Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Amended Final Results and Amended Order Pursuant to Final Court Decision, 27458-27459 [E6-7232]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
27458
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 91 / Thursday, May 11, 2006 / Notices
‘‘All–Others’’ rate established in the
LTFV investigation.
EFFECTIVE DATE:
Notification to Importers
This notice also serves as a
preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR
351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding
the reimbursement of antidumping
duties prior to liquidation of the
relevant entries during this review
period. Failure to comply with this
requirement could result in the
Secretary’s presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties
occurred and the subsequent assessment
of double antidumping duties.
This administrative review and notice
is in accordance with sections 751(a)(1)
and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: May 3, 2006.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E6–7223 Filed 5–10–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
A–570–848
Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the
People’s Republic of China: Notice of
Amended Final Results and Amended
Order Pursuant to Final Court Decision
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On December 29, 2005, the
Court of International Trade (‘‘CIT’’)
affirmed the Department’s remand
determination and entered judgment in
Crawfish Processors Alliance v. United
States of America, Slip Op. 05–166 (CIT
Dec. 29, 2005) (‘‘Judgment’’), which
challenged certain aspects of the
Department of Commerce’s (‘‘the
Department’’) Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, and Final Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review of Freshwater Crawfish Tail
Meat from the People’s Republic of
China, 67 Fed. Reg. 19,546 (April 22,
2002) (‘‘99/00 Final Results’’), and
accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum (‘‘Decision Memo’’). As
explained below, in accordance with the
order contained in the CIT’s December
29, 2005, Judgment, the Department is
amending the 99/00 Final Results to
treat Jiangsu Hilong International Trade
Co., Ltd. (Jiangsu Hilong) and Ningbo
Nanlian Frozen Foods Company, Ltd.
(Ningbo Nanlian) as unaffiliated, non–
collapsed entities.
cchase on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
AGENCY:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:29 May 10, 2006
Jkt 208001
May 11, 2006.
Scot
Fullerton, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9,
Import Administration, U.S. Department
of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW, Room 4003,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202)
482–1386.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Background
The Department first collapsed
Ningbo Nanlian and Jiangsu Hilong1 in
the 1997–1998 administrative review.
Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the
People’s Republic of China: Final
Results of Administrative Antidumping
Duty and New Shipper Reviews, and
Final Rescission of New Shipper Review,
65 Fed. Reg. 20,948 (Apr. 19, 2000). The
Department continued to find that
Ningbo Nanlian and Jiangsu Hilong
were a single entity in the
administrative review covering the
1999–2000 period. See 99/00 Final
Results and accompanying Decision
Memo at Comment 20.
On May 6, 2004, the CIT issued an
order remanding the case to the
Department and ordering the
Department to explain why its findings
warranted the collapsing of Jiangsu
Hilong and Ningbo Nanlian. Crawfish
Processors Alliance v. United States,
Slip Op. 04–47 (CIT May 6, 2004) (‘‘CPA
Remand’’). The Department submitted
its Final Results of Redetermination
Pursuant to Court Remand on
November 2, 2004. See 99/00 Final
Remand Results I.
On September 13, 2005, the CIT
issued its ruling on the Department’s
remand determination again remanding
the case to the Department. See
Crawfish Processors Alliance v. United
States of America, Slip Op. 05–123 (CIT
Sept. 13, 2005) (‘‘CPA Remand II’’).
Specifically, the CIT remanded the case
for the Department to: (1)(a) Explain
with specificity how the interactions
between Jiangsu Hilong and Ningbo
Nanlian indicate that one company has
control over the other or both, especially
how the invoices from Jiangsu Hilong to
Hontex created a business relationship
with Ningbo Nanlian during the period
of review (POR), and (b) explain with
specificity how Mr. Wei’s contacts with
Jiangsu Hilong and Ningbo Nanlian
demonstrate control of either company
on behalf of the other or control over
both; or (c) if the Department is unable
to provide substantial evidence
supporting its collapsing decision, then
the Department is instructed to treat
1 Huaiyin Foreign Trade Corporation (5) became
Jiangsu Hilong International Trading Company Ltd.
on January 10, 2001.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Jiangsu Hilong and Ningbo Nanlian as
unaffiliated entities, and assign separate
company–specific antidumping duty
margins to each using verified
information on the record. See CPA
Remand II.
In its remand determination, the
Department reviewed the record
evidence and completed its Draft
Results of Determination Pursuant to
Court Remand (‘‘Draft Results’’) on
November 23, 2005, and released these
Draft Results for comment on November
25, 2005. The Department requested that
parties submit comments on the Draft
Results by close of business on
December 1, 2005. No comments were
received. The Department submitted the
Final Results of Remand to the CIT on
December 9, 2005.
On December 29, 2005, the CIT
affirmed the remand. No appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals was
filed.
Amendment to the Final Determination
Because there is now a final and
conclusive court decision, effective as of
the publication date of this notice, we
are amending the 99/00 Final Results
and establishing the following revised
weighted–average dumping margins:
FRESHWATER CRAWFISH TAIL MEAT
FROM THE PRC
Manufacturer/Exporter
Weighted–Average
Margin (Percent)
Ningbo Nanlian Frozen
Foods Company, Ltd.
62.51
The antidumping duty rate for
respondent Ningbo Nanlian was
unchanged from the 99/00 Final Results,
as the rate in the 99/00 Final Results for
the Ningbo Nanlian/Jiangsu Hilong
single entity was based solely on Ningbo
Nanlian’s sales. Because the Department
did not initiate a review of Jiangsu
Hilong for the 99/00 period of review
(no such review was requested by any
party), but only reviewed the company’s
information as part of the Ningbo
Nanlian/Jiansgu Hilong single entity,
the Department cannot calculate a
margin for Jiangsu Hilong as a separate
entity in this segment of the proceeding.
The Department will issue assessment
instructions directly to U.S. Customs
and Border Protection.
This notice is issued and published in
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and
777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended.
E:\FR\FM\11MYN1.SGM
11MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 91 / Thursday, May 11, 2006 / Notices
Dated: May 4, 2006.
David Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E6–7232 Filed 5–10–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
A–588–707
Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin
From Japan: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
is conducting an administrative review
of the antidumping duty order on
granular polytetrafluoroethylene resin
(PTFE) from Japan manufactured and
exported by Asahi Glass
Fluoropolymers, Ltd. (Asahi), in
response to a request from Asahi. This
review covers the period August 1,
2004, through September 30, 2005.
We have preliminarily determined
that Asahi sold the subject merchandise
to the United States at prices below
normal value during the period of
review. We invite interested parties to
comment on these preliminary results.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 11, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Catherine Cartsos at (202) 482–1757 or
Richard Rimlinger at (202) 482–4477,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 5, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
cchase on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
Background
On August 24, 1988, the Department
of Commerce (the Department)
published in the Federal Register the
antidumping duty order on PTFE from
Japan. See Notice of Antidumping Duty
Order: Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene
Resin from Japan, 53 FR 32267 (August
24, 1988). On August 1, 2005, we
published in the Federal Register a
notice of opportunity to request an
administrative review of this order
covering the period August 1, 2004,
through September 30, 2005. See
Antidumping or Countervailing Duty
Order, Finding, or Suspended
Investigation; Opportunity to Request
Administrative Review, 70 FR 44085
(August 1, 2005). On August 24, 2005,
Asahi and AGC Chemicals America, Inc.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:29 May 10, 2006
Jkt 208001
(AGC), requested that the Department
conduct an administrative review of
their sales. On September 28, 2005, the
Department published in the Federal
Register a notice of initiation of this
administrative review. See Initiation of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews and Request for
Revocation in Part, 70 FR 56631
(September 28, 2005). The Department
is conducting this review in accordance
with section 751 of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (the Act). For a
detailed analysis of the Department’s
calculation for this case see the Analysis
Memorandum from the case analyst to
the file dated May 3, 2006 (Analysis
Memorandum).
Scope of Order
The merchandise covered by the
antidumping duty order is PTFE, filled
or unfilled. The order excludes PTFE
dispersions in water, fine powders, and
reprocessed PTFE powder. PTFE is
currently classifiable under subheading
3904.61.00 of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).
This order covers all PTFE, regardless of
its tariff classification. Although the
HTSUS subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, the
written description of the order remains
dispositive.
Comparisons to Normal Value
To determine whether sales of PTFE
from Japan were made in the United
States at less than normal value, we
compared the United States price to the
normal value. When making
comparisons in accordance with section
771(16) of the Act, we considered all
comparable products sold in the home
market that were in the ordinary course
of trade for purposes of determining
appropriate product comparisons to
U.S. sales.
Constructed Export Price
For all sales to the United States, we
calculated constructed export price
(CEP), as defined in section 772(b) of the
Act, because all sales to unaffiliated
parties were made after importation of
the subject merchandise into the United
States through the respondent’s affiliate,
AGC. We based CEP on the packed,
delivered prices to unaffiliated
purchasers in the United States, net of
billing adjustments. In accordance with
section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we
deducted those selling expenses
associated with economic activities
occurring in the United States,
including direct selling expenses (credit
expenses) and indirect selling expenses.
We made deductions, consistent with
section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, for
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
27459
movement expenses and for CEP profit
under section 772(d)(3) of the Act.
Normal Value
A. Home–Market Viability
Based on a comparison of the
aggregate quantity of home–market and
U.S. sales, we determined that the
quantity of foreign like product sold by
Asahi in Japan was sufficient to permit
a proper comparison with the sales of
the subject merchandise to the United
States, pursuant to section 773(a) of the
Act. Asahi’s quantity of sales in the
home market was greater than five
percent of its sales to the U.S. market.
Therefore, in accordance with section
773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based
normal value on the prices at which the
foreign like product was first sold for
consumption in the exporting country
in the usual commercial quantities and
in the ordinary course of trade.
B. Calculation of Normal Value
Because we were able to find
contemporaneous home–market sales
made in the ordinary course of trade for
a comparison to all CEP sales, in
accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of
the Act we based normal value on the
prices at which the foreign like product
was sold for consumption in the home
market. Home–market prices were based
on delivered prices to unaffiliated
purchasers. We made adjustments for
differences in packing and for
movement expenses, as appropriate, in
accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A)
and (B) of the Act. We also made
adjustments for differences in
circumstances of sale in accordance
with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act
and 19 CFR 351.410 by deducting
home–market direct selling expenses
from normal value. We also made an
adjustment for the CEP offset in
accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of
the Act (see Level of Trade).
Level of Trade
Asahi reported two channels of
distribution in the home market, the
large industrial–user (OEM) channel
and the service–market (distributor)
channel. We examined the differences
in selling functions Asahi reported in its
responses with regard to the two
channels of distribution in the home
market. We found that the selling
activities associated with sales to OEMs
differed significantly from activities
associated with sales to distributors in
terms of sales forecasting, distributor/
dealer training, and use of direct sales
personnel. Specifically, Asahi provides
sales–forecasting services and direct
sales personnel to its OEM customers
E:\FR\FM\11MYN1.SGM
11MYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 91 (Thursday, May 11, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27458-27459]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-7232]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
A-570-848
Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of
China: Notice of Amended Final Results and Amended Order Pursuant to
Final Court Decision
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On December 29, 2005, the Court of International Trade
(``CIT'') affirmed the Department's remand determination and entered
judgment in Crawfish Processors Alliance v. United States of America,
Slip Op. 05-166 (CIT Dec. 29, 2005) (``Judgment''), which challenged
certain aspects of the Department of Commerce's (``the Department'')
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, and Final
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of
Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China, 67
Fed. Reg. 19,546 (April 22, 2002) (``99/00 Final Results''), and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (``Decision Memo''). As
explained below, in accordance with the order contained in the CIT's
December 29, 2005, Judgment, the Department is amending the 99/00 Final
Results to treat Jiangsu Hilong International Trade Co., Ltd. (Jiangsu
Hilong) and Ningbo Nanlian Frozen Foods Company, Ltd. (Ningbo Nanlian)
as unaffiliated, non-collapsed entities.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 11, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scot Fullerton, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 9, Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Room 4003, Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482-1386.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Department first collapsed Ningbo Nanlian and Jiangsu Hilong\1\
in the 1997-1998 administrative review. Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat
from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Administrative
Antidumping Duty and New Shipper Reviews, and Final Rescission of New
Shipper Review, 65 Fed. Reg. 20,948 (Apr. 19, 2000). The Department
continued to find that Ningbo Nanlian and Jiangsu Hilong were a single
entity in the administrative review covering the 1999-2000 period. See
99/00 Final Results and accompanying Decision Memo at Comment 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Huaiyin Foreign Trade Corporation (5) became Jiangsu Hilong
International Trading Company Ltd. on January 10, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 6, 2004, the CIT issued an order remanding the case to the
Department and ordering the Department to explain why its findings
warranted the collapsing of Jiangsu Hilong and Ningbo Nanlian. Crawfish
Processors Alliance v. United States, Slip Op. 04-47 (CIT May 6, 2004)
(``CPA Remand''). The Department submitted its Final Results of
Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand on November 2, 2004. See 99/00
Final Remand Results I.
On September 13, 2005, the CIT issued its ruling on the
Department's remand determination again remanding the case to the
Department. See Crawfish Processors Alliance v. United States of
America, Slip Op. 05-123 (CIT Sept. 13, 2005) (``CPA Remand II'').
Specifically, the CIT remanded the case for the Department to: (1)(a)
Explain with specificity how the interactions between Jiangsu Hilong
and Ningbo Nanlian indicate that one company has control over the other
or both, especially how the invoices from Jiangsu Hilong to Hontex
created a business relationship with Ningbo Nanlian during the period
of review (POR), and (b) explain with specificity how Mr. Wei's
contacts with Jiangsu Hilong and Ningbo Nanlian demonstrate control of
either company on behalf of the other or control over both; or (c) if
the Department is unable to provide substantial evidence supporting its
collapsing decision, then the Department is instructed to treat Jiangsu
Hilong and Ningbo Nanlian as unaffiliated entities, and assign separate
company-specific antidumping duty margins to each using verified
information on the record. See CPA Remand II.
In its remand determination, the Department reviewed the record
evidence and completed its Draft Results of Determination Pursuant to
Court Remand (``Draft Results'') on November 23, 2005, and released
these Draft Results for comment on November 25, 2005. The Department
requested that parties submit comments on the Draft Results by close of
business on December 1, 2005. No comments were received. The Department
submitted the Final Results of Remand to the CIT on December 9, 2005.
On December 29, 2005, the CIT affirmed the remand. No appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals was filed.
Amendment to the Final Determination
Because there is now a final and conclusive court decision,
effective as of the publication date of this notice, we are amending
the 99/00 Final Results and establishing the following revised
weighted-average dumping margins:
Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the PRC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-Average
Manufacturer/Exporter Margin (Percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ningbo Nanlian Frozen Foods Company, Ltd............ 62.51
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The antidumping duty rate for respondent Ningbo Nanlian was
unchanged from the 99/00 Final Results, as the rate in the 99/00 Final
Results for the Ningbo Nanlian/Jiangsu Hilong single entity was based
solely on Ningbo Nanlian's sales. Because the Department did not
initiate a review of Jiangsu Hilong for the 99/00 period of review (no
such review was requested by any party), but only reviewed the
company's information as part of the Ningbo Nanlian/Jiansgu Hilong
single entity, the Department cannot calculate a margin for Jiangsu
Hilong as a separate entity in this segment of the proceeding. The
Department will issue assessment instructions directly to U.S. Customs
and Border Protection.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections
751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.
[[Page 27459]]
Dated: May 4, 2006.
David Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E6-7232 Filed 5-10-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
