
this proceeding. See Memorandum to
Barbara E. Tillman, Antidumping Duty
Orders on Stainless Steel Bar from India
and Stainless Steel Wire Rod from India:
Final Scope Ruling (May 23, 2005).
Intent to Rescind the Administrative
Review of Facor
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the
Tariff Act of 1930 (as amended) (‘‘the
Act’’), when conducting an
administrative review, the Department
examines entries of subject
merchandise. According to 19 CFR
351.213(d)(3), the Department will
rescind an administrative review in
whole or only with respect to a
particular exporter or producer, if we
conclude that during the POR, there
were no entries, exports, or sales of the
subject merchandise, as the case may be.
The Department has interpreted the
statutory and regulatory language as
requiring ‘‘that there be entries during
the period of review upon which to
assess antidumping duties.’’ Granular
Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from
Japan: Notice of Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 70 FR 44088, 44088 (Aug. 1,
2005). Moreover, in Chia Far Industrial
Factory Co., Ltd., v. United States, 343
F. Supp. 2d 1344, 1374 (CIT Aug. 2,
2004), the Court affirmed the
Department’s rescission of a review for
lack of entries (‘‘Commerce correctly
decided to rescind Ta Chen’s review
based on the fact that there were no
entries of the merchandise at issue
during the POR, regardless of whether
there were sales.’’).
In this administrative review, Facor
reported no entries of subject
merchandise to the U.S. market during
the POR, a fact which the Department
confirmed by conducting an inquiry
with CBP. Even if the Department’s
practice were to review sales, as
opposed to entries, Facor had no sales
during the POR. In its questionnaire
responses, Facor argued that the
Department should use the purchase
order date, as opposed to the invoice
date, as the U.S. date of sale. However,
the Department’s rebuttable
presumption is to use the invoice date
as the date of sale. See 19 CFR
351.401(i). Facor failed to provide a
E:\FR\FM\22NON1.SGM
22NON1
70584
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 224 / Tuesday, November 22, 2005 / Notices
compelling reason for the Department to
deviate from its standard practice.
According to information on the record,
Facor issued no sales invoices to the
United States during the POR. As Facor
had no U.S. sales or entries during the
POR, the Department intends to rescind
the current administrative review with
respect to Facor.
Public Comment
Interested parties may comment on
the Department’s intent to rescind the
administrative review with respect to
Facor. Comments will be considered in
the Department’s preliminary results,
which are currently due on February 28,
2006.
This notice is published in
accordance with section 777(i) of the
Act and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
Dated: November 15, 2005.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretaryfor Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E5–6445 Filed 11–21–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C–583–604]
Revocation of Countervailing Duty
Order: Top–of-the–Stove Stainless
Steel Cookware from Taiwan
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’’)
determined that revocation of the
countervailing duty (‘‘CVD’’) order on
top–of-the–stove stainless steel (‘‘TOS’’)
cookware from Taiwan would not be
likely to lead to continuation or
recurrence of dumping or material
injury to an industry in the United
States, and the Department is publishing
this notice of revocation of the CVD
order.
AGENCY:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
April 18, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Tipten Troidl or David Goldberger, AD/
CVD Operations, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–1767 or (202) 482–
4136, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:22 Nov 21, 2005
Jkt 208001
Background
On November 26, 1986, the
Department published its final
affirmative CVD determination on TOS
cookware from Taiwan in the Federal
Register. See Final Affirmative
Countervailing Duty Determination:
Certain Stainless Steel Cooking Ware
from Taiwan, 51 FR 42891 (November
26, 1986). In the final determination the
Department found an estimated net
subsidy of 2.14 percent ad valorem for
all manufacturers/producers/exporters
of TOS cookware from Taiwan. On
September 3, 1999, the Department
published the final results of its first
five-year sunset review and determined
that revocation of the CVD order would
be likely to lead to continuation or
recurrence of a net countervailable
subsidy of 2.14 percent ad valorem. See
Top–of-the–Stove Stainless Steel
Cookware from Taiwan, 64 FR 48372
(September 3, 1999). After an
affirmative determination by the ITC, on
April 18, 2000, the Department
published the notice of continuation of
the order. See Continuation of
Antidumping Duty Orders and
Countervailing Duty Orders: Top–ofthe–Stove Stainless Steel Cooking Ware
From Taiwan and Korea, 65 FR 20801
(April 18, 2000).
On March 1, 2005, the Department
initiated, and the ITC instituted, sunset
reviews of the CVD order on TOS
cookware from Taiwan. See Notice of
Initiation of Five-year (‘‘Sunset’’)
Reviews, 70 FR 9919 (March 1, 2005). As
a result of its review, the Department
found that revocation of the CVD order
would likely lead to continuation or
recurrence of a countervailable subsidy,
and notified the ITC of the net
countervailable subsidy likely to prevail
were the order to be revoked. See Final
Results of Expedited Sunset Review of
Countervailing Duty Order: Top–of-the–
Stove Stainless Steel Cookware from
Taiwan, 70 FR 57856 (October 4, 2005).
On November 8, 2005, the ITC
determined, pursuant to section 751(c)
of the Act, that revocation of the CVD
order on TOS cookware from Taiwan
would not likely lead to continuation or
recurrence of material injury to an
industry in the United States. See
Porcelain–on-Steel Cooking Ware From
China and Taiwan; Top–of-the–Stove
Stainless Steel Cooking Ware From
Korea and Taiwan, 70 FR 67740
(November 8, 2005) and USITC
Publication 3808 (October 2005),
entitled Porcelain–on-Steel Cooking
Ware From China and Taiwan, and
Top–of-the–Stove Stainless Steel
Cooking Ware From Korea and Taiwan
(Investigation Nos. 731–TA–298 and
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
299 (Second Review) and Investigation
Nos. 701–TA–267 and 268 and 731–TA–
304 and 305 (Second Review)).
Scope of the Order
The merchandise subject to this CVD
order is TOS cookware from Taiwan.
The subject merchandise is all non–
electric cooking ware of stainless steel
which may have one or more layers of
aluminum, copper or carbon steel for
more even heat distribution. The subject
merchandise includes skillets, frying
pans, omelette pans, saucepans, double
boilers, stock pots, dutch ovens,
casseroles, steamers, and other stainless
steel vessels, all for cooking on stove top
burners, except tea kettles and fish
poachers.
Excluded from the scope of the order
are stainless steel oven ware and
stainless steel kitchen ware. ‘‘Universal
pan lids’’ are not within the scope of the
order (57 FR 57420, December 4, 1992).
TOS cookware is currently classifiable
under Harmonized Tariff Schedule
(HTS) item numbers 7323.93.00 and
9604.00.00. The HTS item numbers are
provided for convenience and customs
purposes only. The written description
remains dispositive.
Determination
As a result of the determination by the
ITC that revocation of this CVD order is
not likely to lead to continuation or
recurrence of material injury to an
industry in the United States, the
Department, pursuant to section 751(d)
of the Act, is revoking the CVD order on
TOS cookware from Taiwan. Pursuant
to section 751(d)(2) of the Act and 19
CFR 351.222(i)(2)(i), the effective date of
revocation is April 18, 2005 (i.e., the
fifth anniversary of the date of
publication in the Federal Register of
the notice of continuation of the CVD
order). The Department will notify U.S.
Customs and Border Protection to
discontinue suspension of liquidation
and collection of cash deposits on
entries of the subject merchandise
entered or withdrawn from warehouse
on or after April 18, 2005, the effective
date of revocation of the CVD order. The
Department will complete any pending
administrative reviews of this order and
will conduct administrative reviews of
subject merchandise entered prior to the
effective date of revocation in response
to appropriately filed requests for
review.
This five-year sunset review and
notice are in accordance with section
751(d)(2) and published pursuant to
section 777(i)(1) of the Act.
E:\FR\FM\22NON1.SGM
22NON1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 224 (Tuesday, November 22, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70582-70584]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-6445]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-533-810]
Stainless Steel Bar from India: Notice of Intent to Rescind
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Ferro Alloys Corporation
Limited
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to requests from interested parties, the
Department of Commerce is conducting an administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar from India for the period
February 1, 2004, through January 31, 2005. The Department intends to
rescind this review with respect to Ferro Alloys Corporation Limited
after concluding that no entries of subject merchandise were made
during the period of review.
EFFECTIVE DATE: November 22, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Devta Ohri, AD/CVD Operations, Office
1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-3853.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[[Page 70583]]
Background
On February 1, 2005, the Department of Commerce (``the
Department'') published a notice in the Federal Register providing an
opportunity for interested parties to request an administrative review
of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar (``SSB'') from
India for the period February 1, 2004, through January 31, 2005. See
Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended
Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 70 FR
5136. On February 22, 2005, we received a timely request for review
from Shah Alloys Ltd. (``Shah'').\1\ On February 25, 2005, we received
a timely request for review and revocation from Venus Wire Industries
Pvt. Limited (``Venus''). On February 28, 2005, we received timely
review requests from Ferro Alloys Corporation Limited (``Facor''),
Chandan Steel Limited (``Chandan''), Isibars Limited (``Isibars''),
Mukand Limited (``Mukand''), and the Viraj Group (``Viraj'').\2\ On
February 28, 2005, Carpenter Technology Corporation, Electralloy
Corporation, and Crucible Specialty Metals Division, Crucible Materials
Corporation (collectively, ``the petitioners'') also requested an
administrative review of Viraj. On March 23, 2005, the Department
initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on SSB
from India with respect to Facor, Chandan, Isibars, Mukand, and
Venus.\3\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 70 FR
14643.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ On February, 28, 2005, the Department declined Shah's
request for review because Shah explicitly stated in its request
that it did not have any export sales to the United States during
the period of review.
\2\ We did not initiate with respect to Viraj because the order
for this company was revoked on September 14, 2004. See Letter from
the Department to Peter J. Koenig, Esq. (counsel to Viraj),
``Extension Requests,'' dated April 19, 2005; see also Stainless
Steel Bar From India; Final Results, Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review in Part, and Determination To Revoke in Part,
69 FR 55409 (Sept. 14, 2004); Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for
Revocation in Part, 70 FR 14643 (Mar. 23, 2005).
\3\ This Federal Register notice only pertains to the
Department's intent to rescind the current administrative review
with regard to Facor. Therefore, this notice will not discuss
developments in the administrative review with respect to Chandan,
Isibars, Mukand, or Venus.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 29, 2005, the Department issued its antidumping duty
questionnaire to Facor. On May 4, 2005, and May 31, 2005, after being
granted a series of extensions, Facor filed its responses to section A
and sections B-D of the Department's antidumping duty questionnaire,
respectively. Upon reviewing Facor's questionnaire responses, the
Department learned that Facor had no entries of subject merchandise
during the period of review, February 1, 2004, through January 31, 2005
(``POR'').
On June 9, 2005, and October 5, 2005, the Department issued
supplemental questionnaires to Facor requesting additional information
on Facor's U.S. sales process and date of sale. On June 16, 2005, and
October 19, 2005, Facor filed its responses to the Department's
supplemental questionnaires.
To confirm that Facor made no entries of subject merchandise during
the POR, the Department requested data from U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (``CBP'') on July 26, 2005. CBP provided the Department with
the requested data on September 8, 2005. This data was placed on the
record on September 26, 2005. See Memorandum to the File, ``U.S.
Customs and Border Protection Data,'' dated September 26, 2005.
Scope of the Order
Merchandise covered by the order is shipments of SSB. SSB means
articles of stainless steel in straight lengths that have been either
hot-rolled, forged, turned, cold-drawn, cold-rolled or otherwise cold-
finished, or ground, having a uniform solid cross section along their
whole length in the shape of circles, segments of circles, ovals,
rectangles (including squares), triangles, hexagons, octagons, or other
convex polygons. SSB includes cold-finished SSBs that are turned or
ground in straight lengths, whether produced from hot-rolled bar or
from straightened and cut rod or wire, and reinforcing bars that have
indentations, ribs, grooves, or other deformations produced during the
rolling process.
Except as specified above, the term does not include stainless
steel semi-finished products, cut-to-length flat-rolled products (i.e.,
cut-to-length rolled products which if less than 4.75 mm in thickness
have a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness, or if 4.75 mm
or more in thickness having a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures
at least twice the thickness), wire (i.e., cold-formed products in
coils, of any uniform solid cross section along their whole length,
which do not conform to the definition of flat-rolled products), and
angles, shapes, and sections.
The SSB subject to this order is currently classifiable under
subheadings 7222.11.00.05, 7222.11.00.50, 7222.19.00.05, 7222.19.00.50,
7222.20.00.05, 7222.20.00.45, 7222.20.00.75, and 7222.30.00.00 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS''). Although
the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs
purposes, our written description of the scope of the order is
dispositive.
On May 23, 2005, the Department issued a final scope ruling that
SSB manufactured in the United Arab Emirates out of stainless steel
wire rod from India is not subject to the scope of this proceeding. See
Memorandum to Barbara E. Tillman, Antidumping Duty Orders on Stainless
Steel Bar from India and Stainless Steel Wire Rod from India: Final
Scope Ruling (May 23, 2005).
Intent to Rescind the Administrative Review of Facor
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (as
amended) (``the Act''), when conducting an administrative review, the
Department examines entries of subject merchandise. According to 19 CFR
351.213(d)(3), the Department will rescind an administrative review in
whole or only with respect to a particular exporter or producer, if we
conclude that during the POR, there were no entries, exports, or sales
of the subject merchandise, as the case may be. The Department has
interpreted the statutory and regulatory language as requiring ``that
there be entries during the period of review upon which to assess
antidumping duties.'' Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from
Japan: Notice of Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,
70 FR 44088, 44088 (Aug. 1, 2005). Moreover, in Chia Far Industrial
Factory Co., Ltd., v. United States, 343 F. Supp. 2d 1344, 1374 (CIT
Aug. 2, 2004), the Court affirmed the Department's rescission of a
review for lack of entries (``Commerce correctly decided to rescind Ta
Chen's review based on the fact that there were no entries of the
merchandise at issue during the POR, regardless of whether there were
sales.'').
In this administrative review, Facor reported no entries of subject
merchandise to the U.S. market during the POR, a fact which the
Department confirmed by conducting an inquiry with CBP. Even if the
Department's practice were to review sales, as opposed to entries,
Facor had no sales during the POR. In its questionnaire responses,
Facor argued that the Department should use the purchase order date, as
opposed to the invoice date, as the U.S. date of sale. However, the
Department's rebuttable presumption is to use the invoice date as the
date of sale. See 19 CFR 351.401(i). Facor failed to provide a
[[Page 70584]]
compelling reason for the Department to deviate from its standard
practice. According to information on the record, Facor issued no sales
invoices to the United States during the POR. As Facor had no U.S.
sales or entries during the POR, the Department intends to rescind the
current administrative review with respect to Facor.
Public Comment
Interested parties may comment on the Department's intent to
rescind the administrative review with respect to Facor. Comments will
be considered in the Department's preliminary results, which are
currently due on February 28, 2006.
This notice is published in accordance with section 777(i) of the
Act and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
Dated: November 15, 2005.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretaryfor Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E5-6445 Filed 11-21-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
