Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or Without Handles, From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Final Rescission and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 54269-54272 [E6-15277]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 178 / Thursday, September 14, 2006 / Notices
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
A–570–803
Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or
Unfinished, With or Without Handles,
From the People’s Republic of China:
Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Reviews and Final
Rescission and Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Reviews
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On March 8, 2006, the
Department of Commerce (‘‘the
Department’’) published in the Federal
Register the preliminary results of the
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on heavy forged
hand tools, finished or unfinished, with
or without handles (‘‘HFHTs’’), from the
People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). See
Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or
Unfinished, With or Without Handles,
From the People’s Republic of China:
Preliminary Results of Administrative
Reviews and Preliminary Partial
Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Reviews, 71 FR 11580
(March 8, 2006) (‘‘Preliminary Results’’).
We gave interested parties an
opportunity to comment on the
Preliminary Results. Based upon our
analysis of the comments and
information received, we made changes
to the dumping margin calculations for
the final results. We find that certain
manufacturers/exporters sold subject
merchandise at less than normal value
during the period of review (‘‘POR’’)
February 1, 2004, through January 31,
2005.
AGENCY:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
September 14, 2006.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Matthew Renkey (Respondents
Shandong Huarong Machinery Co. Ltd.
and Tianjin Machinery Import & Export
Corporation), Cindy Robinson
(Respondent Iron Bull Industrial Co.,
Ltd.), and Nicole Bankhead (Respondent
Shandong Machinery Import & Export
Company), AD/CVD Operations, Office
9, Import Administration, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department
of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone:
(202) 482–2312, (202) 482–3797 and
(202) 482–9068, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Case History
The Preliminary Results in this
administrative review were published
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:23 Sep 13, 2006
Jkt 208001
on March 8, 2006. See Preliminary
Results. This administrative review
covers four exporters or producer/
exporters of subject merchandise:
Shandong Huarong Machinery Co., Ltd.
(‘‘Huarong’’), Iron Bull Industrial Co.,
Ltd. (‘‘Iron Bull’’), Tianjin Machinery
Import & Export Corporation (‘‘TMC’’),
and Shandong Machinery Import &
Export Company (‘‘SMC’’)1, collectively
‘‘the Respondents,’’ and exports of the
subject merchandise to the United
States during the period February 1,
2004, through January 31, 2005.
On March 2, 2006, an importer/
customer in the instant review
(‘‘Customer A’’)2 requested a second
extension to respond to the
Department’s February 17, 2006, letter
requesting that Customer A provide its
downstream sales data and additional
information about its bankruptcy status.
The Department granted Customer A an
additional extension of eleven days to
respond to the Department’s February
17, 2006, questionnaire. On March 17,
2006, Customer A submitted its
questionnaire response providing
additional information on its
bankruptcy status but no downstream
sales information. On March 20, 2006,
Customer A submitted certifications
from its bankruptcy lawyers. On March
28, 2006, the Department issued
supplemental questionnaires to TMC
and SMC.
On April 4, 2006, TMC submitted its
supplemental questionnaire response.
On April 5, 2006, SMC submitted its
supplemental questionnaire response.
On April 7, 2006, the Petitioner,3
interested party Council Tool Company,
and the Respondents submitted their
case briefs. On April 13, 2006, the
Petitioner and the Respondents
submitted their rebuttal briefs.
On June 9, 2006, the Department
extended the time limit for completion
of the final results of the instant
administrative review. See Heavy
Forged Hand Tools, Finished or
Unfinished, With or Without Handles,
1 On March 23, 2005, the Department initiated the
14th administrative review of HFHTs from the PRC,
for twenty-one companies in the axes/adzes and
bars/wedges orders, and twenty companies in the
hammers/sledges and picks/mattocks orders. See
Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews and Requests for
Revocation in Part (‘‘Initiation Notice‘‘), 70 FR
14643 (March 23, 2005). The Department notes that
SMC was inadvertently referred to as ‘‘Shanghai
Machinery Import and Export Corporation’’ instead
of Shandong Machinery Import & Export Company
in the Initiation Notice of the instant review for the
hammers/sledges order.
2 Please see SMC Hammers/Sledges Final
Analysis Memo, SMC Bars/Wedges Final Analysis
Memo, and Affiliation Memo for information
regarding Customer A.
3 Ames True Temper.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
54269
from the People’s Republic of China:
Extension of Time Limit for the 14th
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 71 FR 33438 (June 9, 2006). On
July 26, 2006, the Department fully
extended the final results of the instant
administrative review. See Heavy
Forged Hand Tools, Finished or
Unfinished, With or Without Handles,
from the People’s Republic of China:
Extension of Time Limit for the 14th
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 71 FR 43714 (August 2, 2006).
On July 26, 2006, the Department
issued Customer A a questionnaire
requesting additional information on its
bankruptcy status. Customer A did not
respond to this questionnaire.
Scope of the Antidumping Duty Orders
The products covered by these orders
are HFHTs from the PRC, comprising
the following classes or kinds of
merchandise: (1) Hammers and sledges
with heads over 1.5 kg (3.33 pounds);
(2) bars over 18 inches in length, track
tools and wedges; (3) picks and
mattocks; and (4) axes, adzes and
similar hewing tools. HFHTs include
heads for drilling hammers, sledges,
axes, mauls, picks and mattocks, which
may or may not be painted, which may
or may not be finished, or which may
or may not be imported with handles;
assorted bar products and track tools
including wrecking bars, digging bars
and tampers; and steel wood splitting
wedges. HFHTs are manufactured
through a hot forge operation in which
steel is sheared to required length,
heated to forging temperature, and
formed to final shape on forging
equipment using dies specific to the
desired product shape and size.
Depending on the product, finishing
operations may include shot blasting,
grinding, polishing and painting, and
the insertion of handles for handled
products. HFHTs are currently provided
for under the following Harmonized
Tariff System of the United States
(‘‘HTSUS’’) subheadings: 8205.20.60,
8205.59.30, 8201.30.00, 8201.40.60, and
8205.59.5510.4 Specifically excluded
from these investigations are hammers
and sledges with heads 1.5 kg. (3.33
pounds) in weight and under, hoes and
rakes, and bars 18 inches in length and
under. The HTSUS subheadings are
provided for convenience and Customs
purposes. The written description
remains dispositive.
The Department issued nine
conclusive scope rulings regarding the
merchandise covered by these orders:
(1) On August 16, 1993, the Department
found the ‘‘Max Multi–Purpose Axe,’’
4 See
E:\FR\FM\14SEN1.SGM
Final Decision Memo at Comment 5.
14SEN1
54270
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 178 / Thursday, September 14, 2006 / Notices
imported by the Forrest Tool Company,
to be within the scope of the axes/adzes
order; (2) on March 8, 2001, the
Department found ‘‘18–inch’’ and ‘‘24–
inch’’ pry bars, produced without dies,
imported by Olympia Industrial, Inc.
and SMC Pacific Tools, Inc., to be
within the scope of the bars/wedges
order; (3) on March 8, 2001, the
Department found the ‘‘Pulaski’’ tool,
produced without dies by TMC, to be
within the scope of the axes/adzes
order; (4) on March 8, 2001, the
Department found the ‘‘skinning axe,’’
imported by Import Traders, Inc., to be
within the scope of the axes/adzes
order; (5) on December 9, 2004, the
Department found the ‘‘MUTT,’’
imported by Olympia Industrial, Inc.,
under HTSUS 8205.59.5510, to be
within the scope of the axes/adzes
order; (6) on May 23, 2005, the
Department found 8–inch by 8–inch and
10–inch by 10–inch cast tampers,
imported by Olympia Industrial, Inc. to
be outside the scope of the orders; (7) on
September 22, 2005, following remand,
the U.S. Court of International Trade
affirmed the Department’s
determination that cast picks are outside
the scope of the order; (8) on October
14, 2005, the Department found the
Mean Green Splitting Machine,
imported by Avalanche Industries,
under HTSUS 8201.40.60, to be within
the scope of the bars/wedges order, and
(9) on July 27, 2006, the Department
found that the gooseneck claw wrecking
bar which has a length of 17 7/8’’ not
including the curvature portion of the
bar stock, imported by Central
Purchasing, LLC. to be outside the scope
of the order for bars and wedges.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Separate Rates
TMC, SMC, Huarong, and Iron Bull
have requested separate, company–
specific antidumping duty rates. In the
Preliminary Results, we determined that
TMC, SMC, Huarong, and Iron Bull met
the criteria for the application of a
separate antidumping duty rate. See
Preliminary Results at 11583. For the
final results, we continue to find that
the evidence placed on the record of the
instant review by TMC, SMC, Huarong,
and Iron Bull demonstrate both a de jure
and de facto absence of government
control, with respect to their respective
exports of the subject merchandise, and,
thus all four companies are eligible for
separate rate status. See Final Decision
Memo at Comment 3.
Rescission of Review
In our Preliminary Results, in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1),
we preliminarily rescinded the review
for all four orders for Shanghai Xinike
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:23 Sep 13, 2006
Jkt 208001
Trading Company (‘‘SXT’’).
Additionally, in accordance with 19
CFR 351.213(d)(3), we preliminarily
rescinded the orders on hammers/
sledges and picks/mattocks for Huarong
and Iron Bull, and also the order on
axes/adzes for Iron Bull. See
Preliminary Results, 71 FR 11583.
In accordance with 19 CFR
351.213(d)(1), we are rescinding these
administrative reviews with respect to
all four orders for SXT. The Department
reviewed data from Customs and Border
Protection (‘‘CBP’’) for Huarong and Iron
Bull, which supports the claims that
these companies did not export subject
merchandise during the POR.
Furthermore, no party placed evidence
on the record demonstrating that
Huarong or Iron Bull exported the
merchandise identified above during the
POR since the issuance of the
Preliminary Results. Therefore, in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3)
and consistent with the Department’s
practice, we are rescinding these
administrative reviews with respect to
the hammers/sledges and picks/
mattocks orders for Huarong and Iron
Bull, and also the order on axes/adzes
for Iron Bull.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and
rebuttal briefs by parties to this
proceeding and to which we have
responded are listed in the Appendix to
this notice and addressed in the Issues
and Decision Memorandum (‘‘Final
Decision Memo’’), which is hereby
adopted by this notice. Parties can find
a complete discussion of the issues
raised in this administrative review and
the corresponding recommendations in
this public memorandum which is on
file in the Central Records Unit (CRU),
room B–099 of the main Department
building. In addition, a copy of the Final
Decision Memo can be accessed directly
on our website at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/.
The paper copy and electronic version
of the Final Decision Memo are identical
in content.
Changes Since the Preliminary Results
Based on a review of the record as
well as comments received from parties
regarding our Preliminary Results, we
have made revisions to the margin
calculations for the final results.
Specific changes to SMC’s margin
calculation include a recalculation of
the international freight expenses and
truck freight in the margin programs for
both the hammers/sledges and bars/
wedges orders and a revision to the
calculation of one packing freight factor,
packing weight, and normal value in the
margin program for the hammers/
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
sledges order. See Final Decision Memo
at Comment 8; see also Analysis for the
Final Results of the 14th Administrative
Review of Heavy Forged Hand Tools
from the Peoples’ Republic of China:
Shandong Machinery Import & Export
Company (‘‘SMC’’) - Hammers/Sledges
(‘‘SMC Final Hammers/Sledges Analysis
Memo’’); Analysis for the Final Results
of the 14th Administrative Review of
Heavy Forged Hand Tools from the
Peoples’ Republic of China: Shandong
Machinery Import & Export Company
(‘‘SMC’’) - Bars/Wedges (‘‘SMC Final
Bars/Wedges Analysis Memo’’). Specific
changes to Huarong’s axes/adzes
calculation program include a
recalculation of international freight
expenses and truck freight. See Final
Decision Memo at Comment 8; see also
Analysis for the Final Results of the
14th Administrative Review of Heavy
Forged Hand Tools from the Peoples’
Republic of China: Huarong (‘‘Huarong
Final Analysis Memo’’). Specific
changes to TMC’s margin calculation in
the picks/mattocks order include a
recalculation of truck freight in the
margin program. See Final Decision
Memo at Comment 8; see also Analysis
for the Final Results of the 14th
Administrative Review of Heavy Forged
Hand Tools from the Peoples’ Republic
of China: TMC (‘‘TMC Final Analysis
Memo’’).
The Department also notes that in the
Preliminary Results the brokerage and
handling value for Pidilite Industries
Ltd. (‘‘Pidilite’’) was incorrectly labeled
November 1, 2002, through September
30, 2003. See Memorandum from Matt
Renkey, Case Analyst, through Alex
Villanueva, Program Manager, Office 9,
to the File, 14th Administrative Review
of HFHTs from the People’s Republic of
China (‘‘PRC’’): Surrogate Values for the
Preliminary Results, dated February 28,
2006 (‘‘Surrogate Values Memo’’) at
Exhibits 2 and 12. The Department also
notes that the average brokerage and
handling surrogate value was
incorrectly calculated. See Id. The
Department has corrected the brokerage
and handling value for these final
results. See Memorandum from
Matthew Renkey, Case Analyst, through
Alex Villanueva, Program Manager,
Office 9, to the File, 14th Administrative
Review of HFHTs from the People’s
Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’): Selection of
Surrogate Values for the Final Results,
dated September 5, 2006.
Affiliation
The Department preliminarily
determined that SMC is affiliated with
one of its U.S. customers, Customer A.
See Preliminary Results, at 11584.
Specifically, the Department determined
E:\FR\FM\14SEN1.SGM
14SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 178 / Thursday, September 14, 2006 / Notices
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
that SMC and Customer A are affiliated
through their joint ownership of another
PRC company involved in the
production and export of subject
merchandise. See Memorandum from
Nicole Bankhead, Case Analyst, through
Alex Villanueva, Program Manager,
Office 9, to James C. Doyle, Director,
Office 9, 14th Administrative Review of
the Antidumping Duty Order on Heavy
Forged Hand Tools, Finished or
Unfinished, With or Without Handles,
from the People’s Republic of China:
Affiliation, dated February 28, 2006
(‘‘SMC Affiliation Memo’’) for further
details regarding this issue. The
Department continues to find that SMC
is affiliated with Customer A. See Final
Analysis Memo at Comment 10A and
Facts Available (‘‘FA’’) Section Below.
Facts Available
In the Preliminary Results, we
determined that the use of partial
neutral facts available was appropriate
for SMC’s constructed export price
(‘‘CEP’’) sales through Customer A in
accordance with sections 776(a)(2)(A)
and 776(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’). In
addition, we preliminarily based the
dumping margins for SMC, Huarong,
TMC, and Iron Bull on total adverse
facts available (‘‘AFA’’) for their sales of
merchandise subject to certain HFHTs
orders pursuant to sections 776(a) and
776(b) of the Act. See Preliminary
Results, 71 FR 11580 at 11584–87.
For these final results, in accordance
with sections 776(a)(2)(A), 776(a)(2)(B)
and 776(b) of the Act, we have
determined that the use of partial AFA,
rather than neutral facts available, is
appropriate for SMC’s CEP sales through
Customer A. See Final Decision Memo
at Comment 10B. As partial AFA, we are
applying the highest transaction margin
from SMC’s sales to its other U.S.
customers to those sales it made to
Customer A. See SMC Hammers/Sledges
Final Analysis Memo and the SMC Bars/
Wedges Final Analysis Memo. We also
continue to find that the application of
total AFA to SMC for axes/adzes and
picks mattocks; Huarong for bars/
wedges; to TMC for axes/adzes,
hammers/sledges, and bars/wedges; and
Iron Bull for bars/wedges is appropriate
because each respondent significantly
impeded our ability to (1) conduct the
reviews of these orders, and (2) instruct
CBP to assess the correct antidumping
duties, as mandated by section 731 of
the Act.
For the final results the Department is
basing SMC’s sales through Customer A
on partial AFA, using SMC’s own data.
A complete explanation of the selection,
corroboration, and application of AFA
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:23 Sep 13, 2006
Jkt 208001
for all other AFA rates can be found in
the Preliminary Results. See Preliminary
Results, 71 FR 11580 at 11587. The
Department received comments and
rebuttal comments with regard to
certain aspects of our selection and
application of AFA. See Final Decision
Memo, at Comments 2, 3, 8, 9 and 10.
The Department has made no changes
since the Preliminary Results that would
affect the Department’s selection,
corroboration, and application of facts
available for the other companies
receiving AFA. Accordingly, for the
final results, we continue to apply AFA
as noted above.
Final Results of Review
The weighted–average dumping
margins for the POR are as follows:
HEAVY FORGED HAND TOOLS FROM
THE PRC: AXES/ADZES
Manufacturer/Exporter
Weighted–Average
Margin (Percent)
TMC ..............................
Huarong ........................
SMC ..............................
PRC–Wide Rate ...........
189.37
189.37
189.37
189.37
HEAVY FORGED HAND TOOLS FROM
THE PRC: HAMMERS/SLEDGES
Manufacturer/Exporter
Weighted–Average
Margin (Percent)
TMC ..............................
SMC ..............................
PRC–Wide Rate ...........
45.42
34.56
45.42
HEAVY FORGED HAND TOOLS FROM
THE PRC: PICKS/MATTOCKS
Manufacturer/Exporter
Weighted–Average
Margin (Percent)
TMC ..............................
SMC ..............................
PRC–Wide Rate ...........
53.04
98.77
98.77
HEAVY FORGED HAND TOOLS FROM
THE PRC: BARS/WEDGES
Manufacturer/Exporter
Weighted–Average
Margin (Percent)
TMC ..............................
Huarong ........................
SMC ..............................
Iron Bull ........................
PRC–Wide Rate ...........
139.31
139.31
104.54
139.31
139.31
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following deposit requirements
will be effective upon publication of the
final results of this administrative
review for all shipments of certain
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
54271
HFHTs from the PRC entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the publication
date of this notice, as provided for by
section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash
deposit rates for the reviewed
companies will be the rates shown
above; (2) for any previously reviewed
or investigated PRC or non–PRC
exporter, not covered in this review,
with a separate rate, the cash deposit
rate will be the company–specific rate
established in the most recent segment
of those proceedings; (3) for all other
PRC exporters, the cash deposit rates
will be the PRC–wide rates established
in the final results of this review; and
(4) the cash deposit rate for any non–
PRC exporter of subject merchandise
from the PRC who does not have its own
rate will be the rate applicable to the
PRC exporter that supplied the non–
PRC exporter. These deposit
requirements, when imposed, shall
remain in effect until publication of the
final results of the next administrative
review.
Assessment Rates
The Department will issue
appraisement instructions directly to
CBP within 15 days of publication of the
final results of this administrative
review. In accordance with 19 CFR
351.212(b)(1), we have calculated
importer–specific assessment rates for
merchandise subject to this review. For
SMC, TMC, and Huarong, we divided
the total dumping margins of its
reviewed sales by the total entered value
of its reviewed sales for each applicable
importer to calculate ad valorem
assessment rates. We will direct CBP to
assess the resulting assessment rates
against the entered customs values for
the subject merchandise on SMC, TMC
and Huarong’s entries under the
relevant order during the POR. Where
an importer–specific ad valorem rate is
de minimis, we will order CBP to
liquidate appropriate entries without
regard to antidumping duties.
Lastly, for the respondents receiving
dumping rates based upon AFA, the
Department will instruct CBP to
liquidate entries according to the AFA
ad valorem rate. The Department will
issue appraisement instructions directly
to CBP upon the completion of the final
results of this administrative review.
Reimbursement of Duties
This notice also serves as a final
reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)
to file a certificate regarding the
reimbursement of antidumping duties
prior to liquidation of the relevant
entries during this POR. Failure to
E:\FR\FM\14SEN1.SGM
14SEN1
54272
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 178 / Thursday, September 14, 2006 / Notices
B. Partial Adverse Facts Available for
Constructed Export Price (‘‘CEP’’)
Sales
comply with this requirement could
result in the Secretary’s presumption
that reimbursement of antidumping
duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of doubled antidumping
duties.
C. Rate to Apply to SMC
D. AFA for SMC’s Non–Reported Sales
Comment 11: AFA for Iron Bull’s Sales
of Bars/Wedges
Administrative Protective Orders
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.
We are issuing and publishing this
administrative review and notice in
accordance with sections 751(a) and
777(i) of the Act.
Dated: September 5, 2006.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration,
Appendix I Decision Memorandum
I. CHANGES SINCE THE
PRELIMINARY RESULTS
II. GENERAL COMMENTS:
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Comment 1: Adverse Facts Available
(‘‘AFA’’) for ‘‘Agent’’ Sales
Comment 2: AFA Rate for the Bars/
Wedges Order
Comment 3: Separate Rates for TMC and
SMC
Comment 4: Rejecting the Respondents’
Case Brief
Comment 5: Addition of an HTS
Number to the Scope of the Order
Comment 6: Application of Packing
Materials and the By–product Offset in
the Calculation of Normal Value
Comment 7: Referral to Customs and
Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) Regarding
Evasion of These Orders by Huarong,
TMC and Iron Bull
Comment 8: Clerical Errors from the
Preliminary Results
A. Calculation of per unit Importer
Assessment Rates
B. SMC Missing Packing Variable
C. CBP Instructions
III. COMPANY–SPECIFIC ISSUES:
Comment 9: Huarong
A. Axes/Adzes Rate
B. Bars/Wedges Rate
Comment 10: SMC
A. Affiliation Determination
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:22 Sep 13, 2006
Jkt 208001
[FR Doc. E6–15277 Filed 9–13–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
(A–351–824, A–823–805, A–570–828)
Silicomanganese from Brazil, Ukraine,
and the People’s Republic of China:
Continuation of Antidumping Duty
Orders
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: As a result of the
determinations by the Department of
Commerce (the Department) and the
International Trade Commission (ITC)
that revocation of the antidumping duty
orders on silicomanganese from Brazil,
Ukraine, and the People’s Republic of
China (PRC) would be likely to lead to
continuation or recurrence of dumping
and of material injury to an industry in
the United States within a reasonably
foreseeable time, the Department is
publishing notice of the continuation of
these antidumping duty orders.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 14, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Janis Kalnins or Minoo Hatten, Office 5,
AD/CVD Operations, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–1392 and (202)
482–1690, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
Background
On January 3, 2006, the Department
initiated and the ITC instituted the
second sunset reviews of the
antidumping duty orders on
silicomanganese from Brazil, Ukraine,
and the PRC pursuant to section 751(c)
of the Act of 1930, as amended (the
Act). See Initiation of Five-year (Sunset)
Reviews, 71 FR 91 (January 3, 2006).
As a result of our review, the
Department found that revocation of the
antidumping duty orders would be
likely to lead to continuation or
recurrence of dumping and notified the
ITC of the magnitude of the margins
likely to prevail were the orders to be
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
revoked. See Silicomanganese from
Brazil, Ukraine, and the People’s
Republic of China; Five-year Sunset
Reviews of Antidumping Duty Orders;
Final Results, 71 FR 26927 (May 9,
2006). On September 1, 2006, the ITC
determined pursuant to section 751(c) of
the Act that revocation of the
antidumping duty orders on
silicomanganese from Brazil, Ukraine,
and the PRC would be likely to lead to
continuation or recurrence of material
injury to an industry in the United
States within a reasonably foreseeable
time. See Silicomanganese from Brazil,
China, and Ukraine, 71 FR 52145
(September 1, 2006), and ITC
Publication 3879 (August 2006) entitled
Silicomanganese from Brazil, China,
and Ukraine: Investigation Nos. 731–
TA–311–314, 317, and 379 (Second
Review).
Scope of the Orders
The merchandise covered by these
orders 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
orders, 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. These orders
cover all silicomanganese, regardless of
its tariff classification. Although the
HTSUS subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, the
written description of these orders
remains dispositive.
Determination
As a result of the determinations by
the Department and ITC that revocation
of these antidumping duty orders would
be likely to lead to continuation or
recurrence of dumping and material
injury to an industry in the United
States, pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of
the Act, the Department hereby orders
the continuation of the antidumping
E:\FR\FM\14SEN1.SGM
14SEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 178 (Thursday, September 14, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54269-54272]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-15277]
[[Page 54269]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
A-570-803
Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or Without
Handles, From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Final Rescission and
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On March 8, 2006, the Department of Commerce (``the
Department'') published in the Federal Register the preliminary results
of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on heavy
forged hand tools, finished or unfinished, with or without handles
(``HFHTs''), from the People's Republic of China (``PRC''). See Heavy
Forged Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or Without Handles,
From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of
Administrative Reviews and Preliminary Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 71 FR 11580 (March 8, 2006)
(``Preliminary Results''). We gave interested parties an opportunity to
comment on the Preliminary Results. Based upon our analysis of the
comments and information received, we made changes to the dumping
margin calculations for the final results. We find that certain
manufacturers/exporters sold subject merchandise at less than normal
value during the period of review (``POR'') February 1, 2004, through
January 31, 2005.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 14, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew Renkey (Respondents Shandong
Huarong Machinery Co. Ltd. and Tianjin Machinery Import & Export
Corporation), Cindy Robinson (Respondent Iron Bull Industrial Co.,
Ltd.), and Nicole Bankhead (Respondent Shandong Machinery Import &
Export Company), AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230;
telephone: (202) 482-2312, (202) 482-3797 and (202) 482-9068,
respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Case History
The Preliminary Results in this administrative review were
published on March 8, 2006. See Preliminary Results. This
administrative review covers four exporters or producer/exporters of
subject merchandise: Shandong Huarong Machinery Co., Ltd.
(``Huarong''), Iron Bull Industrial Co., Ltd. (``Iron Bull''), Tianjin
Machinery Import & Export Corporation (``TMC''), and Shandong Machinery
Import & Export Company (``SMC'')\1\, collectively ``the Respondents,''
and exports of the subject merchandise to the United States during the
period February 1, 2004, through January 31, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ On March 23, 2005, the Department initiated the 14th
administrative review of HFHTs from the PRC, for twenty-one
companies in the axes/adzes and bars/wedges orders, and twenty
companies in the hammers/sledges and picks/mattocks orders. See
Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part (``Initiation Notice``),
70 FR 14643 (March 23, 2005). The Department notes that SMC was
inadvertently referred to as ``Shanghai Machinery Import and Export
Corporation'' instead of Shandong Machinery Import & Export Company
in the Initiation Notice of the instant review for the hammers/
sledges order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 2, 2006, an importer/customer in the instant review
(``Customer A'')\2\ requested a second extension to respond to the
Department's February 17, 2006, letter requesting that Customer A
provide its downstream sales data and additional information about its
bankruptcy status. The Department granted Customer A an additional
extension of eleven days to respond to the Department's February 17,
2006, questionnaire. On March 17, 2006, Customer A submitted its
questionnaire response providing additional information on its
bankruptcy status but no downstream sales information. On March 20,
2006, Customer A submitted certifications from its bankruptcy lawyers.
On March 28, 2006, the Department issued supplemental questionnaires to
TMC and SMC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Please see SMC Hammers/Sledges Final Analysis Memo, SMC
Bars/Wedges Final Analysis Memo, and Affiliation Memo for
information regarding Customer A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 4, 2006, TMC submitted its supplemental questionnaire
response. On April 5, 2006, SMC submitted its supplemental
questionnaire response. On April 7, 2006, the Petitioner,\3\ interested
party Council Tool Company, and the Respondents submitted their case
briefs. On April 13, 2006, the Petitioner and the Respondents submitted
their rebuttal briefs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Ames True Temper.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 9, 2006, the Department extended the time limit for
completion of the final results of the instant administrative review.
See Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or Without
Handles, from the People's Republic of China: Extension of Time Limit
for the 14th Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 33438 (June
9, 2006). On July 26, 2006, the Department fully extended the final
results of the instant administrative review. See Heavy Forged Hand
Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or Without Handles, from the
People's Republic of China: Extension of Time Limit for the 14th
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 43714 (August 2, 2006).
On July 26, 2006, the Department issued Customer A a questionnaire
requesting additional information on its bankruptcy status. Customer A
did not respond to this questionnaire.
Scope of the Antidumping Duty Orders
The products covered by these orders are HFHTs from the PRC,
comprising the following classes or kinds of merchandise: (1) Hammers
and sledges with heads over 1.5 kg (3.33 pounds); (2) bars over 18
inches in length, track tools and wedges; (3) picks and mattocks; and
(4) axes, adzes and similar hewing tools. HFHTs include heads for
drilling hammers, sledges, axes, mauls, picks and mattocks, which may
or may not be painted, which may or may not be finished, or which may
or may not be imported with handles; assorted bar products and track
tools including wrecking bars, digging bars and tampers; and steel wood
splitting wedges. HFHTs are manufactured through a hot forge operation
in which steel is sheared to required length, heated to forging
temperature, and formed to final shape on forging equipment using dies
specific to the desired product shape and size. Depending on the
product, finishing operations may include shot blasting, grinding,
polishing and painting, and the insertion of handles for handled
products. HFHTs are currently provided for under the following
Harmonized Tariff System of the United States (``HTSUS'') subheadings:
8205.20.60, 8205.59.30, 8201.30.00, 8201.40.60, and 8205.59.5510.\4\
Specifically excluded from these investigations are hammers and sledges
with heads 1.5 kg. (3.33 pounds) in weight and under, hoes and rakes,
and bars 18 inches in length and under. The HTSUS subheadings are
provided for convenience and Customs purposes. The written description
remains dispositive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Final Decision Memo at Comment 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department issued nine conclusive scope rulings regarding the
merchandise covered by these orders: (1) On August 16, 1993, the
Department found the ``Max Multi-Purpose Axe,''
[[Page 54270]]
imported by the Forrest Tool Company, to be within the scope of the
axes/adzes order; (2) on March 8, 2001, the Department found ``18-
inch'' and ``24-inch'' pry bars, produced without dies, imported by
Olympia Industrial, Inc. and SMC Pacific Tools, Inc., to be within the
scope of the bars/wedges order; (3) on March 8, 2001, the Department
found the ``Pulaski'' tool, produced without dies by TMC, to be within
the scope of the axes/adzes order; (4) on March 8, 2001, the Department
found the ``skinning axe,'' imported by Import Traders, Inc., to be
within the scope of the axes/adzes order; (5) on December 9, 2004, the
Department found the ``MUTT,'' imported by Olympia Industrial, Inc.,
under HTSUS 8205.59.5510, to be within the scope of the axes/adzes
order; (6) on May 23, 2005, the Department found 8-inch by 8-inch and
10-inch by 10-inch cast tampers, imported by Olympia Industrial, Inc.
to be outside the scope of the orders; (7) on September 22, 2005,
following remand, the U.S. Court of International Trade affirmed the
Department's determination that cast picks are outside the scope of the
order; (8) on October 14, 2005, the Department found the Mean Green
Splitting Machine, imported by Avalanche Industries, under HTSUS
8201.40.60, to be within the scope of the bars/wedges order, and (9) on
July 27, 2006, the Department found that the gooseneck claw wrecking
bar which has a length of 17 7/8'' not including the curvature portion
of the bar stock, imported by Central Purchasing, LLC. to be outside
the scope of the order for bars and wedges.
Separate Rates
TMC, SMC, Huarong, and Iron Bull have requested separate, company-
specific antidumping duty rates. In the Preliminary Results, we
determined that TMC, SMC, Huarong, and Iron Bull met the criteria for
the application of a separate antidumping duty rate. See Preliminary
Results at 11583. For the final results, we continue to find that the
evidence placed on the record of the instant review by TMC, SMC,
Huarong, and Iron Bull demonstrate both a de jure and de facto absence
of government control, with respect to their respective exports of the
subject merchandise, and, thus all four companies are eligible for
separate rate status. See Final Decision Memo at Comment 3.
Rescission of Review
In our Preliminary Results, in accordance with 19 CFR
351.213(d)(1), we preliminarily rescinded the review for all four
orders for Shanghai Xinike Trading Company (``SXT''). Additionally, in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), we preliminarily rescinded the
orders on hammers/sledges and picks/mattocks for Huarong and Iron Bull,
and also the order on axes/adzes for Iron Bull. See Preliminary
Results, 71 FR 11583.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), we are rescinding these
administrative reviews with respect to all four orders for SXT. The
Department reviewed data from Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'')
for Huarong and Iron Bull, which supports the claims that these
companies did not export subject merchandise during the POR.
Furthermore, no party placed evidence on the record demonstrating that
Huarong or Iron Bull exported the merchandise identified above during
the POR since the issuance of the Preliminary Results. Therefore, in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3) and consistent with the
Department's practice, we are rescinding these administrative reviews
with respect to the hammers/sledges and picks/mattocks orders for
Huarong and Iron Bull, and also the order on axes/adzes for Iron Bull.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to
this proceeding and to which we have responded are listed in the
Appendix to this notice and addressed in the Issues and Decision
Memorandum (``Final Decision Memo''), which is hereby adopted by this
notice. Parties can find a complete discussion of the issues raised in
this administrative review and the corresponding recommendations in
this public memorandum which is on file in the Central Records Unit
(CRU), room B-099 of the main Department building. In addition, a copy
of the Final Decision Memo can be accessed directly on our website at
https://ia.ita.doc.gov/. The paper copy and electronic version of the
Final Decision Memo are identical in content.
Changes Since the Preliminary Results
Based on a review of the record as well as comments received from
parties regarding our Preliminary Results, we have made revisions to
the margin calculations for the final results. Specific changes to
SMC's margin calculation include a recalculation of the international
freight expenses and truck freight in the margin programs for both the
hammers/sledges and bars/wedges orders and a revision to the
calculation of one packing freight factor, packing weight, and normal
value in the margin program for the hammers/sledges order. See Final
Decision Memo at Comment 8; see also Analysis for the Final Results of
the 14th Administrative Review of Heavy Forged Hand Tools from the
Peoples' Republic of China: Shandong Machinery Import & Export Company
(``SMC'') - Hammers/Sledges (``SMC Final Hammers/Sledges Analysis
Memo''); Analysis for the Final Results of the 14th Administrative
Review of Heavy Forged Hand Tools from the Peoples' Republic of China:
Shandong Machinery Import & Export Company (``SMC'') - Bars/Wedges
(``SMC Final Bars/Wedges Analysis Memo''). Specific changes to
Huarong's axes/adzes calculation program include a recalculation of
international freight expenses and truck freight. See Final Decision
Memo at Comment 8; see also Analysis for the Final Results of the 14th
Administrative Review of Heavy Forged Hand Tools from the Peoples'
Republic of China: Huarong (``Huarong Final Analysis Memo''). Specific
changes to TMC's margin calculation in the picks/mattocks order include
a recalculation of truck freight in the margin program. See Final
Decision Memo at Comment 8; see also Analysis for the Final Results of
the 14th Administrative Review of Heavy Forged Hand Tools from the
Peoples' Republic of China: TMC (``TMC Final Analysis Memo'').
The Department also notes that in the Preliminary Results the
brokerage and handling value for Pidilite Industries Ltd.
(``Pidilite'') was incorrectly labeled November 1, 2002, through
September 30, 2003. See Memorandum from Matt Renkey, Case Analyst,
through Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, Office 9, to the File, 14th
Administrative Review of HFHTs from the People's Republic of China
(``PRC''): Surrogate Values for the Preliminary Results, dated February
28, 2006 (``Surrogate Values Memo'') at Exhibits 2 and 12. The
Department also notes that the average brokerage and handling surrogate
value was incorrectly calculated. See Id. The Department has corrected
the brokerage and handling value for these final results. See
Memorandum from Matthew Renkey, Case Analyst, through Alex Villanueva,
Program Manager, Office 9, to the File, 14th Administrative Review of
HFHTs from the People's Republic of China (``PRC''): Selection of
Surrogate Values for the Final Results, dated September 5, 2006.
Affiliation
The Department preliminarily determined that SMC is affiliated with
one of its U.S. customers, Customer A. See Preliminary Results, at
11584. Specifically, the Department determined
[[Page 54271]]
that SMC and Customer A are affiliated through their joint ownership of
another PRC company involved in the production and export of subject
merchandise. See Memorandum from Nicole Bankhead, Case Analyst, through
Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, Office 9, to James C. Doyle,
Director, Office 9, 14th Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty
Order on Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or
Without Handles, from the People's Republic of China: Affiliation,
dated February 28, 2006 (``SMC Affiliation Memo'') for further details
regarding this issue. The Department continues to find that SMC is
affiliated with Customer A. See Final Analysis Memo at Comment 10A and
Facts Available (``FA'') Section Below.
Facts Available
In the Preliminary Results, we determined that the use of partial
neutral facts available was appropriate for SMC's constructed export
price (``CEP'') sales through Customer A in accordance with sections
776(a)(2)(A) and 776(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
(``the Act''). In addition, we preliminarily based the dumping margins
for SMC, Huarong, TMC, and Iron Bull on total adverse facts available
(``AFA'') for their sales of merchandise subject to certain HFHTs
orders pursuant to sections 776(a) and 776(b) of the Act. See
Preliminary Results, 71 FR 11580 at 11584-87.
For these final results, in accordance with sections 776(a)(2)(A),
776(a)(2)(B) and 776(b) of the Act, we have determined that the use of
partial AFA, rather than neutral facts available, is appropriate for
SMC's CEP sales through Customer A. See Final Decision Memo at Comment
10B. As partial AFA, we are applying the highest transaction margin
from SMC's sales to its other U.S. customers to those sales it made to
Customer A. See SMC Hammers/Sledges Final Analysis Memo and the SMC
Bars/Wedges Final Analysis Memo. We also continue to find that the
application of total AFA to SMC for axes/adzes and picks mattocks;
Huarong for bars/wedges; to TMC for axes/adzes, hammers/sledges, and
bars/wedges; and Iron Bull for bars/wedges is appropriate because each
respondent significantly impeded our ability to (1) conduct the reviews
of these orders, and (2) instruct CBP to assess the correct antidumping
duties, as mandated by section 731 of the Act.
For the final results the Department is basing SMC's sales through
Customer A on partial AFA, using SMC's own data. A complete explanation
of the selection, corroboration, and application of AFA for all other
AFA rates can be found in the Preliminary Results. See Preliminary
Results, 71 FR 11580 at 11587. The Department received comments and
rebuttal comments with regard to certain aspects of our selection and
application of AFA. See Final Decision Memo, at Comments 2, 3, 8, 9 and
10. The Department has made no changes since the Preliminary Results
that would affect the Department's selection, corroboration, and
application of facts available for the other companies receiving AFA.
Accordingly, for the final results, we continue to apply AFA as noted
above.
Final Results of Review
The weighted-average dumping margins for the POR are as follows:
Heavy Forged Hand Tools from the PRC: Axes/Adzes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-Average
Manufacturer/Exporter Margin (Percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TMC................................................. 189.37
Huarong............................................. 189.37
SMC................................................. 189.37
PRC-Wide Rate....................................... 189.37
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heavy Forged Hand Tools from the PRC: Hammers/Sledges
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-Average
Manufacturer/Exporter Margin (Percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TMC................................................. 45.42
SMC................................................. 34.56
PRC-Wide Rate....................................... 45.42
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heavy Forged Hand Tools from the PRC: Picks/Mattocks
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-Average
Manufacturer/Exporter Margin (Percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TMC................................................. 53.04
SMC................................................. 98.77
PRC-Wide Rate....................................... 98.77
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heavy Forged Hand Tools from the PRC: Bars/Wedges
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-Average
Manufacturer/Exporter Margin (Percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TMC................................................. 139.31
Huarong............................................. 139.31
SMC................................................. 104.54
Iron Bull........................................... 139.31
PRC-Wide Rate....................................... 139.31
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following deposit requirements will be effective upon
publication of the final results of this administrative review for all
shipments of certain HFHTs from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of this
notice, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash
deposit rates for the reviewed companies will be the rates shown above;
(2) for any previously reviewed or investigated PRC or non-PRC
exporter, not covered in this review, with a separate rate, the cash
deposit rate will be the company-specific rate established in the most
recent segment of those proceedings; (3) for all other PRC exporters,
the cash deposit rates will be the PRC-wide rates established in the
final results of this review; and (4) the cash deposit rate for any
non-PRC exporter of subject merchandise from the PRC who does not have
its own rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that
supplied the non-PRC exporter. These deposit requirements, when
imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results
of the next administrative review.
Assessment Rates
The Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to CBP
within 15 days of publication of the final results of this
administrative review. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have
calculated importer-specific assessment rates for merchandise subject
to this review. For SMC, TMC, and Huarong, we divided the total dumping
margins of its reviewed sales by the total entered value of its
reviewed sales for each applicable importer to calculate ad valorem
assessment rates. We will direct CBP to assess the resulting assessment
rates against the entered customs values for the subject merchandise on
SMC, TMC and Huarong's entries under the relevant order during the POR.
Where an importer-specific ad valorem rate is de minimis, we will order
CBP to liquidate appropriate entries without regard to antidumping
duties.
Lastly, for the respondents receiving dumping rates based upon AFA,
the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate entries according to the
AFA ad valorem rate. The Department will issue appraisement
instructions directly to CBP upon the completion of the final results
of this administrative review.
Reimbursement of Duties
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding
the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the
relevant entries during this POR. Failure to
[[Page 54272]]
comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's
presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the
subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
Administrative Protective Orders
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.
We are issuing and publishing this administrative review and notice
in accordance with sections 751(a) and 777(i) of the Act.
Dated: September 5, 2006.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration,
Appendix I Decision Memorandum
I. CHANGES SINCE THE PRELIMINARY RESULTS
II. GENERAL COMMENTS:
Comment 1: Adverse Facts Available (``AFA'') for ``Agent'' Sales
Comment 2: AFA Rate for the Bars/Wedges Order
Comment 3: Separate Rates for TMC and SMC
Comment 4: Rejecting the Respondents' Case Brief
Comment 5: Addition of an HTS Number to the Scope of the Order
Comment 6: Application of Packing Materials and the By-product Offset
in the Calculation of Normal Value
Comment 7: Referral to Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'')
Regarding Evasion of These Orders by Huarong, TMC and Iron Bull
Comment 8: Clerical Errors from the Preliminary Results
A. Calculation of per unit Importer Assessment Rates
B. SMC Missing Packing Variable
C. CBP Instructions
III. COMPANY-SPECIFIC ISSUES:
Comment 9: Huarong
A. Axes/Adzes Rate
B. Bars/Wedges Rate
Comment 10: SMC
A. Affiliation Determination
B. Partial Adverse Facts Available for Constructed Export Price
(``CEP'') Sales
C. Rate to Apply to SMC
D. AFA for SMC's Non-Reported Sales
Comment 11: AFA for Iron Bull's Sales of Bars/Wedges
[FR Doc. E6-15277 Filed 9-13-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
