International Trade Administration, North American Free-Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Article 1904 Binational Panel Reviews, 3469 [E6-655]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 14 / Monday, January 23, 2006 / Notices
erjones on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES
Antidumping or Countervailing Duty
Order, Finding, or Suspended
Investigation; Opportunity to Request a
Review, 70 FR 16799 (April 1, 2005).
The Department received timely
requests for review from Colakoglu
Metalurji A.S. and Colakoglu Dis Ticaret
(collectively ‘‘Colakoglu’’); Diler Demir
Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S., Yazici
Demir Celik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S., and
Diler Dis Ticaret A.S. (collectively
‘‘Diler’’); Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar
Istihsal Endustrisi A.S. (Habas); and
ICDAS Celik Enerji Tersane ve Ulasim
Sanayi A.S. (ICDAS), foreign producers/
exporters in this proceeding. The
Department also received a timely
request for review from Nucor
Corporation and Gerdau Ameristeel
Corporation, domestic producers of
rebar and interested parties in this
proceeding, covering 34 producers/
exporters of rebar from Turkey,
including the producers/exporters
referenced above. On May 27, 2005, the
Department published a notice of
initiation of administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on rebar from
Turkey. See Initiation of Antidumping
Duty and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews and Request for
Revocation in Part, 70 FR 30694 (May
27, 2005). The Department released the
antidumping questionnaire in May and
August 2005 to the 34 producers/
exporters for which an administrative
review was requested. Colakoglu, Diler,
Ekinciler Demir ve Celik Sanayi A.S.
and Ekinciler Dis Ticaret A.S., and
Habas responded to the Department’s
questionnaire in August 2005 and
ICDAS responded to the Department’s
questionnaire in October 2005. The
preliminary results for this proceeding
are due no later than May 1, 2006.
Scope of the Order
The product covered by this order is
all stock deformed steel concrete
reinforcing bars sold in straight lengths
and coils. This includes all hot-rolled
deformed rebar rolled from billet steel,
rail steel, axle steel, or low-alloy steel.
It excludes (i) plain round rebar, (ii)
rebar that a processor has further
worked or fabricated, and (iii) all coated
rebar. Deformed rebar is currently
classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)
under item numbers 7213.10.000 and
7214.20.000. The HTSUS subheadings
are provided for convenience and
customs purposes. The written
description of the scope of this
proceeding is dispositive.
Determination To Rescind, in Part
On November 8, 2005, the Department
published its final results for the April
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:01 Jan 20, 2006
Jkt 208001
1, 2003, though March 31, 2004,
administrative review and found that
ICDAS met the requirements of
revocation as described in 19 CFR
351.222. See Certain Steel Concrete
Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Final
Results, Rescission of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review in Part, and
Determination To Revoke in Part, 70 FR
67665 (Nov. 8, 2005). Due to ICDAS’
revocation in that review, we are
rescinding the April 1, 2004, through
March 31, 2005, administrative review
with respect to ICDAS because there is
no statutory or regulatory basis to
conduct an administrative review for a
producer/exporter that has met the
requirements of revocation.
Dated: January 12, 2006.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E6–652 Filed 1–20–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration,
North American Free-Trade Agreement
(NAFTA), Article 1904 Binational Panel
Reviews
NAFTA Secretariat, United
States Section, International Trade
Administration, Department of
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of decision of panel.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: On January 17, 2006 the
binational panel issued its decision in
the review of the determination on
remand made by the International Trade
Commission, respecting Magnesium
from Canada Full Sunset Review of AD
and CVD Orders, Secretariat File No.
USA–CDA–2000–1904–09. The
binational panel affirmed in part and
remanded in part to the International
Trade Commission. Copies of the panel
decision are available from the U.S.
Section of the NAFTA Secretariat.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Caratina L. Alston, United States
Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat, Suite
2061, 14th and Constitution Avenue,
Washington, DC 20230, (202) 482–5438.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Chapter
19 of the North American Free-Trade
Agreement (‘‘Agreement’’) establishes a
mechanism to replace domestic judicial
review of final determinations in
antidumping and countervailing duty
cases involving imports from a NAFTA
country with review by independent
binational panels. When a Request for
Panel Review is filed, a panel is
established to act in place of national
courts to review expeditiously the final
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
3469
determination to determine whether it
conforms with the antidumping or
countervailing duty law of the country
that made the determination.
Under Article 1904 of the Agreement,
which came into force on January 1,
1994, the Government of the United
States, the Government of Canada and
the Government of Mexico established
Rules of Procedure for Article 1904
Binational Panel Reviews (‘‘Rules’’).
These Rules were published in the
Federal Register on February 23, 1994
(59 FR 8686). The panel review in this
matter has been conducted in
accordance with these Rules. Panel
Decision: The panel affirmed in part and
remanded in part the International
Trade Commission’s determination on
remand respecting Magnesium from
Canada. The panel remand in part to the
Commission and instructed the
Commission as follows: Analyze the
price, volume and impact of revocation
of the countervailing duty order on alloy
magnesium to show how the record
supports the Commission’s conclusions,
providing a reasoned explanation based
on all of the evidence on the record to
support a decision that revocation of the
countervailing duty order on imports of
alloy magnesium from Canada would be
likely to lead to continuation or
recurrence of material injury to the
domestic alloy magnesium industry
within the reasonably foreseeable future
due to underselling by Magnola. The
Commission must provide further
reasoned analysis supported by
substantial evidence on the record,
including any factual evidence not
referred to in its Views on Remand, as
to the conclusion that Magnola would
enter the market by underselling in
order to establish export volumes that
would be significant in relation to
anticipated demand increases. The
Commission is directed to respond to
this Order within sixty (60) days of
receipt.
Dated: January 17, 2006.
Caratina L. Alston,
U.S. Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat.
[FR Doc. E6–655 Filed 1–20–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–GT–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Proposed Information Collection;
Comment Request; Application for
Commission in the NOAA Officer
Corps
National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\23JAN1.SGM
23JAN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 14 (Monday, January 23, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 3469]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-655]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration, North American Free-Trade
Agreement (NAFTA), Article 1904 Binational Panel Reviews
AGENCY: NAFTA Secretariat, United States Section, International Trade
Administration, Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of decision of panel.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On January 17, 2006 the binational panel issued its decision
in the review of the determination on remand made by the International
Trade Commission, respecting Magnesium from Canada Full Sunset Review
of AD and CVD Orders, Secretariat File No. USA-CDA-2000-1904-09. The
binational panel affirmed in part and remanded in part to the
International Trade Commission. Copies of the panel decision are
available from the U.S. Section of the NAFTA Secretariat.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Caratina L. Alston, United States
Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat, Suite 2061, 14th and Constitution Avenue,
Washington, DC 20230, (202) 482-5438.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Chapter 19 of the North American Free-Trade
Agreement (``Agreement'') establishes a mechanism to replace domestic
judicial review of final determinations in antidumping and
countervailing duty cases involving imports from a NAFTA country with
review by independent binational panels. When a Request for Panel
Review is filed, a panel is established to act in place of national
courts to review expeditiously the final determination to determine
whether it conforms with the antidumping or countervailing duty law of
the country that made the determination.
Under Article 1904 of the Agreement, which came into force on
January 1, 1994, the Government of the United States, the Government of
Canada and the Government of Mexico established Rules of Procedure for
Article 1904 Binational Panel Reviews (``Rules''). These Rules were
published in the Federal Register on February 23, 1994 (59 FR 8686).
The panel review in this matter has been conducted in accordance with
these Rules. Panel Decision: The panel affirmed in part and remanded in
part the International Trade Commission's determination on remand
respecting Magnesium from Canada. The panel remand in part to the
Commission and instructed the Commission as follows: Analyze the price,
volume and impact of revocation of the countervailing duty order on
alloy magnesium to show how the record supports the Commission's
conclusions, providing a reasoned explanation based on all of the
evidence on the record to support a decision that revocation of the
countervailing duty order on imports of alloy magnesium from Canada
would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material
injury to the domestic alloy magnesium industry within the reasonably
foreseeable future due to underselling by Magnola. The Commission must
provide further reasoned analysis supported by substantial evidence on
the record, including any factual evidence not referred to in its Views
on Remand, as to the conclusion that Magnola would enter the market by
underselling in order to establish export volumes that would be
significant in relation to anticipated demand increases. The Commission
is directed to respond to this Order within sixty (60) days of receipt.
Dated: January 17, 2006.
Caratina L. Alston,
U.S. Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat.
[FR Doc. E6-655 Filed 1-20-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-GT-P
