Stainless Steel Wire Rods from India: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony, 41421-41422 [E6-11626]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 140 (Friday, July 21, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41421-41422]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-11626]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

A-533-808


Stainless Steel Wire Rods from India: Notice of Court Decision 
Not in Harmony

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On July 7, 2006, the United States Court of International 
Trade (CIT) affirmed the Department of Commerce's (the Department's) 
redetermination on remand of the final results of the antidumping duty 
administrative review on stainless steel wire rods from India. See 
Carpenter Technology, Corp. v. United States and Viraj Group, Slip Op. 
06-102 (CIT July 7, 2006). The Department is now issuing this notice of 
court decision not in harmony.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 21, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Holman or Minoo Hatten, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 5, Import Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 
20230; telephone: (202) 482-3683 or (202) 482-1690, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On May 29, 2002, the Department published the final results of 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel 
wire rods from India for the period December 1, 1999, through November 
30, 2000. See Stainless Steel Wire Rods from India; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administration Review, 67 FR 37391 (May 29, 2002) 
(Final Results). In the underlying administrative review the Department 
collapsed Viraj Forgings Limited (VFL), Viraj Impoexpo Limited (VIL), 
and Viraj Alloys Limited (VAL). See Final Results and accompanying 
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1 and Collapsing Memorandum 
of the Viraj Group, Limited, dated December 31, 2001 (Collapsing Memo). 
Carpenter Technology Corporation (the Petitioner) contested the 
collapsing of these companies.
    On August 16, 2004, the CIT issued a decision remanding one aspect 
of the Final Results, the collapsing of three of the Viraj companies. 
The CIT ordered the Department, ``in the absence of any agency showing 
herein that dispels this logic based upon substantial evidence on the 
record,'' to calculate and impose individual antidumping-duty margins 
upon VFL and VIL in the manner of the approach taken by the agency, and 
affirmed by the CIT, in Viraj Group, Ltd. v. United States, 162 F. 
Supp. 2d 656 (CIT 2001). On February 22, 2005, the Department filed the 
final results of its remand redetermination with the CIT. Due to the 
fact that only VFL and VIL made sales to the United States during the 
period of review, we did not include VAL's sales or cost data in our 
revised margin analyses for VFL and VIL. On July 7, 2006, the CIT 
affirmed the Department's final results of redetermination pursuant to 
remand.
    The changes to our calculations with respect to VFL and VIL 
resulted in a weighted-average margin of 1.29 percent for VFL and a 
weighted-average margin of 3.77 percent for VIL for the period of 
review. Accordingly, absent an appeal, or, if appealed, upon a 
``conclusive'' decision by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 
(CAFC)

[[Page 41422]]

which is consistent with the CIT's decision, we will amend our final 
results of these reviews to reflect the recalculation of margins for 
VFL and VIL.

Suspension of Liquidation

    The CAFC has held that the Department must publish notice of a 
decision of the CIT or the CAFC which is not in harmony with the 
Department's determination. See Timken Company v. United States, 893 
F.2d 337, 341 (CAFC 1990). Publication of this notice fulfills that 
obligation. The CAFC also held that, in such a case, the Department 
must suspend liquidation until there is a ``conclusive'' decision in 
the action. Id. Therefore, the Department must suspend liquidation 
pending the expiration of the period to appeal the CIT's July 7, 2006, 
decision affirming the Department's remand results or pending a final 
decision of the CAFC if that decision is appealed.
    The Department will not order the lifting of the suspension of 
liquidation on entries of stainless steel wire rods during the review 
period before a court decision in this lawsuit becomes final and 
conclusive.
    We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with 
section 516A(c)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: July 17, 2006.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretaryfor Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E6-11626 Filed 7-20-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S