Stainless Steel Bar from India: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony and Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation, 73726-73727 [E5-7275]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
73726
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 13, 2005 / Notices
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and
its implementing regulations at 5 CFR
part 1320 do not apply.
Dated: December 5, 2005.
Dale N. Bosworth,
Chief.
[FR Doc. 05–23983 Filed 12–12–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–11–P
Text of Proposed Directive
Note: The Forest Service organizes its
directive system by alpha-numeric codes and
subject headings. Only the section of the FSH
1909.15, Environmental Policy and
Procedures Handbook, affected by this
proposed directive is included in this notice.
Please note, however, that category 15 (para.
16) is reserved. A notice for comment was
published for category 16 on January 5, 2005
(70 FR 1062). A final directive for this CE has
not been adopted as of the date of publication
of this Federal Register notice. The complete
text of FSH 1909.15, Chapter 30 may
obtained by contacting the individuals listed
in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or from
the Forest Service home page on the World
Wide Web at https://www.fs.fed.us/im/
directives/fsh/1909.15/1909.15,30.txt. The
intended audience for this direction is Forest
Service employees charged with planning
and administering oil and gas exploration
and development projects on NFS lands
under Federal lease.
FSH 1909.15—Environmental Policy
and Procedures Handbook Chapter
30—Categorical Exclusion from
Documentation
Add new paragraphs 16 and 17 as
follows:
31.2—Categories of Action for Which a
Project or Case File and Decision Memo
Are Required
Routine, proposed actions within any
of the following categories may be
excluded from documentation in an EIS
or an EA; however, a project or case file
is required and the decision to proceed
must be documented in a decision
memo (sec. 32). As a minimum, the
project or case file should include any
records prepared, such as: The names of
interested and affected people, groups,
and agencies contacted; the
determination that no extraordinary
circumstances exist; a copy of the
decision memo (sec. 05); and a list of
the people notified of the decision.
Maintain a project or case file and
prepare a decision memo for any of the
categories of actions set forth in section
21.21 through 31.23.
*
*
*
*
*
16. [Reserved]
17. Approval of a Surface Use Plan of
Operations for oil and natural gas
exploration or development activities
within a new oil and/or gas field, so
long as the approval will not authorize
VerDate Aug<31>2005
00:22 Dec 13, 2005
activities in excess of any of the
following:
a. One mile of new road construction
b. One mile of road reconstruction
c. Three miles of pipeline installation
d. Four drill sites.
Jkt 208001
AMERICAN BATTLE MONUMENTS
COMMISSION
SES Performance Review Board
American Battle Monuments
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the
appointment of members of the ABMC
Performance Review Board.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Theodore Gloukhoff, Director of
Personnel and Administration,
American Battle Monuments
Commission, Courthouse Plaza II, Suite
500, 2300 Clarendon Boulevard,
Arlington, Virginia, 22201–3367,
Telephone Number: (703) 696–6908.
American Battle Monuments
Commission SES Performance Review
Board Mr. Gerald W. Barnes, Chief,
Operations Division, U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers Mr. Donald L. Basham,
Chief, Engineering & Construction, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers Mr. Stephen
Coakley, Director of Resource
Management, US Army Corps of
Engineers
Theodore Gloukhoff,
Director, Personnel and Administration.
[FR Doc. E5–7257 Filed 12–12–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6120–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
A–533–810
Stainless Steel Bar from India: Notice
of Court Decision Not in Harmony and
Continuation of Suspension of
Liquidation
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On October 20, 2005, in Slater
Steels Corp. v. United States, Consol.
Court No. 02–00551, Slip Op. 05–137
(CIT October 20, 2005) (‘‘Slater III’’), a
lawsuit challenging the Department of
Commerce’s (‘‘the Department’’) Notice
of Amended Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Review: Stainless Steel Bar from India,
67 FR 53336 (August 15, 2002) (‘‘Final
Results’’) and the accompanying Issues
and Decision Memorandum (July 5,
2002) (‘‘Decision Memorandum’’), the
Court of International Trade (‘‘CIT’’)
affirmed the Department’s third remand
determination and entered a judgment
order. In the remand determination, the
Department did not collapse Viraj
Alloys Limited (‘‘VAL’’) with Viraj
Impoexpo Limited (‘‘VIL’’) and Viraj
Forgings Limited (‘‘VFL’’). The
Department calculated an individual
antidumping duty margin for VIL/VFL.
The Department did not calculate an
individual antidumping duty margin for
VAL because it did not export the
subject merchandise to the United
States during the period of review. The
resulting antidumping duty margin for
VIL/VFL is 0.84 percent.
Consistent with the decision of the
U.S. 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
will continue to order the suspension of
liquidation of the subject merchandise
until there is a ‘‘conclusive’’ decision in
this case. If the case is not appealed, or
if it is affirmed on appeal, the
Department will instruct the U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’)
to liquidate all relevant entries of
subject merchandise for VIL/VFL.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 30, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Steve Williams, AD/CVD Enforcement
Office 1, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202)
482–4619.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
In the underlying administrative
review covering the period February 1,
2000, though January 31, 2001, the
Department collapsed VAL, VIL, and
VFL pursuant to 19 USC § 1677(33) and
19 CFR § 351.401(f) (2000). See Final
Results; see also Decision Memorandum
at Comment 1. As a collapsed entity,
VAL/VIL/VFL received a de minimis
dumping margin.
Based upon the record evidence, the
Department found that VAL, VIL, and
VFL ‘‘meet the regulations’ collapsing
requirements.’’ Decision Memorandum
at Comment 1. First, the Department
found that ‘‘VAL and VIL can produce
subject merchandise (i.e., similar or
identical products) and can continue to
do so, independently or under existing
leasing agreements, without substantial
E:\FR\FM\13DEN1.SGM
13DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 13, 2005 / Notices
retooling of their production facilities.’’
Id. Second, the Department found ‘‘a
significant potential for the
manipulation of price and production
among VIL, VAL, and VFL.’’ Id. Slater
Steels Corporation, Carpenter
Technology Corporation, Electralloy
Corporation, and Crucible Specialty
Metals Division of Crucible Materials
Corporation (collectively, the
‘‘plaintiffs’’/‘‘defendant–intervenors’’)
challenged this determination before the
CIT, arguing that the Department
misapplied its collapsing regulation.
The CIT determined that the
Department’s decision to collapse VAL,
VIL, and VFL was not supported by
substantial evidence on the record.
Therefore, the CIT remanded the Final
Results to the Department to reconsider
its analysis of the collapsing issue and,
if necessary, revise the dumping margin
calculation accordingly. See Slater
Steels Corp. v. United States, 279 F.
Supp. 2d 1370 (CIT August 21, 2003)
(‘‘Slater I’’). Pursuant to the CIT’s order
in Slater I, the Department filed its Final
Results of Redetermination Pursuant to
Remand (‘‘Remand I’’). In Remand I, the
Department determined that its decision
to collapse VAL, VIL, and VFL was
supported by substantial evidence and
in accordance with the law, and
therefore, the Department did not revise
its dumping margin calculations.
Upon review of Remand I, the CIT
again remanded the Final Results to the
Department for further review of its
collapsing determination, citing certain
issues for the Department to reexamine.
See Slater Steels Corp. v. United States,
Court No. 02–00551, Slip Op. 04–22
(CIT March 8, 2004) (‘‘Slater II’’). In
response to the CIT’s instructions in
Slater II, the Department filed its Final
Results of Redetermination Pursuant to
Remand (‘‘Remand II’’). In Remand II,
the Department addressed the concerns
raised by the CIT in Slater II and found
that the decision to collapse VAL, VIL,
and VFL was supported by substantial
evidence and in accordance with the
law, and therefore, the Department did
not revise its dumping margin
calculations.
Upon review of Remand II, the CIT
again remanded the Final Results to the
Department with specific instructions
that the Department calculate individual
dumping margins. See Slater III Slip Op.
05–137 at 15. The CIT found that the
Department’s decision to collapse VAL,
VIL, and VFL in the Final Results was
not consistent with the Department’s
decision not to collapse VAL, VIL, and
VFL in previous reviews. See Slater III
Slip Op. 05–137 at 15. In Final Results
of Redetermination Pursuant to Remand
(‘‘Remand III’’), the Department did not
VerDate Aug<31>2005
00:22 Dec 13, 2005
Jkt 208001
collapse VAL with VIL/VFL. See
Remand III at 5–6. The Department
collapsed VIL and VFL because the
plaintiffs agreed in the underlying
review that VIL and VFL should be
collapsed. See Remand III at 5. VIL/
VFL’s resulting antidumping duty
margin is 0.84 percent. Id. at 26. The
CIT affirmed the Department’s Remand
III on October 20, 2005. See Slater III
Slip Op. 05–137 at 4–5.
Suspension of Liquidation
The Federal Circuit, in Timken, held
that the Department must publish notice
of a decision of the CIT or the Federal
Circuit which is not ‘‘in harmony’’ with
the Department’s Final Results.
Publication of this notice fulfills that
obligation. The Federal Circuit also held
that the Department must suspend
liquidation of the subject merchandise
until there is a ‘‘conclusive’’ decision in
the case. Therefore, pursuant to Timken,
the Department must continue to
suspend liquidation pending the
expiration of the period to appeal the
CIT’s October 20, 2005, decision or, if
that decision is appealed, pending a
final decision by the Federal Circuit.
The Department will instruct CBP to
liquidate relevant entries covering the
subject merchandise, in the event that
the CIT’s ruling is not appealed, or if
appealed and upheld by the Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Dated: December 7, 2005.
Joesph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E5–7275 Filed 12–12–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–583–816]
Notice of Final Results and Final
Rescission in Part of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review: Certain
Stainless Steel Butt–Weld Pipe Fittings
From Taiwan
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On July 11, 2005, the
Department of Commerce (‘‘the
Department’’) published in the Federal
Register the preliminary results of the
administrative review of the order on
certain stainless steel butt–weld pipe
fittings from Taiwan. See Certain
Stainless Steel Butt–Weld Pipe Fittings
From Taiwan: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review and Notice of Intent To Rescind
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
73727
in Part, 70 FR 39735 (July 11, 2005)
(‘‘Preliminary Results’’). This review
covers two manufacturers/exporters of
the subject merchandise. The
merchandise covered by this order is
certain stainless steel butt–weld pipe
fittings from Taiwan as described in the
‘‘Scope of the Order’’ section of this
notice. The period of review (‘‘POR’’) is
June 1, 2003, through May 31, 2004. We
gave interested parties an opportunity to
comment on the preliminary results.
Based upon our analysis of the
comments received, we made changes to
the margin calculation for one
respondent. Therefore, the final results
have changed from the preliminary
results of this review. The final weight–
averaged dumping margin is listed
below in the section titled ‘‘Final
Results of the Review.’’
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 13, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Helen Kramer or Abdelali Elouaradia,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–0405 and (202)
482–1374, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Department’s preliminary results
of review were published on July 11,
2005. See Preliminary Results. We
invited parties to comment on the
Preliminary Results. We received
written comments on August 10, 2005,
from Flowline Division of Markovitz
Enterprise, Inc., Shaw Allow Piping
Products, Inc., Gerlin, Inc., and Taylor
Forge Stainless, Inc., collectively, ‘‘the
petitioners.’’ On August 15, 2005, we
received rebuttal comments from Ta
Chen Stainless Pipe Co., Ltd. (‘‘Ta
Chen’’) and its wholly owned U.S.
subsidiary Ta Chen International, Inc.
(‘‘TCI’’). The Department is conducting
this administrative review in
accordance with section 751 of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the
Act’’).
Scope of the Order
The products subject to this order are
certain stainless steel butt–weld pipe
fittings, whether finished or unfinished,
under 14 inches inside diameter.
Certain welded stainless steel butt–weld
pipe fittings (‘‘pipe fittings’’) are used to
connect pipe sections in piping systems
where conditions require welded
connections. The subject merchandise is
used where one or more of the following
conditions is a factor in designing the
piping system: (1) Corrosion of the
E:\FR\FM\13DEN1.SGM
13DEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 238 (Tuesday, December 13, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73726-73727]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-7275]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
A-533-810
Stainless Steel Bar from India: Notice of Court Decision Not in
Harmony and Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On October 20, 2005, in Slater Steels Corp. v. United States,
Consol. Court No. 02-00551, Slip Op. 05-137 (CIT October 20, 2005)
(``Slater III''), a lawsuit challenging the Department of Commerce's
(``the Department'') Notice of Amended Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Bar from India, 67 FR 53336
(August 15, 2002) (``Final Results'') and the accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum (July 5, 2002) (``Decision Memorandum''), the Court
of International Trade (``CIT'') affirmed the Department's third remand
determination and entered a judgment order. In the remand
determination, the Department did not collapse Viraj Alloys Limited
(``VAL'') with Viraj Impoexpo Limited (``VIL'') and Viraj Forgings
Limited (``VFL''). The Department calculated an individual antidumping
duty margin for VIL/VFL. The Department did not calculate an individual
antidumping duty margin for VAL because it did not export the subject
merchandise to the United States during the period of review. The
resulting antidumping duty margin for VIL/VFL is 0.84 percent.
Consistent with the decision of the U.S. 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 will
continue to order the suspension of liquidation of the subject
merchandise until there is a ``conclusive'' decision in this case. If
the case is not appealed, or if it is affirmed on appeal, the
Department will instruct the U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(``CBP'') to liquidate all relevant entries of subject merchandise for
VIL/VFL.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 30, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Williams, AD/CVD Enforcement
Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4619.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
In the underlying administrative review covering the period
February 1, 2000, though January 31, 2001, the Department collapsed
VAL, VIL, and VFL pursuant to 19 USC Sec. 1677(33) and 19 CFR Sec.
351.401(f) (2000). See Final Results; see also Decision Memorandum at
Comment 1. As a collapsed entity, VAL/VIL/VFL received a de minimis
dumping margin.
Based upon the record evidence, the Department found that VAL, VIL,
and VFL ``meet the regulations' collapsing requirements.'' Decision
Memorandum at Comment 1. First, the Department found that ``VAL and VIL
can produce subject merchandise (i.e., similar or identical products)
and can continue to do so, independently or under existing leasing
agreements, without substantial
[[Page 73727]]
retooling of their production facilities.'' Id. Second, the Department
found ``a significant potential for the manipulation of price and
production among VIL, VAL, and VFL.'' Id. Slater Steels Corporation,
Carpenter Technology Corporation, Electralloy Corporation, and Crucible
Specialty Metals Division of Crucible Materials Corporation
(collectively, the ``plaintiffs''/``defendant-intervenors'') challenged
this determination before the CIT, arguing that the Department
misapplied its collapsing regulation.
The CIT determined that the Department's decision to collapse VAL,
VIL, and VFL was not supported by substantial evidence on the record.
Therefore, the CIT remanded the Final Results to the Department to
reconsider its analysis of the collapsing issue and, if necessary,
revise the dumping margin calculation accordingly. See Slater Steels
Corp. v. United States, 279 F. Supp. 2d 1370 (CIT August 21, 2003)
(``Slater I''). Pursuant to the CIT's order in Slater I, the Department
filed its Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Remand (``Remand
I''). In Remand I, the Department determined that its decision to
collapse VAL, VIL, and VFL was supported by substantial evidence and in
accordance with the law, and therefore, the Department did not revise
its dumping margin calculations.
Upon review of Remand I, the CIT again remanded the Final Results
to the Department for further review of its collapsing determination,
citing certain issues for the Department to reexamine. See Slater
Steels Corp. v. United States, Court No. 02-00551, Slip Op. 04-22 (CIT
March 8, 2004) (``Slater II''). In response to the CIT's instructions
in Slater II, the Department filed its Final Results of Redetermination
Pursuant to Remand (``Remand II''). In Remand II, the Department
addressed the concerns raised by the CIT in Slater II and found that
the decision to collapse VAL, VIL, and VFL was supported by substantial
evidence and in accordance with the law, and therefore, the Department
did not revise its dumping margin calculations.
Upon review of Remand II, the CIT again remanded the Final Results
to the Department with specific instructions that the Department
calculate individual dumping margins. See Slater III Slip Op. 05-137 at
15. The CIT found that the Department's decision to collapse VAL, VIL,
and VFL in the Final Results was not consistent with the Department's
decision not to collapse VAL, VIL, and VFL in previous reviews. See
Slater III Slip Op. 05-137 at 15. In Final Results of Redetermination
Pursuant to Remand (``Remand III''), the Department did not collapse
VAL with VIL/VFL. See Remand III at 5-6. The Department collapsed VIL
and VFL because the plaintiffs agreed in the underlying review that VIL
and VFL should be collapsed. See Remand III at 5. VIL/VFL's resulting
antidumping duty margin is 0.84 percent. Id. at 26. The CIT affirmed
the Department's Remand III on October 20, 2005. See Slater III Slip
Op. 05-137 at 4-5.
Suspension of Liquidation
The Federal Circuit, in Timken, held that the Department must
publish notice of a decision of the CIT or the Federal Circuit which is
not ``in harmony'' with the Department's Final Results. Publication of
this notice fulfills that obligation. The Federal Circuit also held
that the Department must suspend liquidation of the subject merchandise
until there is a ``conclusive'' decision in the case. Therefore,
pursuant to Timken, the Department must continue to suspend liquidation
pending the expiration of the period to appeal the CIT's October 20,
2005, decision or, if that decision is appealed, pending a final
decision by the Federal Circuit.
The Department will instruct CBP to liquidate relevant entries
covering the subject merchandise, in the event that the CIT's ruling is
not appealed, or if appealed and upheld by the Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit.
Dated: December 7, 2005.
Joesph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E5-7275 Filed 12-12-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
