Heavy Forged Hand Tools (i.e., 8276-8277 [E6-2280]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
8276
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 32 / Thursday, February 16, 2006 / Notices
Dated: February 10, 2006.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E6–2282 Filed 2–15–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
(A–570–803)
Heavy Forged Hand Tools (i.e., Axes &
Adzes, Bars & Wedges, Hammers &
Sledges, and Picks & Mattocks) from
the People’s Republic of China:
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 Heavy Forged Hand Tools (i.e.,
Axes & Adzes, Bars & Wedges, Hammers
& Sledges, and Picks & Mattocks)
(‘‘HFHTs’’) from the People’s Republic
of China (‘‘PRC’’) 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
these antidumping duty orders.
EFFECTIVE DATE: February 16, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim
Nunno, AD/CVD Operations, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–0783.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
dsatterwhite on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Background
On July 1, 2005, the Department
initiated and the ITC instituted a sunset
review of the antidumping duty orders
on HFHTs from the PRC pursuant to
section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930,
as amended (‘‘the Act’’). See Initiation
of Five-year (Sunset) Reviews, 70 FR
38101 (July 1, 2005), and ITC
Investigation Nos. 731–TA–457–A–D
(Second Review), Heavy Forged Hand
Tools from China, 70 FR 38197 (July 1,
2005). As a result of its review, the
Department found that revocation of the
antidumping duty orders would likely
lead to continuation or recurrence of
dumping and notified the ITC of the
magnitude of the margins likely to
prevail were the orders to be revoked.
See Heavy Forged Hand Tools (i.e., Axes
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:56 Feb 15, 2006
Jkt 208001
& Adzes, Bars & Wedges, Hammers &
Sledges, and Picks & Mattocks) from the
People’s Republic of China: Final
Results of the Expedited Sunset Review
of the Antidumping Duty Orders, 70 FR
67451 (November 7, 2005). On January
18, 2006, the ITC determined, pursuant
to sections 751(c) and 752 of the Act,
that revocation of the antidumping duty
orders on HFHTs from the PRC would
likely lead to continuation or recurrence
of material injury to an industry in the
United States within a reasonably
foreseeable time. See ITC Investigation
Nos. 731–TA–457–A–D (Second
Review), Heavy Forged Hand Tools from
China, 71 FR 6290 (February 7, 2006).
Scope of the Orders
The products covered by these orders
are HFHTs comprising the following
classes or kinds of merchandise: (1)
Hammers and sledges with heads over
1.5 kg (3.33 pounds) (hammers/sledges);
(2) bars over 18 inches in length, track
tools and wedges (bars/wedges); (3)
picks and mattocks (picks/mattocks);
and (4) axes, adzes and similar hewing
tools (axes/adzes).
HFHTs include heads for drilling
hammers, sledges, axes, mauls, picks
and mattocks, which may or may not be
painted, which may or may not be
finished, or which may or may not be
imported with handles; assorted bar
products and track tools including
wrecking bars, digging bars, and
tampers; and steel woodsplitting
wedges. HFHTs are manufactured
through a hot forge operation in which
steel is sheared to required length,
heated to forging temperature, and
formed to final shape on forging
equipment using dies specific to the
desired product shape and size.
Depending on the product, finishing
operations may include shot blasting,
grinding, polishing and painting, and
the insertion of handles for handled
products. HFHTs are currently provided
for under the following Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States
(‘‘HTSUS’’) subheadings: 8205.20.60,
8205.59.30, 8201.30.00, and 8201.40.60.
Specifically excluded from these
investigations are hammers and sledges
with heads 1.5 kg. (3.33 pounds) in
weight and under, hoes and rakes, and
bars 18 inches in length and under.
The Department has issued seven
conclusive scope rulings regarding the
merchandise covered by these orders:
(1) On August 16, 1993, the Department
found the ‘‘Max Multi–Purpose Axe,’’
imported by the Forrest Tool Company,
to be within the scope of the axes/adzes
order; (2) on March 8, 2001, the
Department found ‘‘18–inch’’ and ‘‘24–
inch’’ pry bars, produced without dies,
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
imported by Olympia Industrial, Inc.
and SMC Pacific Tools, Inc., to be
within the scope of the bars/wedges
order; (3) on March 8, 2001, the
Department found the ‘‘Pulaski’’ tool,
produced without dies by TMC, to be
within the scope of the axes/adzes
order; (4) on March 8, 2001, the
Department found the ‘‘skinning axe,’’
imported by Import Traders, Inc., to be
within the scope of the axes/adzes
order; (5) on December 9, 2004, the
Department found the ‘‘Scrapek
MUTT,’’ imported by Olympia
Industrial, Inc., under HTSUS
8205.59.5510, to be within the scope of
the axes/adzes order; (6) on May 23,
2005, the Department found 8 inch by
8 inch and 10 inch by 10 inch cast
tampers, imported by Olympia
Industrial, Inc. to be outside the scope
of the orders; and (7) on October 14,
2005, the Department found the ‘‘Mean
Green Splitting Machine’’ imported by
Avalanche Industries to be within the
scope of the bars/wedges order.1
In addition, on September 22, 2005,
the Court of International Trade
sustained the Department’s finding that
cast picks are outside the scope of the
picks/mattocks order. See Tianjin
Machinery Import & Export Corporation
v. United States and Ames True
Temper, Slip Op. 05–127, Court No. 03–
00732 (September 22, 2005).
The HTSUS subheadings are provided
for convenience and Customs purposes.
The written description remains
dispositive.
Determination
As a result of the determinations by
the Department and the ITC that
revocation of the antidumping duty
order would likely lead to continuation
or recurrence of dumping and material
injury to an industry in the United
States, pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of
the Act, the Department hereby orders
the continuation of the antidumping
duty order on heavy forged hand tools
from the PRC. U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (‘‘CBP’’) 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
this order will be the date of publication
in the Federal Register of this Notice of
Continuation. Pursuant to sections
751(c)(2) and 751(c)(6) of the Act, the
Department intends to initiate the next
1 See ‘‘Final Scope Ruling: Antidumping Duty
Order on Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or
Unfinished, With or Without Handles, From the
People’s Republic of China,’’ from James C. Doyle,
Office Director, Office 9, Import Administration, to
Gary Taverman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Import Administration, dated October 14, 2005.
E:\FR\FM\16FEN1.SGM
16FEN1
8277
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 32 / Thursday, February 16, 2006 / Notices
five-year review of this order not later
than January 2011.
This five-year (sunset) review and
notice are in accordance with section
751(c) of the Act and published
pursuant to section 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: February 10, 2006.
David Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E6–2280 Filed 2–15–06; 8:45 am]
Background
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
A–821–817
Silicon Metal From the Russian
Federation; Notice of Amended Final
Determination Pursuant to Court
Decision
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: (February 16, 2006
SUMMARY: On November 28, 2005, the
United States Court of International
Trade (‘‘CIT’’) issued an order affirming
the Department of Commerce’s (‘‘the
Department’’) Second Remand Results.
See Final Results of Redetermination
Pursuant to Court Remand, Globe
Metallurgical, Inc. v. United States,
Consol. Ct. No. 03–00202 (October 21,
2005) (available at https://ia.ita.doc.gov)
(‘‘Second Remand Results’’); see also
Globe Metallurgical, Inc. v. United
States, Slip Op. 05–150, 2005 Ct. Intl.
Trade LEXIS 160 (CIT November 28,
2005) (affirming the Second Remand
Results in their entirety) (‘‘Globe
Metallurgical III’’). In the First Remand
Results, the Department recalculated the
antidumping margins for Bratsk
Aluminum Smelter and Rual Trade
Limited (collectively, ‘‘Bratsk’’) and
ZAO Kremny and SUAL–Kremny-Ural
Ltd. (‘‘SKU’’) (collectively, ‘‘Kremny’’)
to value the respondents’ usage of
recycled silicon metal sized zero to five
millimeters. See Final Results of
Redetermination Pursuant to Court
Remand, Globe Metallurgical, Inc. v.
United States, Consol. Ct. No. 03–00202
(January 5, 2005) (available at https://
ia.ita.doc.gov) (‘‘First Remand Results’’).
In the Second Remand Results, the
Department recalculated the adverse
facts available (‘‘AFA’’) portion of
Kremny’s antidumping duty margin
using the revised antidumping duty
margin for Bratsk calculated in the First
Remand Results. Because all litigation
in this matter has now concluded, the
Department is issuing its amended final
dsatterwhite on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
AGENCY:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:56 Feb 15, 2006
Jkt 208001
determination in accordance with the
CIT’s decision.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Carrie Blozy, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 9, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington,
DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–5403.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
On February 11, 2003, the Department
published its Amended Final
Determination, covering the period of
investigation (‘‘POI’’) from July 1, 2001,
through December 31, 2001. See Notice
of Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Silicon Metal From the
Russian Federation, 68 FR 6885
(February 11, 2003) (‘‘Final
Determination’’), as amended by Notice
of Amended Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon
Metal From the Russian Federation, 68
FR 12037 (March 13, 2003) (‘‘Amended
Final Determination’’). Petitioners and
Bratsk contested various aspects of the
Amended Final Determination.
The Court remanded to the
Department two aspects of its Amended
Final Determination for reconsideration:
(1) with respect to the Department’s
decision not to use Russian values to
value the factors of production and
other expenses, the Court ordered the
Department to either use Russian post–
non-market economy (‘‘NME’’) values or
explain why the market economy
Russian values are not the best available
information; and (2) with respect to the
Department’s treatment of silicon metal
fines, the Court granted the
Department’s request to explain its
exclusion of recycled silicon metal fines
from the factor of production cost
analysis. See Globe Metallurgical, Inc. v.
United States, 350 F. Supp. 2d 1148
(CIT September 24, 2004) (‘‘Globe
Metallurgical I’’). Subsequent to the
Court’s remand, Bratsk voluntarily
dismissed its challenge of the
Department’s rejection of Russian post–
NME values. Therefore, this issue
became moot. In the Department’s First
Remand Results, the Department
recalculated Bratsk’s and Kremny’s
margins to value the usage of recycled
silicon metal sized zero to five
millimeters.
On July 27, 2005, the CIT issued its
opinion on the Department’s First
Remand Results. See Globe
Metallurgical, Inc. v. United States, Slip
Op. 05–90, 2005 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS
98 (CIT July 27, 2005) (‘‘Globe
Metallurgical II’’). The CIT affirmed the
Department’s determination to include
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
recycled silicon metal fines sized zero to
five millimeters in each producer’s
factors of production cost analysis and
affirmed the calculation of Bratsk’s
antidumping duty margin. However, the
Court further remanded the case back to
the Department and ordered the
Department to either recalculate the
AFA portion of Kremny’s antidumping
duty margin using the revised
antidumping duty margin for Bratsk
calculated in the Final Remand Results
or explain the use of the Bratsk margin
from the Amended Final Determination.
The Department recalculated
Kremny’s antidumping duty margin
using the antidumping duty margin for
Bratsk calculated in the First Remand
Results. On October 21, 2005, the
Department signed its Second Remand
Results. On November 28, 2005, the CIT
affirmed the Department’s Second
Remand Results in its entirety. See
Globe Metallurgical III. On December
14, 2005, consistent with the decision of
the United States Court of Appeals for
the Federal Circuit in Timken Co. v.
United States, 893 F. 2d 337 (Fed. Cir.
1990), the Department notified the
public that the CIT’s decision was ‘‘not
in harmony’’ with the Final
Determination. See Notice of Decision of
the Court of International Trade; Silicon
Metal from the Russian Federation, 70
FR 73989 (December 14, 2005)
(‘‘Timken Notice’’). No party has
appealed the CIT’s decision. Because
there is now a final and conclusive
decision in the court proceeding, we are
issuing an amended final determination
to reflect the results of the second
remand determination. The recalculated
margins are as follows:
Manufacturer/Exporter
Weighted–average
margin (percent)
ZAO Kremny or SKU ....
Bratsk ............................
61.61
87.08
Cash Deposit Requirements
The Department will direct the United
States Customs and Border Protection to
require the cash deposit rates listed
above for the subject merchandise,
effective as of December 14, 2005, the
publication date of the Timken Notice.
Because the Russia–wide rate was not
challenged in this case, it has not
changed and remains at 79.42 percent.
These cash deposit requirements, when
imposed, shall remain in effect until
publication of the final results of an
administrative review of this order.
This notice is issued and published in
accordance with sections 735(d) and
777(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended.
E:\FR\FM\16FEN1.SGM
16FEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 32 (Thursday, February 16, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8276-8277]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-2280]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
(A-570-803)
Heavy Forged Hand Tools (i.e., Axes & Adzes, Bars & Wedges,
Hammers & Sledges, and Picks & Mattocks) from the People's Republic of
China: Continuation of Antidumping Duty Order
AGENCY: 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 Heavy Forged
Hand Tools (i.e., Axes & Adzes, Bars & Wedges, Hammers & Sledges, and
Picks & Mattocks) (``HFHTs'') from the People's Republic of China
(``PRC'') 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 these antidumping duty
orders.
EFFECTIVE DATE: February 16, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Nunno, AD/CVD Operations, Import
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC
20230; telephone: (202) 482-0783.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On July 1, 2005, the Department initiated and the ITC instituted a
sunset review of the antidumping duty orders on HFHTs from the PRC
pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the
Act''). See Initiation of Five-year (Sunset) Reviews, 70 FR 38101 (July
1, 2005), and ITC Investigation Nos. 731-TA-457-A-D (Second Review),
Heavy Forged Hand Tools from China, 70 FR 38197 (July 1, 2005). As a
result of its review, the Department found that revocation of the
antidumping duty orders would likely lead to continuation or recurrence
of dumping and notified the ITC of the magnitude of the margins likely
to prevail were the orders to be revoked. See Heavy Forged Hand Tools
(i.e., Axes & Adzes, Bars & Wedges, Hammers & Sledges, and Picks &
Mattocks) from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of the
Expedited Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Orders, 70 FR 67451
(November 7, 2005). On January 18, 2006, the ITC determined, pursuant
to sections 751(c) and 752 of the Act, that revocation of the
antidumping duty orders on HFHTs from the PRC would likely lead to
continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the
United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. See ITC
Investigation Nos. 731-TA-457-A-D (Second Review), Heavy Forged Hand
Tools from China, 71 FR 6290 (February 7, 2006).
Scope of the Orders
The products covered by these orders are HFHTs comprising the
following classes or kinds of merchandise: (1) Hammers and sledges with
heads over 1.5 kg (3.33 pounds) (hammers/sledges); (2) bars over 18
inches in length, track tools and wedges (bars/wedges); (3) picks and
mattocks (picks/mattocks); and (4) axes, adzes and similar hewing tools
(axes/adzes).
HFHTs include heads for drilling hammers, sledges, axes, mauls,
picks and mattocks, which may or may not be painted, which may or may
not be finished, or which may or may not be imported with handles;
assorted bar products and track tools including wrecking bars, digging
bars, and tampers; and steel woodsplitting wedges. HFHTs are
manufactured through a hot forge operation in which steel is sheared to
required length, heated to forging temperature, and formed to final
shape on forging equipment using dies specific to the desired product
shape and size. Depending on the product, finishing operations may
include shot blasting, grinding, polishing and painting, and the
insertion of handles for handled products. HFHTs are currently provided
for under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(``HTSUS'') subheadings: 8205.20.60, 8205.59.30, 8201.30.00, and
8201.40.60. Specifically excluded from these investigations are hammers
and sledges with heads 1.5 kg. (3.33 pounds) in weight and under, hoes
and rakes, and bars 18 inches in length and under.
The Department has issued seven conclusive scope rulings regarding
the merchandise covered by these orders: (1) On August 16, 1993, the
Department found the ``Max Multi-Purpose Axe,'' imported by the Forrest
Tool Company, to be within the scope of the axes/adzes order; (2) on
March 8, 2001, the Department found ``18-inch'' and ``24-inch'' pry
bars, produced without dies, imported by Olympia Industrial, Inc. and
SMC Pacific Tools, Inc., to be within the scope of the bars/wedges
order; (3) on March 8, 2001, the Department found the ``Pulaski'' tool,
produced without dies by TMC, to be within the scope of the axes/adzes
order; (4) on March 8, 2001, the Department found the ``skinning axe,''
imported by Import Traders, Inc., to be within the scope of the axes/
adzes order; (5) on December 9, 2004, the Department found the
``Scrapek MUTT,'' imported by Olympia Industrial, Inc., under HTSUS
8205.59.5510, to be within the scope of the axes/adzes order; (6) on
May 23, 2005, the Department found 8 inch by 8 inch and 10 inch by 10
inch cast tampers, imported by Olympia Industrial, Inc. to be outside
the scope of the orders; and (7) on October 14, 2005, the Department
found the ``Mean Green Splitting Machine'' imported by Avalanche
Industries to be within the scope of the bars/wedges order.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See ``Final Scope Ruling: Antidumping Duty Order on Heavy
Forged Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or Without Handles,
From the People's Republic of China,'' from James C. Doyle, Office
Director, Office 9, Import Administration, to Gary Taverman, Acting
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated October
14, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, on September 22, 2005, the Court of International
Trade sustained the Department's finding that cast picks are outside
the scope of the picks/mattocks order. See Tianjin Machinery Import &
Export Corporation v. United States and Ames True Temper, Slip Op. 05-
127, Court No. 03-00732 (September 22, 2005).
The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs
purposes. The written description remains dispositive.
Determination
As a result of the determinations by the Department and the ITC
that revocation of the antidumping duty order would likely lead to
continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury to an
industry in the United States, pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the
Act, the Department hereby orders the continuation of the antidumping
duty order on heavy forged hand tools from the PRC. U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (``CBP'') 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 this order will be the date
of publication in the Federal Register of this Notice of Continuation.
Pursuant to sections 751(c)(2) and 751(c)(6) of the Act, the Department
intends to initiate the next
[[Page 8277]]
five-year review of this order not later than January 2011.
This five-year (sunset) review and notice are in accordance with
section 751(c) of the Act and published pursuant to section 777(i)(1)
of the Act.
Dated: February 10, 2006.
David Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E6-2280 Filed 2-15-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
