Stainless Steel Wire Rods From India: Notice of Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 40696-40697 [06-6300]
Download as PDF
40696
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 18, 2006 / Notices
that reimbursement of the antidumping
duties occurred and the concomitant
assessment of double antidumping
duties. This notice is also the only
reminder to parties subject to the
administrative protective order (APO) of
their responsibility concerning the
return or destruction of proprietary
information disclosed under APO in
accordance with 19 CFR § 351.305.
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 the terms of an
APO is a sanctionable violation.
The Department is publishing this
notice in accordance with sections
751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: July 11, 2006.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
Appendix
List of Issues Discussed in the Issues
and Decision Memorandum
Comment 1: Determining the Market
Price of Electricity in Applying the
Major Input Rule
Comment 2: Whether to Adjust U.S.
Prices for Duties Imposed to Offset
Export Subsidies
Comment 3: Whether to Recalculate
Interest and General and Administrative
Expenses After Applying the Major
Input Rule
Comment 4: Adding Import Duties to
Reported Costs
[FR Doc. E6–11292 Filed 7–17–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–580–834]
Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils
from the Republic of Korea; Notice of
Extension of Time Limits for Final
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 18, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irina
Itkin or Brianne Riker, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 2, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230;
telephone (202) 482–0656 and (202)
482–0629, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES
AGENCY:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:27 Jul 17, 2006
Jkt 208001
Background
The Department of Commerce (the
Department) published an antidumping
duty order on stainless steel sheet and
strip in coils (SSSSC) from the Republic
of Korea on July 27, 1999. See Notice of
Antidumping Duty Order; Stainless
Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From
United Kingdom, Taiwan and South
Korea, 64 FR 40555 (July 27, 1999). On
August 29, 2005, the Department
published a notice of initiation of an
administrative review of the order on
SSSSC from Korea for the period July 1,
2004, through June 30, 2005. See 70 FR
51009. The respondents in this
administrative review are: Boorim
Corporation, Dae Kyung Corporation,
DaiYang Metal Co., Ltd., Dine Trading
Co., Ltd., and Dosko Co., Ltd. On April
10, 2005, the Department published in
the Federal Register its preliminary
results. See Stainless Steel Sheet and
Strip in Coils from the Republic of
Korea; Preliminary Results and Partial
Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 71 FR 18074
(Apr. 10, 2006). The final results are
currently due no later than August 8,
2006.
Extension of the Time Limit for Final
Results of Administrative Review
Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act
of 1930, as amended (the Act) requires
the Department to make a final
determination in an administrative
review within 120 days after the date on
which the preliminary determination is
published. However, if it is not
practicable to complete the review
within this time period, section
751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the
Department to extend the time limit for
the final results to 180 days (or 300 days
if the Department does not extend the
time limit for the preliminary results)
from the date of publication of the
preliminary results.
In accordance with section
751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, and 19 CFR
351.213(h)(2), the Department finds that
it is not practicable to complete the
review within the original time frame
because analysis of the issues presented
in the case briefs, including the issue
related to the U.S. price adjustment for
countervailing duties imposed to offset
export subsidies, requires additional
time. Because it is not practicable to
complete this administrative review
within the time limit mandated by
section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19
CFR 351.213(h)(2), the Department is
fully extending the time limit for
completion of the final results to 300
days. Therefore, the final results are due
no later than February 5, 2007, the next
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
business day after 300 days from
publication of the preliminary results.
This notice is issued and published in
accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of
the Act.
Dated: July 11, 2006.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E6–11370 Filed 7–17–06; 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 Rescission of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On May 19, 2006, the
Department of Commerce (The
Department) published a notice of its
intent to rescind the administrative
review of the antidumping duty order
on stainless steel wire rods from India
for Viraj Alloys, Ltd., Viraj Forgings,
Ltd., Viraj Impoexpo, Ltd., Viraj
Smelting, Viraj Profiles, and VSL Wires,
Ltd. (collective, the Viraj entities), and
Mukand Limited (Mukand) due to the
lack of suspended entries of
merchandise subject to the order during
the period December 1, 2004, through
November 30, 2005. See Stainless Steel
Wire Rods from India: Notice of Intent
of Rescind Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 71 FR 29124
(May 19, 2006). The Department
received comments from Mukand and
rebuttal comments from the petitioner,
Carpenter Technology Corporation,
regarding Mukand but did not receive
any comments from any parties
regarding the Viraj entities. We are now
rescinding the administrative review
with respect to the Viraj entities and
Mukand.
DATES: Effective Date: July 18, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kristin Case or John Holman, AD/CVD
Operations Office 5, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone (202) 482–3174 or (202) 482–
3683, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
Background
After initiating an administrative
review of the Viraj entities and Mukand
E:\FR\FM\18JYN1.SGM
18JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 18, 2006 / Notices
(see Notice of Initiation of Antidumping
and Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews and Request for Revocation in
Part, 71 FR 5241 (February 1, 2006)), the
Department determined that there were
no suspended entries of merchandise
subject to the order involving any of the
Viraj entities or Mukand for the period
of review (POR). Therefore, it published
a notice of intent to rescind the
administrative review and requested
comments with respect to its intent to
rescind the administrative review of
wire rods from India. See Stainless Steel
Wire Rods from India: Notice of Intent
to Rescind Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 71 FR 29124
(May 19, 2006) (Intent to Rescind).
On May 18, 2006, Mukand submitted
a letter claiming that it had an entry of
subject merchandise during the POR.
The letter included a copy of U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
form 7501 which indicated a November
2005 entry date. On June 5, 2006,
Mukand submitted a case brief and
documentation to support its claim that
it had an entry during the POR. On June
16, 2006, the petitioner submitted
comments rebutting Mukand’s
arguments. At the request of Mukand,
on June 21, 2006, we held a hearing on
our intent to rescind the administrative
review with respect to Mukand. The
Department did not receive comments
concerning its intent to rescind the
administrative review of the Viraj
entities.
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 ore 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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:25 Jul 17, 2006
Jkt 208001
40697
Analysis of Comments Received
Viraj Entities
All issues concerning the Intent to
Rescind raised in the case and rebuttal
briefs by parties to the administrative
review of the order on stainless steel
wire rods from India are addressed in
the ‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum’’
(Decision Memo) from Stephen J.
Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary, to
David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary,
dated July 12, 2006, which is hereby
adopted by this notice. The Decision
Memo, which is a public document, is
on file in the Central Records Unit, main
Commerce building, Room B–099, and
is accessible on the Web at https://
ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/. The paper
copy and electronic version of the
Decision Memo are identical in content.
Previously we determined that ‘‘there
are no suspended entries of
merchandise subject to the order
involving any of the Viraj entities for the
POR.’’ See Intent to Rescind. Further,
we received no comments with respect
to this determination. Therefore, we are
rescinding the review with respect to
the Viraj Entities.
Rescission of Administrative Review
Section 751(a) of the Act provides
that, when conducting administrative
reviews, the Department shall determine
the dumping margin for entries during
the POR. Further, according to 19 CFR
351.213(d)(3), the Department may
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 consistently
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), and Stainless Steel Plate in Coils
from Taiwan: Final Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 66 FR 18610 (April 10, 2001). 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’’).
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Mukand
Previously we determined that ‘‘there
were no entries of merchandise subject
to the order from Mukand during the
POR.’’ See Intent to Rescind.
After a review of all of the facts on the
record, we have determined that
Mukand’s entry in question entered
after the POR. We found that the entry
documentation submitted by Mukand
was actually pre-filed and indicated the
broker’s elected date of entry and not
the actual date of entry. Morever,
Mukand confirmed this fact when it
stated in its case brief that ‘‘wire rod
then moved in bond from Los Angeles
to Chicago. When it arrived in Chicago
Customs, Customs indicated a December
5, 2006, release date as the arrival date
in the Port of Chicago.’’ See Mukand’s
Letter to the Secretary, dated June 5,
2006.
Thus, we are rescinding the review
with respect to Mukand. For a detailed
discussion of this issue, see the Decision
Memo and also the ‘‘Memorandum to
the File’’ from the analyst through
Minoo Hatten, Program Manager,
‘‘2004–2005 Entry of Stainless Steel
Wire Rods from India by Mukand
Limited,’’ dated July 12, 2006.
Thus, the regulations, previous
administrative decisions, and case law
all support rescission of the
administrative review in this case.
Therefore, the Department rescinds the
administrative review with respect to
the Viraj entities and Mukand.
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: July 12, 2006.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. 06–6300 Filed 7–7–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M
E:\FR\FM\18JYN1.SGM
18JYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 137 (Tuesday, July 18, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40696-40697]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-6300]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-533-808]
Stainless Steel Wire Rods From India: Notice of Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On May 19, 2006, the Department of Commerce (The Department)
published a notice of its intent to rescind the administrative review
of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel wire rods from India
for Viraj Alloys, Ltd., Viraj Forgings, Ltd., Viraj Impoexpo, Ltd.,
Viraj Smelting, Viraj Profiles, and VSL Wires, Ltd. (collective, the
Viraj entities), and Mukand Limited (Mukand) due to the lack of
suspended entries of merchandise subject to the order during the period
December 1, 2004, through November 30, 2005. See Stainless Steel Wire
Rods from India: Notice of Intent of Rescind Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 71 FR 29124 (May 19, 2006). The Department
received comments from Mukand and rebuttal comments from the
petitioner, Carpenter Technology Corporation, regarding Mukand but did
not receive any comments from any parties regarding the Viraj entities.
We are now rescinding the administrative review with respect to the
Viraj entities and Mukand.
DATES: Effective Date: July 18, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristin Case or John Holman, AD/CVD
Operations Office 5, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-
3174 or (202) 482-3683, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
After initiating an administrative review of the Viraj entities and
Mukand
[[Page 40697]]
(see Notice of Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 71 FR 5241
(February 1, 2006)), the Department determined that there were no
suspended entries of merchandise subject to the order involving any of
the Viraj entities or Mukand for the period of review (POR). Therefore,
it published a notice of intent to rescind the administrative review
and requested comments with respect to its intent to rescind the
administrative review of wire rods from India. See Stainless Steel Wire
Rods from India: Notice of Intent to Rescind Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 71 FR 29124 (May 19, 2006) (Intent to Rescind).
On May 18, 2006, Mukand submitted a letter claiming that it had an
entry of subject merchandise during the POR. The letter included a copy
of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) form 7501 which indicated a
November 2005 entry date. On June 5, 2006, Mukand submitted a case
brief and documentation to support its claim that it had an entry
during the POR. On June 16, 2006, the petitioner submitted comments
rebutting Mukand's arguments. At the request of Mukand, on June 21,
2006, we held a hearing on our intent to rescind the administrative
review with respect to Mukand. The Department did not receive comments
concerning its intent to rescind the administrative review of the Viraj
entities.
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 ore 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.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues concerning the Intent to Rescind raised in the case and
rebuttal briefs by parties to the administrative review of the order on
stainless steel wire rods from India are addressed in the ``Issues and
Decision Memorandum'' (Decision Memo) from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy
Assistant Secretary, to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary, dated
July 12, 2006, which is hereby adopted by this notice. The Decision
Memo, which is a public document, is on file in the Central Records
Unit, main Commerce building, Room B-099, and is accessible on the Web
at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/. The paper copy and electronic
version of the Decision Memo are identical in content.
Rescission of Administrative Review
Section 751(a) of the Act provides that, when conducting
administrative reviews, the Department shall determine the dumping
margin for entries during the POR. Further, according to 19 CFR
351.213(d)(3), the Department may 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 consistently 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), and Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Taiwan: Final Rescission
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 66 FR 18610 (April 10,
2001). 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'').
Viraj Entities
Previously we determined that ``there are no suspended entries of
merchandise subject to the order involving any of the Viraj entities
for the POR.'' See Intent to Rescind. Further, we received no comments
with respect to this determination. Therefore, we are rescinding the
review with respect to the Viraj Entities.
Mukand
Previously we determined that ``there were no entries of
merchandise subject to the order from Mukand during the POR.'' See
Intent to Rescind.
After a review of all of the facts on the record, we have
determined that Mukand's entry in question entered after the POR. We
found that the entry documentation submitted by Mukand was actually
pre-filed and indicated the broker's elected date of entry and not the
actual date of entry. Morever, Mukand confirmed this fact when it
stated in its case brief that ``wire rod then moved in bond from Los
Angeles to Chicago. When it arrived in Chicago Customs, Customs
indicated a December 5, 2006, release date as the arrival date in the
Port of Chicago.'' See Mukand's Letter to the Secretary, dated June 5,
2006.
Thus, we are rescinding the review with respect to Mukand. For a
detailed discussion of this issue, see the Decision Memo and also the
``Memorandum to the File'' from the analyst through Minoo Hatten,
Program Manager, ``2004-2005 Entry of Stainless Steel Wire Rods from
India by Mukand Limited,'' dated July 12, 2006.
Thus, the regulations, previous administrative decisions, and case
law all support rescission of the administrative review in this case.
Therefore, the Department rescinds the administrative review with
respect to the Viraj entities and Mukand.
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: July 12, 2006.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 06-6300 Filed 7-7-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M