Stainless Steel Bar From India: Notice of Intent To Partially Rescind Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 29916-29918 [E6-7970]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
29916
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 24, 2006 / Notices
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Glopack’’), and Shanghai New Ai Lian
Import and Export Co., Ltd. (‘‘Shanghai
New Ai Lian’’). Ampac Packaging
(Nanjing) Co., (‘‘Ampac’’), requested a
new shipper review or, alternatively, an
administrative review. On September
30, 2005, the Department denied Ampac
a new shipper review.
On September 28, 2005, the
Department published a notice of the
initiation of the antidumping duty
administrative review of PRCBs from
the PRC for the period January 26, 2004,
through July 31, 2005. See Notice
Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews and Request for Revocation in
Part, 70 FR 56631 (September 28, 2005).
On October 25, 2005, the Department
initiated an administrative review for
Ampac. See Initiation of Antidumping
and Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews, 70 FR 61601 (October 25,
2005), as corrected by Initiation of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews and Deferral of
Administrative Reviews, 70 FR 72107
(December 1, 2005).
On November 16, 2005, Shanghai
New Ai Lian withdrew its request for an
administrative review. On November 22,
2005, Rally withdrew its request for an
administrative review. On December 27,
2005, Sea Lake/Glopack withdrew their
requests for an administrative review.
On February 23, 2006, Ampac withdrew
its request for a review.
Rescission of Review
The Department’s regulations, at 19
CFR 351.213(d)(1), provide that the
Department will rescind an
administrative review if the party that
requested the review withdraws its
request for review within 90 days of the
date of publication of the notice of
initiation of the requested review, or
withdraws its request at a later date if
the Department determines that it is
reasonable to extend the time limit for
withdrawing the request. Rally,
Shanghai New Ai Lian, and Sea Lake/
Glopack all withdrew their requests
within the 90-day limit. Therefore, the
Department will rescind the review as to
these companies. Ampac withdrew its
request after the 90-day deadline.
However, consistent with the
Department’s practice, the Department
finds it reasonable to extend the
withdrawal deadline because the
Department has not yet devoted
considerable time and resources to this
review. See Honey from the People’s
Republic of China: Notice of Partial
Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 70 FR 42032
(July 21, 2005); See also, Certain Cut–toLength Carbon Steel Plate From the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:08 May 23, 2006
Jkt 208001
People’s Republic of China: Notice of
Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 70 FR 44560
(August 3, 2005); and Notice of
Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Petroleum Wax
Candles from the People’s Republic of
China, 70 FR 33733 (June 9, 2005).
Further, we find that Ampac’s
withdrawal does not constitute an abuse
of our procedures. Therefore, we are
partially rescinding this review of the
antidumping duty order on
polyethylene retail carrier bags from the
PRC covering the period January 26,
2004, through July 31, 2005. The
Department will issue appropriate
assessment instructions for Sea Lake/
Glopack, Shanghai New Ai Lian, Rally
and Ampac directly to U.S. Customs
and Border Protection within 15 days of
publication of this rescission.
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on stainless
steel bar from India for the period
February 1, 2005, through January 31,
2006. The Department 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., after
concluding that there were no entries of
merchandise subject to the order during
the period of review.
DATES: Effective Date: May 24, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Scott Holland, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 1, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202)
482–1279.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Notification Regarding APOs
Background
On February 21, 1995, the Department
of Commerce (the ‘‘Department’’)
published in the Federal Register the
antidumping duty order on stainless
steel bar (‘‘SSB’’) from India. See
Antidumping Duty Orders: Stainless
Steel Bar from Brazil, India and Japan,
60 FR 9661 (February 21, 2005). On
February 1, 2006, the Department
published a notice in the Federal
Register providing an opportunity for
interested parties to request an
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on SSB from
India for the period of review (‘‘POR’’)
February 1, 2005, through January 31,
2006. See Antidumping or
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity
To Request Administrative Review, 71
FR 5239 (February 1, 2006). On
February 4, 2006, we received a timely
request for administrative review from
Isibars Limited (‘‘Isibars’’). On February
28, 2006, timely review requests were
received from Facor Steels Limited
(‘‘Facor’’); Mukand Limited
(‘‘Mukand’’); and Carpenter Technology
Corporation, Electralloy Company,
Crucible Specialty Metals, North
American Stainless, Universal Stainless,
and Valbruna Slater Stainless, Inc.
(collectively, the ‘‘petitioners’’). The
petitioners requested an administrative
review of the following companies
because, according to the request, the
petitioners believed these firms were
manufacturing and/or exporting the
subject merchandise to the United
States: the ‘‘Viraj Group, including but
necessarily limited to Viraj Alloys, Ltd.,
Viraj Forgings, Ltd., Viraj Impoexpo,
Ltd., Viraj Smelting, Viraj Profiles, and
VSL Wires, Ltd.’’; Akai Asian; Atlas
This notice also serves as a reminder
to parties subject to administrative
protective orders (‘‘APO’’) of their
responsibility concerning the return or
destruction of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues
to govern business proprietary
information in this segment of the
proceeding. Timely written notification
of the return/destruction of APO
materials or conversion to judicial
protective order is hereby requested.
Failure to comply with the regulations
and terms of an APO is a violation
which is subject to sanction. This notice
is issued and published in accordance
with section 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act
of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR
351.213(d)(4).
Dated: May 17, 2006.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E6–7965 Filed 5–23–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–533–810]
Stainless Steel Bar From India: Notice
of Intent To Partially 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
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\24MYN1.SGM
24MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 24, 2006 / Notices
Stainless (‘‘Atlas’’); Bhansali Bright Bars
Pvt. Ltd. (‘‘Bhansali’’); Grand Foundry,
Ltd. (‘‘Grand Foundry’’); Meltroll
Engineering Pvt. Ltd. (‘‘Meltroll’’);
Sindia Steels Limited (‘‘Sindia’’);
Snowdrop Trading Pvt. Ltd.
(‘‘Snowdrop’’); and Venus Wire
Industries Pvt. Ltd. (‘‘Venus’’).
On April 5, 2006, in accordance with
section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930,
as amended (‘‘the Act’’), the Department
initiated an administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on SSB from
India with respect to Akai Asian, Atlas,
Bhansali, Facor, Grand Foundry, Isibars,
Meltroll, Mukand, Sindia, Snowdrop,
Venus, and conditionally initiated an
administrative review with respect to
Viraj Alloys, Ltd. (‘‘VAL’’), Viraj
Impoexpo, Ltd. (‘‘VIL’’), Viraj Forgings,
Ltd. (‘‘VFL’’), Viraj Smelting, Viraj
Profiles, and VSL Wires, Ltd.,
(collectively, the ‘‘Viraj entities’’).1 See
Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews and Deferral of Administrative
Reviews, 71 FR 17077 (April 5, 2006)
(‘‘Initiation Notice’’). In the Initiation
Notice, the Department stated that,
although the Department revoked the
order in part with respect to entries of
the merchandise subject to the order
produced and exported by Viraj (Viraj
Alloys, Ltd., Viraj Impoexpo, Ltd., Viraj
Forgings, Ltd.), the Department was
conditionally initiating a review with
respect to Viraj Alloys, Ltd., Viraj
Impoexpo, Ltd., Viraj Forgings, 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.2
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Scope of the Order
Merchandise covered by the order is
shipments of SSB. SSB means articles of
stainless steel in straight lengths that
have been either hot-rolled, forged,
turned, cold-drawn, cold-rolled or
otherwise cold-finished, or ground,
having a uniform solid cross section
1 For this Federal Register notice, we use the
terms ‘‘Viraj,’’ ‘‘the Viraj Group’’ and ‘‘the Viraj
entities’’ interchangeably. Moreover, this notice
pertains only to the Department’s intent to rescind
the current administrative review with respect to
the Viraj entities. Therefore, this notice will not
discuss developments in the administrative review
with respect to Akai Asian, Atlas, Bhansali, Facor,
Grand Foundry, Isibars, Meltroll, Mukand, Sindia,
Snowdrop, and Venus.
2 The Department revoked the order in part, with
respect to entries of merchandise subject to the
order produced and exported by ‘‘Viraj,’’ a
collapsed entity. Viraj included Viraj Alloys, Ltd.;
Viraj Impoexpo, Ltd.; and Viraj Forgings, Ltd. The
revocation was effective February 1, 2003. See
Stainless Steel Bar From India; Final Results,
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review in Part, and Determination to Revoke in
Part, 69 FR 55409, 55410–11 (September 14, 2004).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:08 May 23, 2006
Jkt 208001
29917
along their whole length in the shape of
circles, segments of circles, ovals,
rectangles (including squares), triangles,
hexagons, octagons, or other convex
polygons. SSB includes cold-finished
SSBs that are turned or ground in
straight lengths, whether produced from
hot-rolled bar or from straightened and
cut rod or wire, and reinforcing bars that
have indentations, ribs, grooves, or
other deformations produced during the
rolling process.
Except as specified above, the term
does not include stainless steel semifinished products, cut-to-length flatrolled products (i.e., cut-to-length rolled
products which if less than 4.75 mm in
thickness have a width measuring at
least 10 times the thickness, or if 4.75
mm or more in thickness having a width
which exceeds 150 mm and measures at
least twice the thickness), wire (i.e.,
cold-formed products in coils, of any
uniform solid cross section along their
whole length, which do not conform to
the definition of flat-rolled products),
and angles, shapes, and sections.
The SSB subject to this order is
currently classifiable under subheadings
7222.11.00.05, 7222.11.00.50,
7222.19.00.05, 7222.19.00.50,
7222.20.00.05, 7222.20.00.45,
7222.20.00.75, and 7222.30.00.00 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 the
order is dispositive.
On May 23, 2005, the Department
issued a final scope ruling that SSB
manufactured in the United Arab
Emirates out of stainless steel wire rod
from India is not subject to the scope of
this proceeding. See Memorandum to
Barbara E. Tillman, Antidumping Duty
Orders on Stainless Steel Bar from India
and Stainless Steel Wire Rod from India:
Final Scope Ruling (May 23, 2005).
Post-Initiation Developments
On April 6, 2006, the Department
requested that, in light of the previous
revocation determination, the
petitioners clarify the specific producers
or exporters for which they were
seeking review and, for each company,
whether they were requesting a review
as to merchandise produced by that
company, or only merchandise exported
by that company. Moreover, the
Department indicated that absent
adequate clarification, it intended to
rescind the administrative review with
respect to the Viraj Group. See April 6,
2006, letter from Julie H. Santoboni,
Program Manager, to the petitioners.
On April 7, 2006, the petitioners
responded to the Department’s request
for further information stating that they
were seeking a review of any of the
listed companies (i.e., the Viraj Group)
in their capacity as either a producer or
exporter (or both, with the exception of
VAL, VIL, and VFL) of merchandise
subject to the order during the POR.
Furthermore, the petitioners urged the
Department to seek information as to
whether the named companies shipped
merchandise subject to the order to the
United States during the POR. The
petitioners 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 petitioners’ request, we
determined that it was appropriate to
ascertain whether there were suspended
entries of merchandise subject to the
order during the POR from the Viraj
entities. We examined shipment data
obtained from U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (‘‘CBP’’) and placed these
data on the record on May 9, 2006. See
Memorandum to the File, ‘‘U.S.
Customs and Border Protection Data,’’
dated May 9, 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 Susan
Kuhbach, Office Director to Stephen J.
Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary,
‘‘2005–2006 Administrative Review of
the Antidumping Duty Order on
Stainless Steel Bar from India—
Rescission of Review of the Viraj Group
Companies,’’ dated May 18, 2006.
In April 2006, the Department issued
a request for information from all of the
respondents in this review concerning
the quantity and value of the
merchandise subject to the order
shipped to the United States during the
POR. On May 1, 2006, the Viraj entities
submitted the requested quantity and
value information to the Department.
Intent to Partially 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
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\24MYN1.SGM
24MYN1
29918
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 24, 2006 / Notices
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.
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. Thus, the statute, the 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
respect to the Viraj entities.
Public Comment
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Interested parties may comment on
the Department’s notice of intent to
rescind the administrative review with
respect to the Viraj entities not later
than 15 days after the date of
publication of this notice in the Federal
Register. Rebuttal comments, must be
filed not later than 10 days after the
time limit for filing the initial
comments. Comments will be
considered in the Department’s
preliminary results, which are currently
due October 31, 2006.
This notice is published in
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and
777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.213(d)(4).
Dated: May 18, 2006.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E6–7970 Filed 5–23–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:08 May 23, 2006
Jkt 208001
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Institute of Standards and
Technology
[Docket No.: 060428114–6114–01]
Request for Technical Input—
Standards in Trade Workshops
National Institute of Standards
and Technology, Commerce.
ACTION: Request for workshop
recommendations.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST)
invites interested parties to submit
recommendations for workshops
covering specific sectors and targeted
countries or regions of the world where
training in the U.S. system of standards
development, conformity assessment,
and metrology may facilitate trade.
Prospective workshops will be
scheduled for a one week period. This
notice is not an invitation for proposals
to fund grants, contracts or cooperative
agreements of any kind. NIST will offer
a limited number of workshops, based
upon the availability of resources.
Recommenders are encouraged to
consider departmental priorities
outlined in the 2005 National Export
Strategy. NIST will consider
recommendations based upon which
workshops would be most useful to
intended audiences.
DATES: All recommendations must be
submitted no later than 5 p.m., June 23,
2006.
ADDRESSES: All recommendations must
be submitted to Ellen Emard via e-mail
(ellen.emard@nist.gov) or by mail to 100
Bureau Drive, Stop 2100, Gaithersburg,
MD 20899. The National Export Strategy
is available at https://www.ita.doc.gov/
media/publications/. Additional
information about the NIST Standards
in Trade Workshops, including
schedules and summary reports for
workshops held to date and participant
information, is available at https://
ts.nist.gov/ts/htdocs/210/gsig/
sitdescr.htm.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ellen Emard (301) 975–4038,
ellen.emard@nist.gov or Teresa Cronise
(301) 975–4023, teresa.cronise@nist.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Standards in Trade Workshops are a
major activity of the Global Standards
and Information Group in the NIST
Standards Services Division (SSD). The
workshops are designed to provide
timely information to foreign standards
officials on U.S. practices in standards
and conformity assessment. Participants
are introduced to U.S. technology and
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
principles in metrology, standards
development and application, and
conformity assessment systems and
procedures.
Each workshop is a one week program
offering an overview of the roles of the
U.S. Government, private sector, and
regional and international organizations
engaged in standards development and
conformity assessment practices.
Specific workshop objectives are to: (1)
Familiarize participants with U.S.
technology and practices in metrology,
standardization, and conformity
assessment; (2) describe and understand
the roles of the U.S. Government and
the private sector in developing and
implementing standards; (3) understand
the structure of the standards and
conformity assessment systems in the
invited country or countries and the role
and responsibilities of organizations
represented by the invitees; and (4)
develop professional contacts as a basis
for strengthening technical ties and
enhancing trade.
Workshop recommendations
(maximum 5 pages) must address at a
minimum the following points, in the
order noted and labeled accordingly:
1. Name and Description of the
Recommending Person or Organization
Provide the primary mailing address
and a brief description of the
organization, including the name,
telephone number and e-mail address of
the primary point of contact.
2. Industry Sector and Suggested
Workshop Title
Provide a description of the suggested
industrial sector and focus area with a
possible workshop title which captures
the essence of the recommendation.
Consider the goals and potential
benefits.
3. Proposed Workshop Objectives
Describe the intended goals to be
attained and why they are important
and list the specific possible workshop
objectives.
4. Calendar Dates Suggested for
Workshop
Provide three or more suggested start
dates for the workshop. The first date
should be no earlier than 8 months from
the publication date of this
announcement.
5. Relevant NIST Organizational Link
Workshop topics must be linked to
NIST activities and/or research. The
appropriate NIST organizational unit,
laboratory or program must be identified
by the recommender and the relevance
of the activity to NIST must be
E:\FR\FM\24MYN1.SGM
24MYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 24, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29916-29918]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-7970]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-533-810]
Stainless Steel Bar From India: Notice of Intent To Partially
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 bar from India for the period
February 1, 2005, through January 31, 2006. The Department 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., after concluding that there were no entries of merchandise
subject to the order during the period of review.
DATES: Effective Date: May 24, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Holland, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-1279.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On February 21, 1995, the Department of Commerce (the
``Department'') published in the Federal Register the antidumping duty
order on stainless steel bar (``SSB'') from India. See Antidumping Duty
Orders: Stainless Steel Bar from Brazil, India and Japan, 60 FR 9661
(February 21, 2005). On February 1, 2006, the Department published a
notice in the Federal Register providing an opportunity for interested
parties to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty
order on SSB from India for the period of review (``POR'') February 1,
2005, through January 31, 2006. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty
Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request
Administrative Review, 71 FR 5239 (February 1, 2006). On February 4,
2006, we received a timely request for administrative review from
Isibars Limited (``Isibars''). On February 28, 2006, timely review
requests were received from Facor Steels Limited (``Facor''); Mukand
Limited (``Mukand''); and Carpenter Technology Corporation, Electralloy
Company, Crucible Specialty Metals, North American Stainless, Universal
Stainless, and Valbruna Slater Stainless, Inc. (collectively, the
``petitioners''). The petitioners requested an administrative review of
the following companies because, according to the request, the
petitioners believed these firms were manufacturing and/or exporting
the subject merchandise to the United States: the ``Viraj Group,
including but necessarily limited to Viraj Alloys, Ltd., Viraj
Forgings, Ltd., Viraj Impoexpo, Ltd., Viraj Smelting, Viraj Profiles,
and VSL Wires, Ltd.''; Akai Asian; Atlas
[[Page 29917]]
Stainless (``Atlas''); Bhansali Bright Bars Pvt. Ltd. (``Bhansali'');
Grand Foundry, Ltd. (``Grand Foundry''); Meltroll Engineering Pvt. Ltd.
(``Meltroll''); Sindia Steels Limited (``Sindia''); Snowdrop Trading
Pvt. Ltd. (``Snowdrop''); and Venus Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd.
(``Venus'').
On April 5, 2006, in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff
Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''), the Department initiated an
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on SSB from India
with respect to Akai Asian, Atlas, Bhansali, Facor, Grand Foundry,
Isibars, Meltroll, Mukand, Sindia, Snowdrop, Venus, and conditionally
initiated an administrative review with respect to Viraj Alloys, Ltd.
(``VAL''), Viraj Impoexpo, Ltd. (``VIL''), Viraj Forgings, Ltd.
(``VFL''), Viraj Smelting, Viraj Profiles, and VSL Wires, Ltd.,
(collectively, the ``Viraj entities'').\1\ See Initiation of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Deferral
of Administrative Reviews, 71 FR 17077 (April 5, 2006) (``Initiation
Notice''). In the Initiation Notice, the Department stated that,
although the Department revoked the order in part with respect to
entries of the merchandise subject to the order produced and exported
by Viraj (Viraj Alloys, Ltd., Viraj Impoexpo, Ltd., Viraj Forgings,
Ltd.), the Department was conditionally initiating a review with
respect to Viraj Alloys, Ltd., Viraj Impoexpo, Ltd., Viraj Forgings,
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.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For this Federal Register notice, we use the terms
``Viraj,'' ``the Viraj Group'' and ``the Viraj entities''
interchangeably. Moreover, this notice pertains only to the
Department's intent to rescind the current administrative review
with respect to the Viraj entities. Therefore, this notice will not
discuss developments in the administrative review with respect to
Akai Asian, Atlas, Bhansali, Facor, Grand Foundry, Isibars,
Meltroll, Mukand, Sindia, Snowdrop, and Venus.
\2\ The Department revoked the order in part, with respect to
entries of merchandise subject to the order produced and exported by
``Viraj,'' a collapsed entity. Viraj included Viraj Alloys, Ltd.;
Viraj Impoexpo, Ltd.; and Viraj Forgings, Ltd. The revocation was
effective February 1, 2003. See Stainless Steel Bar From India;
Final Results, Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
in Part, and Determination to Revoke in Part, 69 FR 55409, 55410-11
(September 14, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scope of the Order
Merchandise covered by the order is shipments of SSB. SSB means
articles of stainless steel in straight lengths that have been either
hot-rolled, forged, turned, cold-drawn, cold-rolled or otherwise cold-
finished, or ground, having a uniform solid cross section along their
whole length in the shape of circles, segments of circles, ovals,
rectangles (including squares), triangles, hexagons, octagons, or other
convex polygons. SSB includes cold-finished SSBs that are turned or
ground in straight lengths, whether produced from hot-rolled bar or
from straightened and cut rod or wire, and reinforcing bars that have
indentations, ribs, grooves, or other deformations produced during the
rolling process.
Except as specified above, the term does not include stainless
steel semi-finished products, cut-to-length flat-rolled products (i.e.,
cut-to-length rolled products which if less than 4.75 mm in thickness
have a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness, or if 4.75 mm
or more in thickness having a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures
at least twice the thickness), wire (i.e., cold-formed products in
coils, of any uniform solid cross section along their whole length,
which do not conform to the definition of flat-rolled products), and
angles, shapes, and sections.
The SSB subject to this order is currently classifiable under
subheadings 7222.11.00.05, 7222.11.00.50, 7222.19.00.05, 7222.19.00.50,
7222.20.00.05, 7222.20.00.45, 7222.20.00.75, and 7222.30.00.00 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 the order is
dispositive.
On May 23, 2005, the Department issued a final scope ruling that
SSB manufactured in the United Arab Emirates out of stainless steel
wire rod from India is not subject to the scope of this proceeding. See
Memorandum to Barbara E. Tillman, Antidumping Duty Orders on Stainless
Steel Bar from India and Stainless Steel Wire Rod from India: Final
Scope Ruling (May 23, 2005).
Post-Initiation Developments
On April 6, 2006, the Department requested that, in light of the
previous revocation determination, the petitioners clarify the specific
producers or exporters for which they were seeking review and, for each
company, whether they were requesting a review as to merchandise
produced by that company, or only merchandise exported by that company.
Moreover, the Department indicated that absent adequate clarification,
it intended to rescind the administrative review with respect to the
Viraj Group. See April 6, 2006, letter from Julie H. Santoboni, Program
Manager, to the petitioners.
On April 7, 2006, the petitioners responded to the Department's
request for further information stating that they were seeking a review
of any of the listed companies (i.e., the Viraj Group) in their
capacity as either a producer or exporter (or both, with the exception
of VAL, VIL, and VFL) of merchandise subject to the order during the
POR. Furthermore, the petitioners urged the Department to seek
information as to whether the named companies shipped merchandise
subject to the order to the United States during the POR. The
petitioners 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 petitioners' request,
we determined that it was appropriate to ascertain whether there were
suspended entries of merchandise subject to the order during the POR
from the Viraj entities. We examined shipment data obtained from U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') and placed these data on the
record on May 9, 2006. See Memorandum to the File, ``U.S. Customs and
Border Protection Data,'' dated May 9, 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 Susan Kuhbach, Office Director to Stephen J.
Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary, ``2005-2006 Administrative Review
of the Antidumping Duty Order on Stainless Steel Bar from India--
Rescission of Review of the Viraj Group Companies,'' dated May 18,
2006.
In April 2006, the Department issued a request for information from
all of the respondents in this review concerning the quantity and value
of the merchandise subject to the order shipped to the United States
during the POR. On May 1, 2006, the Viraj entities submitted the
requested quantity and value information to the Department.
Intent to Partially 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
[[Page 29918]]
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. 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. Thus, the statute, the 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 respect to the Viraj entities.
Public Comment
Interested parties may comment on the Department's notice of intent
to rescind the administrative review with respect to the Viraj entities
not later than 15 days after the date of publication of this notice in
the Federal Register. Rebuttal comments, must be filed not later than
10 days after the time limit for filing the initial comments. Comments
will be considered in the Department's preliminary results, which are
currently due October 31, 2006.
This notice is published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and
777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
Dated: May 18, 2006.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E6-7970 Filed 5-23-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
