Stainless Steel Wire Rods from India: Notice of Intent to Rescind Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 29124-29126 [E6-7685]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
29124
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 97 / Friday, May 19, 2006 / Notices
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES
December 1, 2005, the Department
published a notice of opportunity to
request an administrative review of the
antidumping duty order for the period
of review covering December 1, 2004,
through November 30, 2005. See Notice
of Opportunity to Request
Administrative Review of Antidumping
or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding,
or Suspended Investigation, 70 FR
72109 (December 1, 2005). In
accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1),
the petitioner, Eramet Marietta Inc.,
requested an administrative review of
this order with respect to the following
ˆ
respondents: Rio Doce Manganes S.A.,
Companhia Paulista de Ferro–Ligas, and
Urucum Mineracao S.A. (collectively
¸˜
RDM/CPFL).
The Department published the
initiation of the administrative review of
the antidumping duty order on
silicomanganese from Brazil on
February 1, 2006. See Initiation of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews and Request for
Revocation in Part, 71 FR 5241
(February 1, 2006).
Scope of the Order
The merchandise covered by this
order is silicomanganese.
Silicomanganese, which is sometimes
called ferrosilicon manganese, is a
ferroalloy composed principally of
manganese, silicon and iron, and
normally contains much smaller
proportions of minor elements, such as
carbon, phosphorus, and sulfur.
Silicomanganese generally contains by
weight not less than 4 percent iron,
more than 30 percent manganese, more
than 8 percent silicon, and not more
than 3 percent phosphorous. All
compositions, forms, and sizes of
silicomanganese are included within the
scope of the order, including
silicomanganese slag, fines, and
briquettes. Silicomanganese is used
primarily in steel production as a source
of both silicon and manganese.
Silicomanganese is currently
classifiable under subheading
7202.30.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).
Some silicomanganese may also
currently be classifiable under HTSUS
subheading 7202.99.5040. This order
covers all silicomanganese, regardless of
its tariff classification. Although the
HTSUS subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, the
written description of the order remains
dispositive.
Intent to Rescind Administrative
Review
The Department will rescind an
administrative review with respect to an
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:37 May 18, 2006
Jkt 208001
exporter or producer if the Department
concludes that there were no entries,
exports, or sales of the subject
merchandise to the United States during
the period of review. See 19 CFR
351.213(d)(3). In response to the
Department’s questionnaire, RDM/CPFL
notified the Department that the
company had no entries, exports, or
sales of the subject merchandise to the
United States during the period of
review. Eramet Marietta Inc. submitted
no information rebutting RDM/CPFL’s
response.
The Department conducted a customs
data query to ascertain whether there
were suspended entries of subject
merchandise. See April 12, 2006,
Memorandum to File entitled
‘‘Silicomanganese from Brazil: Internal
Customs Data Query.’’ Based on the data
query, there is no evidence of entries or
shipments of the subject merchandise
by RDM/CPFL during the period of
review. Therefore, we intend to rescind
the review.
In accordance with the Department’s
clarification of its assessment policy
(see Antidumping and Countervailing
Duty Proceedings: Assessment of
Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May
6, 2003)), in the event any entries were
made during the period of review
through intermediaries under U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
case numbers for RDM/CPFL, the
Department will instruct CBP to
liquidate such entries at the all–others
rate in effect on the date of entry.
Public Comment
An interested party may request a
hearing within 15 days of publication of
this notice of intent to rescind. See 19
CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if
requested, will be held 30 days after the
date of publication, or the first working
day thereafter. Interested parties may
submit case briefs no later than 15 days
after the date of publication of this
notice of intent to rescind. See 19 CFR
351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal briefs, limited to
issues raised in case briefs, may be filed
no later than five days after the time
limit for filing the case brief. See 19 CFR
351.309(d). Parties who submit
arguments are requested to submit with
the argument (1) a statement of the
issue, (2) a brief summary of the
argument, and (3) a table of authorities.
Further, parties submitting written
comments should provide the
Department with an additional copy of
the public version of any such
comments on diskette. The Department
will issue the final notice, which will
include the results of its analysis of
issues raised in any such comments, or
at a hearing, if requested, within 120
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
days of publication of this notice of
intent to rescind.
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, and 19 CFR 351.213(d).
Dated: May 15, 2006.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Deputy Assistant Secretaryfor Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E6–7683 Filed 5–18–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–533–808]
Stainless Steel Wire Rods from India:
Notice of Intent to Rescind
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review
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 wire rods from India for the period
December 1, 2004, through November
30, 2005. The Department of Commerce
intends to rescind this review with
respect to Viraj Alloys, Ltd., Viraj
Forgings, Ltd., Viraj Impoexpo, Ltd.,
Viraj Smelting, Viraj Profiles, and VSL
Wires, Ltd., and Mukand Limited after
concluding that there were no entries of
merchandise subject to the order during
the period of review.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 19, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John
Holman at (202) 482–3683 or Kristin
Case at (202) 482–1374, 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:
Background
On December 1, 1993, the Department
of Commerce (the Department)
published the antidumping duty order
on stainless steel wire rods (wire rods)
from India. See Antidumping Duty
Order: Certain Stainless Steel Wire Rods
from India, 58 FR 63335 (December 1,
1993). On December 1, 2005, the
Department published a notice in the
Federal Register providing an
opportunity for interested parties to
request an administrative review of the
order on wire rods from India for the
E:\FR\FM\19MYN1.SGM
19MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 97 / Friday, May 19, 2006 / Notices
period of review (POR) December 1,
2004, through November 30, 2005. See
Notice of Opportunity to Request
Administrative Review of Antidumping
Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended
Investigation, 70 FR 72109 (December 1,
2005). On December 20, 2005, the
petitioner, Carpenter Technology Corp.,
requested that the Department conduct
an administrative review of ‘‘the Viraj
Group, including but not necessarily
limited to Viraj Alloys, Ltd., Viraj
Forgings, Ltd., Viraj Impoexpo Ltd.,
Viraj Smelting, Viraj Profiles, and VSL
Wires, Ltd.’’ because, according to the
request, the petitioner believed these
firms were manufacturing and/or
exporting subject merchandise to the
United States. On December 22, 2005,
we received a timely request from
Mukand Limited (Mukand) for an
administrative review of its exports.
On February 1, 2006, in accordance
with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (the Act), the
Department initiated an administrative
review of Viraj Alloys, Ltd. (VAL), Viraj
Impoexpo, Ltd., Viraj Forgings, Ltd.,
Viraj Smelting, Viraj Profiles, and VSL
Wires, Ltd. (VSL) (collectively, the Viraj
entities) and Mukand. See Notice of
Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews and Request for Revocation in
Part, 71 FR 5241 (February 1, 2006)
(Initiation Notice). In the Initiation
Notice, the Department stated that,
although the Department had revoked
the order in part with respect to entries
of subject merchandise produced and
exported by VAL and VSL, effective
December 1, 2003,1 the Department was
‘‘conditionally initiating a review with
respect to Viraj Alloys, Ltd., Viraj
Forgings, Ltd., Viraj Impoexpo Ltd.,
Viraj Smelting, Viraj Profiles, and VSL
Wires, Ltd., pending further information
from the requestor as to sales of subject
merchandise not covered by the
revocation.’’
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES
Scope of the Order
The products covered by this order
are certain stainless steel wire rods,
which are hot–rolled or hot–rolled
annealed and/or pickled rounds,
squares, octagons, hexagons or other
shapes, in coils. Wire rods are made of
alloy steels containing, by weight, 1.2
percent or less of carbon and 10.5
percent or more of chromium, with or
without other elements. These products
are only manufactured by hot–rolling,
are normally sold in coiled form, and
1 See Stainless Steel Wire Rod From India: Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review and Determination to Revoke Order in Part,
70 FR 40318, 40319-20 (July 13, 2005).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:37 May 18, 2006
Jkt 208001
are of solid cross section. The majority
of wire rods sold in the United States
are round in cross–section shape,
annealed, and pickled. The most
common size is 5.5 millimeters in
diameter.
The products are currently classifiable
under subheadings 7221.00.0005,
7221.00.0015, 7221.00.0030,
7221.00.0045, and 7221.00.0075 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 this
proceeding remains dispositive.
Post–Initiation Developments
Viraj Entities
On February 8, 2006, the Department
requested that, in light of the previous
revocation determination, the petitioner
clarify its request to ensure that it only
includes companies that it believes may
have exported to the United States
merchandise that is subject to the order.
Moreover, the Department indicated
that, absent adequate clarification, it
intended to rescind the administrative
review with respect to the Viraj entities.
See February 8, 2006, letter from Laurie
Parkhill, Office Director, to the
petitioner.
On February 10, 2006, the petitioner
responded to the Department’s request.
The petitioner urged the Department to
seek information as to whether the
named companies shipped subject
merchandise to the United States during
the POR. The petitioner also referred to
the changes in operation among the
various Viraj entities that the
Department recognized in pre–
revocation reviews. Therefore, in light
of the revocation and the petitioner’s
request, we determined that it was
appropriate to ascertain whether there
are suspended entries of merchandise
subject to the order from the Viraj
entities. We examined shipment data we
obtained from U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) and placed this data on
the record on May 2, 2006. See
Memorandum to the File, ‘‘Customs
Data of 2004–2005 Entries of SSWR
from India,’’ dated May 2, 2006. Based
on this information, we determined that
there are no suspended entries of
merchandise subject to the order
involving any of the Viraj entities for the
POR. See Memorandum from Laurie
Parkhill, Office Director, to Stephen J.
Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary,
‘‘2004–2005 Administrative Review of
the Antidumping Duty Order on
Stainless Steel Wire Rods from India Rescission of Review of the Viraj Group
Companies,’’ dated May 15, 2006.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
29125
Mukand
Further, while examining the data for
shipments from Viraj entities, we
ascertained that there were no entries of
merchandise subject to the order from
Mukand during the POR.
Intent to Rescind the Administrative
Review
Section 751(a) of the Act instructs the
Department that, when conducting
administrative reviews, it is to
determine the dumping margin for
entries during the period. Further,
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 it concludes 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.’’
See Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene
Resin from Japan: Notice of Rescission
of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 70 FR 44088, 44088 (August 1,
2005). In Allegheny Ludlum Corp. v.
United States, 346 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir.
October 15, 2003), the Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit upheld the
Department’s practice of rescinding
annual reviews when there are no
entries of subject merchandise during
the POR. See also Stainless Steel Plate
in Coils from Taiwan: Final Rescission
of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 68 FR 63067, 63068 (November
7, 2003) (stating that ‘‘the Department’s
interpretation of its statute and
regulations, as affirmed by the Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit,
supports not conducting an
administrative review when the
evidence on the record indicates that
respondents had no entries of subject
merchandise during the POR’’).
Because there were no entries of
merchandise subject to the order during
the POR from any of the Viraj
companies named in the notice of
initiation, we intend to rescind the
administrative review with respect to
Viraj. In addition, because there were no
entries of merchandise subject to the
order from Mukand during the POR, we
intend to rescind the administrative
review with respect to Mukand.
Thus, the statute, regulations,
previous administrative decisions, and
case law all support rescission of the
administrative review in this case.
Therefore, the Department intends to
rescind the administrative review with
E:\FR\FM\19MYN1.SGM
19MYN1
29126
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 97 / Friday, May 19, 2006 / Notices
respect to the Viraj entities and
Mukand.
Public Comment
Any interested party may request a
hearing within 15 days of publication of
this notice of intent to rescind. See 19
CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if
requested, will be held 30 days after the
date of publication, or the first working
day thereafter. Interested parties may
submit case briefs no later than 15 days
after the date of publication of this
notice of intent to rescind. See 19 CFR
351.309(c)(1)(ii). Rebuttal briefs, limited
to issues raised in case briefs, may be
filed no later than five days after the
time limit for filing the case brief. See
19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit
arguments are requested to submit with
the argument (1) a statement of the
issue, (2) a brief summary of the
argument, and (3) a table of authorities.
Further, parties submitting written
comments should provide the
Department with an additional copy of
the public version of any such
comments on diskette. The Department
will issue the final notice, which will
include the results of its analysis of
issues raised in any such comments, or
at a hearing, if requested, within 120
days of publication of this notice of
intent to rescind.
Further, absent the completion of the
2004–2005 administrative review, the
cash–deposit rate for Mukand will
remain at 18.67 percent (Stainless Steel
Wire Rods From India: Final Results
and Partial Rescission of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 69 FR
29923 (May 26, 2004)).
This notice is published in
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and
777(i)(l) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.213(d).
Dated: May 15, 2006.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E6–7685 Filed 5–18–06; 8:45 am]
Billing Code: 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Institute of Standards and
Technology
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES
Judges Panel of the Malcolm Baldrige
National Quality Award
National Institute of Standards
and Technology, Department of
Commerce.
AGENCY:
Notice of partially closed
meeting.
ACTION:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:37 May 18, 2006
Jkt 208001
SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal
Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app.
2, notice is hereby given that the Judges
Panel of the Malcolm Baldrige National
Quality Award will meet Tuesday, June
6, 2006. The Judges Panel is composed
of eleven members prominent in the
field of quality management and
appointed by the Secretary of
Commerce. The purpose of this meeting
is to Review the 2006 Baldrige Award
Cycle; Discussion of Senior Examiner
Training for Site Visits and Final
Judging Interaction; Judges’ Survey of
Applicants; and Judging Process
Improvement Discussion for Final
Judges’ Meeting Preparation. The
applications under review contain trade
secrets and proprietary commercial
information submitted to the
Government in confidence.
DATES: The meeting will convene June
6, 2006 at 9 a.m. and adjourn at 4:30
p.m. on June 6, 2006. It is estimated that
the closed portion of the meeting will
last from 10 a.m until 2 p.m. and the
open portion of the meeting will last
from 9 a.m. until 10 a.m. and from 2
p.m. until 4:30 p.m.
ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at
the National Institute of Standards and
Technology, Administration Building,
Lecture Room A, Gaithersburg,
Maryland 20899. All visitors to the
National Institute of Standards and
Technology site will have to pre-register
to be admitted. Anyone wishing to
attend this meeting must register 48
hours in advance in order to be
admitted. Please submit your name,
time of arrival, e-mail address and
phone number to Virginia Davis no later
than Friday, June 2, 2006, and she will
provide you with instructions for
admittance. Ms. Davis’ e-mail address is
virginia.davis@nist.gov and her phone
number is (301) 975–2361.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.
Harry Hertz, Director, National Quality
Program, National Institute of Standards
and Technology, Gaithersburg,
Maryland 20899, telephone number
(301) 975–2361.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Assistant Secretary for Administration,
with the concurrence of the General
Counsel, formally determined on
December 27, 2005, that the meeting of
the Judges Panel will be closed pursuant
to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory
Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app. 2, as
amended by section 5(c) of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public
Law 94–409. The meeting, which
involves examination of Award
applicant data from U.S. companies and
a discussion of this data as compared to
the Award criteria in order to
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
recommend Award recipients, may be
closed to the public in accordance with
section 552b(c)(4) of Title 5, United
States Code, because the meetings are
likely to disclose trade secrets and
commercial or financial information
obtained from a person which is
privileged or confidential.
Dated: May 15, 2006.
Hratch G. Semerjian,
Deputy Director.
[FR Doc. E6–7669 Filed 5–18–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Institute of Standards and
Technology
[Docket No. 060404094–6094–01]
Notice of Termination of the National
Institute of Standards and
Technology’s Providers of Proficiency
Testing Program
National Institute of Standards
and Technology, Commerce.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: In accordance with the
National Voluntary Laboratory
Accreditation Program (NVLAP)
regulations, the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST) is
announcing that the NVLAP Chemical
Calibration, Providers of Proficiency
Testing Program (PPT) will be
terminated, effective at the close of
business on September 30, 2006. For
further information, interested parties
may contact Mr. C. Douglas Faison at
the address below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Questions should be directed to C.
Douglas Faison at (301) 975–5304; via email at faisond@nist.gov or by mail at
the Standards Services Division, 100
Bureau Drive, Stop 2140, Gaithersburg,
MD 20899–2140.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In
accordance with the regulations, Title
15 CFR 285.5, NIST is announcing that,
effective COB September 30, 2006, the
Chemical Calibration, Programwill be
terminated.
In 1999, the NVLAP PPT program was
created to assume the role and
responsibilities formerly provided by
the United States Environmental
Protection Agency’s (USEPA) Water
Proficiency Evaluation Program. The
purpose of the NVLAP PPT program is
to review and accredit laboratories for
their competence to characterize
samples and to conduct proficiency test
programs to support USEPA
requirements for environmental
E:\FR\FM\19MYN1.SGM
19MYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 97 (Friday, May 19, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29124-29126]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-7685]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-533-808]
Stainless Steel Wire Rods from India: Notice of Intent to Rescind
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
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 wire rods from India for the
period December 1, 2004, through November 30, 2005. The Department of
Commerce intends to rescind this review with respect to Viraj Alloys,
Ltd., Viraj Forgings, Ltd., Viraj Impoexpo, Ltd., Viraj Smelting, Viraj
Profiles, and VSL Wires, Ltd., and Mukand Limited after concluding that
there were no entries of merchandise subject to the order during the
period of review.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 19, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Holman at (202) 482-3683 or
Kristin Case at (202) 482-1374, 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:
Background
On December 1, 1993, the Department of Commerce (the Department)
published the antidumping duty order on stainless steel wire rods (wire
rods) from India. See Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Stainless Steel
Wire Rods from India, 58 FR 63335 (December 1, 1993). On December 1,
2005, the Department published a notice in the Federal Register
providing an opportunity for interested parties to request an
administrative review of the order on wire rods from India for the
[[Page 29125]]
period of review (POR) December 1, 2004, through November 30, 2005. See
Notice of Opportunity to Request Administrative Review of Antidumping
Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation, 70 FR 72109 (December
1, 2005). On December 20, 2005, the petitioner, Carpenter Technology
Corp., requested that the Department conduct an administrative review
of ``the Viraj Group, including but not necessarily limited to Viraj
Alloys, Ltd., Viraj Forgings, Ltd., Viraj Impoexpo Ltd., Viraj
Smelting, Viraj Profiles, and VSL Wires, Ltd.'' because, according to
the request, the petitioner believed these firms were manufacturing
and/or exporting subject merchandise to the United States. On December
22, 2005, we received a timely request from Mukand Limited (Mukand) for
an administrative review of its exports.
On February 1, 2006, in accordance with section 751(a) of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the Department initiated an
administrative review of Viraj Alloys, Ltd. (VAL), Viraj Impoexpo,
Ltd., Viraj Forgings, Ltd., Viraj Smelting, Viraj Profiles, and VSL
Wires, Ltd. (VSL) (collectively, the Viraj entities) and Mukand. See
Notice of Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 71 FR 5241
(February 1, 2006) (Initiation Notice). In the Initiation Notice, the
Department stated that, although the Department had revoked the order
in part with respect to entries of subject merchandise produced and
exported by VAL and VSL, effective December 1, 2003,\1\ the Department
was ``conditionally initiating a review with respect to Viraj Alloys,
Ltd., Viraj Forgings, Ltd., Viraj Impoexpo Ltd., Viraj Smelting, Viraj
Profiles, and VSL Wires, Ltd., pending further information from the
requestor as to sales of subject merchandise not covered by the
revocation.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Stainless Steel Wire Rod From India: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Determination to Revoke
Order in Part, 70 FR 40318, 40319-20 (July 13, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scope of the Order
The products covered by this order are certain stainless steel wire
rods, which are hot-rolled or hot-rolled annealed and/or pickled
rounds, squares, octagons, hexagons or other shapes, in coils. Wire
rods are made of alloy steels containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or
less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more of chromium, with or without
other elements. These products are only manufactured by hot-rolling,
are normally sold in coiled form, and are of solid cross section. The
majority of wire rods sold in the United States are round in cross-
section shape, annealed, and pickled. The most common size is 5.5
millimeters in diameter.
The products are currently classifiable under subheadings
7221.00.0005, 7221.00.0015, 7221.00.0030, 7221.00.0045, and
7221.00.0075 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 this
proceeding remains dispositive.
Post-Initiation Developments
Viraj Entities
On February 8, 2006, the Department requested that, in light of the
previous revocation determination, the petitioner clarify its request
to ensure that it only includes companies that it believes may have
exported to the United States merchandise that is subject to the order.
Moreover, the Department indicated that, absent adequate
clarification, it intended to rescind the administrative review with
respect to the Viraj entities. See February 8, 2006, letter from Laurie
Parkhill, Office Director, to the petitioner.
On February 10, 2006, the petitioner responded to the Department's
request. The petitioner urged the Department to seek information as to
whether the named companies shipped subject merchandise to the United
States during the POR. The petitioner also referred to the changes in
operation among the various Viraj entities that the Department
recognized in pre-revocation reviews. Therefore, in light of the
revocation and the petitioner's request, we determined that it was
appropriate to ascertain whether there are suspended entries of
merchandise subject to the order from the Viraj entities. We examined
shipment data we obtained from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
and placed this data on the record on May 2, 2006. See Memorandum to
the File, ``Customs Data of 2004-2005 Entries of SSWR from India,''
dated May 2, 2006. Based on this information, we determined that there
are no suspended entries of merchandise subject to the order involving
any of the Viraj entities for the POR. See Memorandum from Laurie
Parkhill, Office Director, to Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant
Secretary, ``2004-2005 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty
Order on Stainless Steel Wire Rods from India - Rescission of Review of
the Viraj Group Companies,'' dated May 15, 2006.
Mukand
Further, while examining the data for shipments from Viraj
entities, we ascertained that there were no entries of merchandise
subject to the order from Mukand during the POR.
Intent to Rescind the Administrative Review
Section 751(a) of the Act instructs the Department that, when
conducting administrative reviews, it is to determine the dumping
margin for entries during the period. Further, 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 it
concludes 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.'' See Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin
from Japan: Notice of Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 70 FR 44088, 44088 (August 1, 2005). In Allegheny Ludlum Corp.
v. United States, 346 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. October 15, 2003), the Court
of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the Department's practice of
rescinding annual reviews when there are no entries of subject
merchandise during the POR. See also Stainless Steel Plate in Coils
from Taiwan: Final Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 68 FR 63067, 63068 (November 7, 2003) (stating that ``the
Department's interpretation of its statute and regulations, as affirmed
by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, supports not
conducting an administrative review when the evidence on the record
indicates that respondents had no entries of subject merchandise during
the POR'').
Because there were no entries of merchandise subject to the order
during the POR from any of the Viraj companies named in the notice of
initiation, we intend to rescind the administrative review with respect
to Viraj. In addition, because there were no entries of merchandise
subject to the order from Mukand during the POR, we intend to rescind
the administrative review with respect to Mukand.
Thus, the statute, regulations, previous administrative decisions,
and case law all support rescission of the administrative review in
this case. Therefore, the Department intends to rescind the
administrative review with
[[Page 29126]]
respect to the Viraj entities and Mukand.
Public Comment
Any interested party may request a hearing within 15 days of
publication of this notice of intent to rescind. See 19 CFR 351.310(c).
Any hearing, if requested, will be held 30 days after the date of
publication, or the first working day thereafter. Interested parties
may submit case briefs no later than 15 days after the date of
publication of this notice of intent to rescind. See 19 CFR
351.309(c)(1)(ii). Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case
briefs, may be filed no later than five days after the time limit for
filing the case brief. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit
arguments are requested to submit with the argument (1) a statement of
the issue, (2) a brief summary of the argument, and (3) a table of
authorities. Further, parties submitting written comments should
provide the Department with an additional copy of the public version of
any such comments on diskette. The Department will issue the final
notice, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised
in any such comments, or at a hearing, if requested, within 120 days of
publication of this notice of intent to rescind.
Further, absent the completion of the 2004-2005 administrative
review, the cash-deposit rate for Mukand will remain at 18.67 percent
(Stainless Steel Wire Rods From India: Final Results and Partial
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 69 FR 29923 (May
26, 2004)).
This notice is published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and
777(i)(l) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(d).
Dated: May 15, 2006.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E6-7685 Filed 5-18-06; 8:45 am]
Billing Code: 3510-DS-S
