Canned Pineapple Fruit from Thailand: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70948-70949 [E6-20779]

Download as PDF 70948 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 235 / Thursday, December 7, 2006 / Notices Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board’s Acting Executive Secretary at the following address: Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign–Trade Zones Board, Room 2814B, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; Tel: (202) 482–2862. The closing period for their receipt is January 8, 2007. A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Foreign–Trade Zones Board’s Executive Secretary at the address listed above. Dated: November 28, 2006. Andrew McGilvray, Acting Executive Secretary. [FR Doc. E6–20784 Filed 12–6–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–549–813] Canned Pineapple Fruit from Thailand: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On August 4, 2006, the Department of Commerce (Department) published in the Federal Register the preliminary results and partial preliminary rescission of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on canned pineapple fruit from Thailand. This review covers two manufacturers/ exporters: Vita Food Factory (1989) Ltd. (Vita) and Tropical Food Industries Co., Ltd. (TROFCO). The period of review (POR) is July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2005. In these final results, we have made no changes to the weighted– average dumping margins determined for Vita and TROFCO in the preliminary results of this administrative review. sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES EFFECTIVE DATE: December 7, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Magd Zalok or Howard Smith, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482–4162 and (202) 482–5193, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:18 Dec 06, 2006 Jkt 211001 Background On August 4, 2006, the Department published in the Federal Register the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on canned pineapple fruit from Thailand. See Canned Pineapple Fruit from Thailand: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 44256 (August 4, 2006) (Preliminary Results). On August 23, 2006, we received a case brief from Vita in response to the Department’s invitation to comment on the Preliminary Results. On September 11, 2006, we received a rebuttal brief from the petitioners. The Department received no comments regarding its preliminary decision to base TROFCO’s margin on adverse facts available (AFA). Scope of the Order The product covered by the order is canned pineapple fruit, defined as pineapple processed and/or prepared into various product forms, including rings, pieces, chunks, tidbits, and crushed pineapple, that is packed and cooked in metal cans with either pineapple juice or sugar syrup added. Imports of canned pineapple fruit are currently classifiable under subheadings 2008.20.0010 and 2008.20.0090 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). HTSUS 2008.20.0010 covers canned pineapple fruit packed in a sugar–based syrup; HTSUS 2008.20.0090 covers canned pineapple fruit packed without added sugar (i.e., juice–packed). The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the merchandise covered by this order is dispositive. Partial Final Rescission of Review As stated in the Preliminary Results, the Department concluded that Prachuab Fruit Canning Co., Ltd. (PRAFT) made no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR. Therefore, consistent with the Preliminary Results, and in accordance with 19 CFR § 351.213(d)(3), we are rescinding the instant review with respect to PRAFT. We received no comments on the Department’s decision in the Preliminary Results to rescind this review with respect to PRAFT. Analysis of Comments Received The one issue raised in Vita’s case brief is addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated concurrently herewith (Decision Memorandum), PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 which is adopted herein, by reference (that issue is identified in the appendix attached to this notice). The Decision Memorandum is on file in the Central Records Unit, Room B–099 of the Herbert C. Hoover Building, and may be accessed on the Web at https://trade.gov/ ia/index.asp, ‘‘Federal Register Notices.’’ Final Results of Review We determined that the following weighted–average percentage margins exist for the period July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2005: Manufacturer/Exporter Vita Food Factory (1989) Ltd. ................. Tropical Food Industries Co., Ltd. .................... Margin (percent) 16.14 51.16 Assessment The Department has determined, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR § 351.212(b)(1), we calculated importer/customer–specific assessment rates for Vita’s subject merchandise. Since Vita did not report the entered value for its sales, we calculated per–unit assessment rates for its merchandise by summing, on an importer or customer–specific basis, the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales of subject merchandise to the importer or customer and dividing this amount by the total quantity of those sales. To determine whether the per– unit duty assessment rates were de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent ad valorem), in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR § 351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer/ customer- specific ad valorem ratios based on adjusted export prices. Where the importer/customer- specific assessment rate is above de minimis, we will instruct CBP to assess this rate uniformly on all appropriate entries. For TROFCO, the respondent receiving a dumping margin based upon AFA, we will instruct CBP to liquidate entries according to the AFA ad valorem rate. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of review. The Department clarified its ‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This clarification applies to POR entries of subject merchandise produced by companies included in these final E:\FR\FM\07DEN1.SGM 07DEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 235 / Thursday, December 7, 2006 / Notices results for which the reviewed companies did not know their merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all–others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company involved in the transaction. For a full discussion of this clarification, see id. Cash Deposit Requirements The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (Act): (1) the cash deposit rates for the companies examined in the instant review will be the rates listed above (except that if the rate for a particular company is de minimis, i.e., less than 0.50 percent, no cash deposit will be required for that company); (2) for previously investigated or reviewed companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company–specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the less–than-fair–value investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the subject merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be the ‘‘all others’’ rate of 24.64 percent. These cash deposit rates, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES Reimbursement of Duties This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR § 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary’s presumption that reimbursement of the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double 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 VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:29 Dec 06, 2006 Jkt 211001 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 terms of an APO is a violation that is subject to sanction. We are issuing and publishing these results and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 771(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: November 30, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix Comment 1: Whether the Department Should Continue to Reject the Post–Sale Price Adjustments That Vita Reported for U.S. Sales [FR Doc. E6–20779 Filed 12–6–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A–570–827 Certain Cased Pencils from the People’s Republic of China; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) has preliminarily determined that sales by the respondents in this review, covering the period December 1, 2004, through November 30, 2005, have been made at prices at less than normal value (‘‘NV’’). If these preliminary results are adopted in the final results of this review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department invites interested parties to comment on these preliminary results. EFFECTIVE DATE: December 7, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Smith or Gemal Brangman, 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) 482–1766 and (202) 482–3773, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 70949 Background On December 28, 1994, the Department published in the Federal Register an antidumping duty order on certain cased pencils from the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). See Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Cased Pencils From the People’s Republic of China, 59 FR 66909 (December 28, 1994). On December 1, 2005, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of ‘‘Opportunity to Request Administrative Review’’ of the antidumping duty order on certain cased pencils from the PRC covering the period December 1, 2004, through November 30, 2005. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 70 FR 72109 (December 1, 2005). On December 9, 2005, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), a PRC exporter/ producer, Shandong Rongxin Import and Export Co., Ltd. (‘‘Rongxin’’), requested an administrative review of the order on certain cased pencils from the PRC. On December 30, 2005, the petitioner1 requested a review of three companies.2 In addition, on January 3, 2006, the following exporter/producers requested their own reviews3: CFP, Three Star, Beijing Dixon Stationary Company Ltd. (‘‘Dixon’’), and Oriental International Holding Shanghai Foreign Trade Co., Ltd. (‘‘SFTC’’) requested their own reviews. On January 27, 2006, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of initiation for this administrative review covering the companies listed in the requests received from the interested parties. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 71 FR 5241 (February 1, 2006) (‘‘Initiation Notice’’). On February 8, 2006, the Department issued quantity and value (‘‘Q&V’’) questionnaires to each PRC company 1 The petitioner includes Sanford L.P., Musgrave Pencil Company, RoseMoon Inc., and General Pencil Company. 2 These companies are: China First Pencil Company, Ltd. (‘‘CFP’’), Shanghai Three Star Stationery Industry Corp. (‘‘Three Star’’), and Tianjin Custom Wood Processing Co., Ltd. (‘‘TCW’’). 3 CFP, Three Star, Dixon, and SFTC filed submissions dated December 31, 2005, requesting a review, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b). However, because the Department was closed on December 31, 2005, the Department accepted these submissions for filing on January 3, 2006, the next business day. E:\FR\FM\07DEN1.SGM 07DEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 235 (Thursday, December 7, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70948-70949]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-20779]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-549-813]


Canned Pineapple Fruit from Thailand: Final Results and Partial 
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On August 4, 2006, the Department of Commerce (Department) 
published in the Federal Register the preliminary results and partial 
preliminary rescission of the administrative review of the antidumping 
duty order on canned pineapple fruit from Thailand. This review covers 
two manufacturers/exporters: Vita Food Factory (1989) Ltd. (Vita) and 
Tropical Food Industries Co., Ltd. (TROFCO). The period of review (POR) 
is July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2005. In these final results, we have 
made no changes to the weighted-average dumping margins determined for 
Vita and TROFCO in the preliminary results of this administrative 
review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 7, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Magd Zalok or Howard Smith, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-
4162 and (202) 482-5193, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On August 4, 2006, the Department published in the Federal Register 
the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping 
duty order on canned pineapple fruit from Thailand. See Canned 
Pineapple Fruit from Thailand: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 71 FR 44256 (August 4, 2006) (Preliminary 
Results). On August 23, 2006, we received a case brief from Vita in 
response to the Department's invitation to comment on the Preliminary 
Results. On September 11, 2006, we received a rebuttal brief from the 
petitioners. The Department received no comments regarding its 
preliminary decision to base TROFCO's margin on adverse facts available 
(AFA).

Scope of the Order

    The product covered by the order is canned pineapple fruit, defined 
as pineapple processed and/or prepared into various product forms, 
including rings, pieces, chunks, tidbits, and crushed pineapple, that 
is packed and cooked in metal cans with either pineapple juice or sugar 
syrup added. Imports of canned pineapple fruit are currently 
classifiable under subheadings 2008.20.0010 and 2008.20.0090 of the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). HTSUS 
2008.20.0010 covers canned pineapple fruit packed in a sugar-based 
syrup; HTSUS 2008.20.0090 covers canned pineapple fruit packed without 
added sugar (i.e., juice-packed). The HTSUS subheadings are provided 
for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the 
merchandise covered by this order is dispositive.

Partial Final Rescission of Review

    As stated in the Preliminary Results, the Department concluded that 
Prachuab Fruit Canning Co., Ltd. (PRAFT) made no shipments of subject 
merchandise during the POR. Therefore, consistent with the Preliminary 
Results, and in accordance with 19 CFR Sec.  351.213(d)(3), we are 
rescinding the instant review with respect to PRAFT. We received no 
comments on the Department's decision in the Preliminary Results to 
rescind this review with respect to PRAFT.

Analysis of Comments Received

    The one issue raised in Vita's case brief is addressed in the 
Issues and Decision Memorandum to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary 
for Import Administration, from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant 
Secretary for Import Administration, dated concurrently herewith 
(Decision Memorandum), which is adopted herein, by reference (that 
issue is identified in the appendix attached to this notice). The 
Decision Memorandum is on file in the Central Records Unit, Room B-099 
of the Herbert C. Hoover Building, and may be accessed on the Web at 
https://trade.gov/ia/index.asp, ``Federal Register Notices.''

Final Results of Review

    We determined that the following weighted-average percentage 
margins exist for the period July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2005:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Manufacturer/Exporter                  Margin (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vita Food Factory (1989) Ltd........................               16.14
Tropical Food Industries Co., Ltd...................               51.16
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment

    The Department has determined, and U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate 
entries. In accordance with 19 CFR Sec.  351.212(b)(1), we calculated 
importer/customer-specific assessment rates for Vita's subject 
merchandise. Since Vita did not report the entered value for its sales, 
we calculated per-unit assessment rates for its merchandise by summing, 
on an importer or customer-specific basis, the dumping margins 
calculated for all U.S. sales of subject merchandise to the importer or 
customer and dividing this amount by the total quantity of those sales. 
To determine whether the per-unit duty assessment rates were de minimis 
(i.e., less than 0.50 percent ad valorem), in accordance with the 
requirement set forth in 19 CFR Sec.  351.106(c)(2), we calculated 
importer/customer- specific ad valorem ratios based on adjusted export 
prices. Where the importer/customer- specific assessment rate is above 
de minimis, we will instruct CBP to assess this rate uniformly on all 
appropriate entries. For TROFCO, the respondent receiving a dumping 
margin based upon AFA, we will instruct CBP to liquidate entries 
according to the AFA ad valorem rate. The Department intends to issue 
assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of 
the final results of review.
    The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on 
May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This 
clarification applies to POR entries of subject merchandise produced by 
companies included in these final

[[Page 70949]]

results for which the reviewed companies did not know their merchandise 
was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct 
CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is 
no rate for the intermediate company involved in the transaction. For a 
full discussion of this clarification, see id.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all 
shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the 
final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 
751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (Act): (1) the cash 
deposit rates for the companies examined in the instant review will be 
the rates listed above (except that if the rate for a particular 
company is de minimis, i.e., less than 0.50 percent, no cash deposit 
will be required for that company); (2) for previously investigated or 
reviewed companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will 
continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent 
period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a 
prior review, or the less-than-fair-value investigation, but the 
manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for 
the most recent period for the manufacturer of the subject merchandise; 
and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters 
will continue to be the ``all others'' rate of 24.64 percent. These 
cash deposit rates, when imposed, shall remain in effect until 
publication of the final results of the next administrative review.

Reimbursement of Duties

    This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR Sec.  351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply 
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double 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 Sec.  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 terms of an APO is a violation that is 
subject to sanction.
    We are issuing and publishing these results and notice in 
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 771(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: November 30, 2006.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix

Comment 1: Whether the Department Should Continue to Reject the Post-
Sale Price Adjustments That Vita Reported for U.S. Sales
[FR Doc. E6-20779 Filed 12-6-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.