Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or Without Handles, from the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Rescissions of the 2005-2006 Administrative Reviews, 51787-51791 [E7-17857]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Notices
required for that company); (2) for
previously investigated or reviewed PRC
and non–PRC exporters not listed above
that have separate rates, the cash
deposit rate will continue to be the
Preliminary Results of Review
exporter–specific rate published for the
We preliminarily determine that the
most recent period; (3) for all PRC
following antidumping duty margins
exporters of subject merchandise which
exist:
have not been found to be entitled to a
separate rate, the cash deposit rate will
Margin
be the PRC–wide rate of 157.68 percent
Exporter
(percent)
(see Amended Final FR); and (4) for all
non–PRC exporters of subject
Since Hardware (Guangzhou)
Co., Ltd. .................................. 0.31 % (de merchandise which have not received
minimis) their own rate, the cash deposit rate will
be the rate applicable to the PRC
For details on the calculation of the
exporters that supplied that non–PRC
antidumping duty weighted–average
exporter. These deposit requirements,
margin for Since Hardware, see Since
when imposed, shall remain in effect
Hardware Analysis Memo. A public
until publication of the final results of
version of this memorandum is on file
the next administrative review.
in the Department’s central records unit
Schedule for Final Results of Review
(‘‘CRU’’).
The Department will disclose
Assessment Rates
calculations performed in connection
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the
with the preliminary results of this
Department will determine, and
review within five days of the date of
Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) publication of this notice in accordance
shall assess, antidumping duties on all
with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Any interested
appropriate entries. The Department
party may request a hearing within 30
will issue appropriate assessment
days of publication of this notice in
instructions directly to CBP 15 days
accordance with 19 CFR 351.310(c).
after the date of publication of the final
Any hearing would normally be held 37
results of this review. For assessment
days after the publication of this notice,
purposes, where possible, we calculated or the first workday thereafter, at the
importer–specific assessment rates for
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
ironing tables from the PRC via ad
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW,
valorem duty assessment rates based on Washington, DC 20230. Individuals who
the ratio of the total amount of the
wish to request a hearing must submit
dumping margins calculated for the
a written request within 30 days of the
examined sales to the total entered
publication of this notice in the Federal
value of those same sales. We will
Register to the Assistant Secretary for
instruct CBP to assess antidumping
Import Administration, U.S. Department
duties on all appropriate entries covered of Commerce, Room 1870, 14th Street
by this review if any assessment rate
and Constitution Avenue, NW,
calculated in the final results of this
Washington, DC 20230. Requests for a
review is above de minimis. The final
public hearing should contain: (1) the
results of this review shall be the basis
party’s name, address, and telephone
number; (2) the number of participants;
for the assessment of antidumping
and (3) to the extent practicable, an
duties on entries of merchandise
identification of the arguments to be
covered by the final results of these
raised at the hearing.
reviews and for future deposits of
Unless otherwise notified by the
estimated duties, where applicable.
Department, interested parties may
Cash Deposit Requirements
submit case briefs within 30 days of the
The following cash deposit
date of publication of this notice in
requirements will be effective upon
accordance with 19 CFR
publication of the final results of this
351.309(c)(1)(ii). As part of the case
administrative review for all shipments
brief, parties are encouraged to provide
of the subject merchandise entered, or
a summary of the arguments not to
withdrawn from warehouse, for
exceed five pages and a table of statutes,
consumption on or after the publication regulations, and cases cited in
date, as provided for by section
accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2).
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) for the
Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited
exporters listed above, the cash deposit
to issues raised in the case briefs, must
rate will be established in the final
be filed within five days after the case
results of this review (except, if the rate
brief is filed in accordance with 19 CFR
is zero or de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5
351.309(d). If a hearing is held, an
percent, no cash deposit will be
interested party may make an
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
information to value the factors of
production until 20 days following the
date of publication of these preliminary
results.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:06 Sep 10, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
51787
affirmative presentation only on
arguments included in that party’s case
brief and may make a rebuttal
presentation only on arguments
included in that party’s rebuttal brief in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.310(c).
Parties should confirm by telephone the
time, date, and place of the hearing
within 48 hours before the scheduled
time. The Department will issue the
final results of this review, which will
include the results of its analysis of
issues raised in the briefs, not later than
120 days after the date of publication of
this notice in accordance with section
751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.213(h)(1).
Notification to Importers
This notice also serves as a
preliminary 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 these review
periods. Failure to comply with this
requirement could result in the
Secretary’s presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties
occurred and the subsequent assessment
of double antidumping duties.
This administrative review and this
notice are published in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the
Act.
Dated: August 31, 2007.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E7–17865 Filed 9–10–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
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 and Rescissions of the
2005–2006 Administrative Reviews
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On March 8, 2007, the
Department published the preliminary
results of the 2005–2006 administrative
reviews of the antidumping duty orders
on heavy forged hand tools, finished or
unfinished, with or without handles,
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 and Partial
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\11SEN1.SGM
11SEN1
51788
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Notices
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Rescission of the 2005–2006
Administrative Reviews, 72 FR 10492
(March 8, 2007) (Preliminary Results).
This review covers four classes or kinds:
(1) Axes/Adzes; (2) Bars/Wedges; (3)
Hammers/Sledges; and (4) Picks/
Mattocks. This review covers nine
exporters or producer/exporters: (1) Iron
Bull Industrial Co., Ltd. (Iron Bull); (2)
Jafsam Metal Products (Jafsam); (3)
Shanghai Machinery Import & Export
Corp. (Shanghai Machinery); (4)
Shanghai Xinike Trading Company
(Xinike); (5) Shandong Huarong
Machinery Co., Ltd. (Huarong); (6)
Shandong Jinma Industrial Group Co.,
Ltd. (Jinma); (7) Shandong Machinery
Import and Export Corporation (SMC);
(8) Tianjin Machinery Import and
Export Corporation (TMC); and (9)
Truper Herramientas S.A. de C.V.
(Truper). The period of review (POR) is
February 1, 2005, through January 31,
2006. Based on our analysis of the
record, including factual information
obtained since the Preliminary Results,
we have reversed the decision to rescind
the administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on the class or
kind Axes/Adzes covering SMC and
have applied adverse facts available
(AFA). Therefore, the final results differ
from the Preliminary Results. See ‘‘Final
Results of Review’’ section below.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 11, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mark Flessner or Robert James at (202)
482–6312 or (202) 482–0649,
respectively; Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Enforcement Office
7, Import Administration, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department
of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, N.W.,
Washington, DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Since the Preliminary Results, we
received a case brief from respondent
SMC on April 9, 2007. Separate rebuttal
briefs were received from both
petitioners, Ames True Temper (Ames)
and Council Tool Company (Council
Tools), on April 16, 2007. On April 24,
2007, the Department’s Customs Liaison
Unit forwarded certain U.S. Customs
and Border Protection (CBP) documents
to the team. These were placed on the
record of this review on April 24, 2007.
See the Memorandum to the File from
Mark Flessner, Case Analyst, entitled
‘‘Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or
Unfinished, With or Without Handles,
From the People’s Republic of China
(A–570–803): U.S. Entry Documents and
Opportunity to Comment’’ (April 24,
2007). SMC, Ames, and Council Tools
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:06 Sep 10, 2007
Jkt 211001
all filed comments concerning these
documents on May 9, 2007. SMC
requested and was granted time to file
a rebuttal to Ames’ and Council Tools’
comments; SMC filed its rebuttal
comments on May 16, 2007. On July 6,
2007, the Department published in the
Federal Register an extension of the
time limit for the final results until
August 6, 2007. See Notice of Extension
of Time Limit for Final Results and
Partial Rescission of the 2005–2006
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review of Heavy Forged Hand Tools,
Finished or Unfinished, With or Without
Handles, from the People’s Republic of
China, 72 FR 36959 (July 6, 2007). On
August 8, 2007, the Department
published in the Federal Register a
further extension of the time limit for
the final results until September 4,
2007. See Heavy Forged Hand Tools,
Finished or Unfinished, With or Without
Handles, from the People’s Republic of
China: Notice of Extension of Time
Limit for Final Results of the 2005–2006
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 72 FR 44495 (August 8, 2007).
Scope of the Antidumping Duty Order
The products covered by these orders
are heavy forged hand tools 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. Heavy forged hand
tools 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. Heavy forged hand tools 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. Heavy forged hand tools 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 and
8201.40.60. Specifically excluded from
these orders 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
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
HTSUS subheadings are provided for
convenience and Customs purposes.
The written description remains
dispositive.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the briefs are
addressed in the accompanying Issues
and Decision Memorandum, which is
hereby adopted by this notice. A list of
the issues raised, all of which are in the
Issues and Decision Memorandum, is as
follows: (1) whether SMC demonstrated
a lack of de jure and de facto
government control to warrant receiving
a separate rate; (2) whether the
Department was correct in applying
AFA to SMC’s sales of Bars/Wedges and
Hammers/Sledges; (3) whether the AFA
rates applied to SMC’s sales of Bars/
Wedges, Hammers/Sledges, and Axes/
Adzes were properly corroborated and
reasonable; (4) whether the Department
ought to reverse its preliminary
rescission of the review for Axes/Adzes;
(5) whether the Department ought to
apply facts available for Axes/Adzes;
and (6) whether the Department ought
to apply AFA for Axes/Adzes. Parties
can find a complete discussion of all
issues raised in the briefs 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 complete version of the
Issues and Decision Memorandum can
be accessed directly on the internet at
https://ia.ita.doc.gov. The paper copy
and electronic version of the Issues and
Decision Memorandum are identical in
content.
Changes Since the Preliminary
Results
Based upon our analysis of the record
(including factual information obtained
since the Preliminary Results) and upon
comments received from the interested
parties, we are reversing our
preliminary rescission of the
administrative review covering the class
or kind Axes/Adzes with respect to
SMC. We are also basing our margin for
SMC for Axes/Adzes on AFA. For a
discussion of these changes, see the
accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum.
The PRC–wide Rate and Application of
Facts Otherwise Available
The Department did not receive
comments specifically pertaining to its
Preliminary Results regarding the
application of AFA to the PRC–wide
entity for any of the four classes or
kinds. (SMC did submit comments with
regard to the rates it received as part of
the PRC–wide entity for all classes or
E:\FR\FM\11SEN1.SGM
11SEN1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Notices
kinds except Picks/Mattocks; for details
and a full discussion, see the
accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum.) As a result, we have not
altered our decision to apply total AFA
to the PRC–wide entity for all four
classes or kinds for these final results,
in accordance with sections 776(a)(2)(A)
and (B), as well as section 776(b), of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the
Tariff Act). See ‘‘Final Results of
Review’’ section below.
As stated in the Preliminary Results,
by failing to adequately respond to the
Department’s requests for information,
SMC (with respect to Axes/Adzes, Bars/
Wedges, and Hammers/Sledges), TMC
(with respect to Picks/Mattocks),
Huarong (with respect to Hammers/
Sledges and Picks/Mattocks), and Jafsam
(with respect to all four classes or kinds)
have not demonstrated they are free of
government control, and are therefore
not eligible to receive a separate rate.
See, e.g., Natural Bristle Paint Brushes
and Brush Heads From the People’s
Republic of China; Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 62 FR 11823 (March 13, 1997);
Final Determination of Sales at Less
than Fair Value: Certain Helical Spring
Lock Washers From the People’s
Republic of China, 58 FR 48833
(September 20, 1993); and Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Certain Compact Ductile
Iron Waterworks Fittings and
Accessories Thereof From the People’s
Republic of China, 58 FR 37908 (July 14,
1993). Consequently, consistent with
the Preliminary Results, we continue to
find that, because these companies did
not qualify for separate rates, they are
deemed to be part of the PRC–entity.
See Preliminary Results at 10494.
As stated above, the PRC–wide entity
did not respond to our requests for
information. Because the PRC–wide
entity did not respond to our request for
information, we find it necessary, under
sections 776(a)(2) and 776(b) of the
Tariff Act, to use AFA as the basis for
these final results of review for the
PRC–wide entity.
In accordance with the Department’s
practice, we have assigned to the PRC–
wide entity (including Jafsam and SMC)
the rate of 189.37 percent as AFA for
Axes/Adzes. This is the highest
calculated rate of any segment in this
proceeding, which was calculated in the
2004–2005 administrative review. See
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:06 Sep 10, 2007
Jkt 211001
Reviews, 71 FR 54269 (September 14,
2006) (Final Results of 14th Review). We
have assigned to the PRC–wide entity
(including Jafsam and SMC) the rate of
139.31 percent as AFA for Bars/Wedges.
This rate is the highest dumping margin
from any segment of this proceeding
and was calculated during the 1998–
1999 administrative review. See the
accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 3; see also
Notice of Final Results and Partial
Recission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Reviews: Heavy Forged
Hand Tools From the People’s Republic
of China, 65 FR 43290 (July 13, 2000);
Heavy Forged Hand Tools From the
People’s Republic of China; Amended
Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Reviews, 65 FR 50499
(August 18, 2000). We have assigned to
the PRC–wide entity (including
Huarong, Jafsam, and SMC) the rate of
45.42 percent as AFA for Hammers/
Sledges. This rate is the highest
dumping margin from any segment of
this proceeding and was applied as
‘‘best information available’’ (the
predecessor to AFA) during the less–
than-fair–value (LTFV) investigation for
the sole respondent China National
Machinery Import & Export Corporation,
and was again corroborated and used as
the PRC–wide and AFA rate in the
2004–2005 review. See Final Results of
14th Review. We have assigned to the
PRC–wide entity (including TMC,
Huarong, and Jafsam) the rate of 98.77
percent as AFA for Picks/Mattocks. This
rate is the highest dumping margin from
any segment of this proceeding; it was
calculated in the fifth review, became
the PRC–wide and AFA rate in the
seventh review, and has been used
since. Id. This is consistent with our
practice in, e.g., Freshwater Crawfish
Tail Meat from the People’s Republic of
China; Notice of Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 68 FR 19504 (April 21, 2003);
see also Stainless Steel Plate in Coils
From Taiwan: Final Results and
Rescission in Part of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 67 FR 40914
(June 14, 2002). The U.S. Court of
International Trade (CIT) and the Court
of Appeals for the Federal Circuit have
consistently upheld the Department’s
practice to assign AFA to non–
cooperative respondents in several
cases. See Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. United
States, 899 F.2d 1185, 1190 (Fed. Cir.
1990); see also Shanghai Taoen
International Trading Co., Ltd. v. United
States, Slip Op. 05–22, at 16 (CIT 2005)
(upholding a 223.01 percent total AFA
rate, the highest available dumping
margin from a different respondent in a
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
51789
previous administrative review); NSK
Ltd. v. United States, 346 F.Supp.2d
1312, 1335 (CIT 2004) (upholding a
73.55 percent total AFA rate, the highest
available dumping margin from a
different respondent in a LTFV
investigation); Kompass Food Trading
Int’l v. United States, 24 CIT 678, 689
(2000) (upholding a 51.16 percent total
AFA rate, the highest available dumping
margin from a different, fully
cooperative respondent).
Corroboration of Secondary
Information Applied as AFA
Section 776(c) of the Act requires that
the Department corroborate, to the
extent practicable, secondary
information used as facts available.
Secondary information has been
interpreted as ‘‘information derived
from the petition that gave rise to the
investigation or review, the final
determination concerning the subject
merchandise, or any previous review
under section 751 concerning the
subject merchandise.’’ See Statement of
Administrative Action accompanying
the Uruguay Round Agreements Act,
H.R. Doc 103–316, Vol. 1, 103d Cong.
(1994) (SAA) at 870. Under section
776(c) of the Act, the Department is
granted a wide discretion in its selection
of secondary information, i.e., the AFA
rate, as long as the Department can
determine, to the extent practicable, that
the AFA rate has probative value. See
generally SAA at 870.
The term ‘‘corroborate’’ has been
interpreted to mean that the Department
will satisfy itself that the secondary
information to be used has probative
value. See SAA at 870. Thus, to
corroborate secondary information, the
Department will, to the extent
practicable, examine the reliability and
relevance of the information used.
However, unlike other types of
information, such as input costs or
selling expenses, there are no
independent sources for calculated
dumping margins per se other than are
administrative determinations. These
rates are applied to the PRC–wide
entity, i.e., those companies not eligible
for a separate rate with regard to the
individual class or kind of merchandise.
No information has been presented in
the current review that calls into
question the reliability of the
information used for these AFA rates.
Thus, the Department finds that the
information is reliable. See the
accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 3.
Reversal of Preliminary Rescission
Based upon CBP information received
subsequent to the publication of the
E:\FR\FM\11SEN1.SGM
11SEN1
51790
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Notices
Preliminary Results (see the
Memorandum to the File from Mark
Flessner, Case Analyst, entitled ‘‘Heavy
Forged Hand Tools, Finished or
Unfinished, With or Without Handles,
From the People’s Republic of China
(A–580–803): U.S. Entry Documents and
Opportunity to Comment,’’ dated April
24, 2007), we have determined that the
review for Axes/Adzes with respect to
SMC should not be rescinded. We based
our margin for Axes/Adzes with respect
to SMC on AFA because of SMC’s
failure to report sales and factor
information for this class or kind, which
prevented the Department from being
able to calculate a margin. See the
accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comments 4, 5, and 6.
Final Rescissions
In accordance with 19 CFR
351.213(d)(3) and consistent with the
Department’s practice, we finally
rescind the following administrative
reviews: (a) with respect to SMC for
Picks/Mattocks; (b) with respect to Iron
Bull for Axes/Adzes, Hammers/Sledges,
and Picks/Mattocks; and (c) with respect
to Xinike in all four classes or kinds. For
rescission of these reviews with respect
to Jinma (all four classes or kinds),
Shanghai Machinery (all four classes or
kinds), Truper (all four classes or kinds),
TMC (Axes/Adzes, Hammers/Sledges,
and Bars/Wedges), Huarong (Axes/
Adzes and Bars/Wedges), and Iron Bull
(Bars/Wedges), see Administrative
Review (02/01/2005 01/31/2006) of
Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or
Unfinished, With or Without Handles,
from the People’s Republic of China:
Notice of Rescission of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Reviews, 71 FR
53403 (September 11, 2006).
Final Results of Review
As a result of our reviews, we
determine that the following
antidumping margins exist for the
period February 1, 2005, through
January 31, 2006:
Manufacturer/exporter
Weighted–average margin (percent)
Heavy Forged Hand Tools from the PRC: Axes/Adzes.
PRC–Wide Rate ............................................................................................................................................
Heavy Forged Hand Tools from the PRC: Bars/Wedges.
PRC–Wide Rate ............................................................................................................................................
Heavy Forged Hand Tools from the PRC: Hammers/Sledges.
PRC–Wide Rate ............................................................................................................................................
Heavy Forged Hand Tools from the PRC: Picks/Mattocks.
PRC–Wide Rate ............................................................................................................................................
1 The
PRC-wide
PRC-wide
PRC-wide
4 The PRC-wide
2 The
3 The
entity
entity
entity
entity
for
for
for
for
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
139.312
45.423
98.774
Axes/Adzes includes SMC and Jafsam.
Bars/Wedges includes SMC and Jafsam.
Hammers/Sledges includes SMC, Jafsam, and Huarong.
Picks/Mattocks includes Jafsam, TMC, and Huarong.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following deposit requirements
will be effective upon publication of
these final results for this administrative
review for all shipments of heavy forged
hand tools, finished or unfinished, with
or without handles, from the PRC,
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption on or after the date of
publication, as provided by section
751(a)(2)(c) of the Tariff Act: (1) for
SMC, Jafsam, Huarong, and TMC, the
cash deposit rate will be the rates listed
above under the ‘‘Final Results of
Review’’ section for each class or kind
and for each company as set forth in
Footnotes 1–4; (2) for previously–
reviewed PRC and non–PRC exporters
with separate rates, the cash deposit rate
will be the company–specific rate
established for the most recent period;
(3) for all other PRC exporters
(including the exporters named as part
of the PRC–wide entity above), the cash
deposit rates will be the PRC–wide rates
established in the final results of this
review; and (4) for all other non–PRC
exporters of the subject merchandise,
the cash deposit rate will be the rate
applicable to the PRC exporter that
supplied that non–PRC exporter. These
deposit requirements shall remain in
effect until further notice.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
189.371
17:06 Sep 10, 2007
Jkt 211001
Assessment of Antidumping Duties
The Department will determine, and
CBP will assess, antidumping duties on
all appropriate entries. We will direct
CBP to assess the resulting assessment
rates against the CBP values for the
subject merchandise on each of the
exporter’s entries during the POR. In
accordance with 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2),
we will instruct CBP to liquidate any
entries without regard to antidumping
duties for which the assessment rate is
de minimis. The Department will issue
appropriate assessment instructions
directly to CBP within 15 days of
publication of the final results of
review.
Notification to Importers
This notice 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 review period. Failure to
comply with this requirement could
result in the Secretary’s presumption
that reimbursement of antidumping
duties occurred and subsequent
assessment of double antidumping
duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder
to parties subject to administrative
protective order (APO) of their
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
responsibility concerning the
disposition of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). 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.
This administrative review and notice
are in accordance with sections
751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act.
Dated: September 4, 2007.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
Appendix—Issues in Decision
Memorandum
1: SMC and de facto and de jure
government control
2: Use of adverse facts available (AFA)
for Bars/Wedges and Hammers/Sledges
3: Corroboration of AFA rates for Bars/
Wedges, Hammers/Sledges, and Axes/
Adzes
4: Preliminary rescission of review for
Axes/Adzes
5: Use of facts available if Preliminary
rescission of review for Axes/Adzes is
reversed
E:\FR\FM\11SEN1.SGM
11SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Notices
6: Use of adverse facts available if
Preliminary rescission of review for
Axes/Adzes is reversed
[FR Doc. E7–17857 Filed 9–10–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–821–819]
Magnesium Metal from the Russian
Federation: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On May 7, 2007, the
Department of Commerce (the
Department) published in the Federal
Register its preliminary results of the
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on magnesium
metal from the Russian Federation. See
Magnesium Metal from the Russian
Federation: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 72 FR 25740 (May 7, 2007)
(Preliminary Results). The review covers
two respondents, PSC VSMPO–
AVISMA Corporation and its affiliated
U.S. reseller VSMPO–Tirus, U.S. Inc.
(collectively AVISMA), and Solikamsk
Magnesium Works (SMW). The period
of review (POR) is October 4, 2004,
through March 31, 2006. We invited
interested parties to submit comments
on our Preliminary Results. Based on
our analysis of the comments received,
we have made changes to our
calculations with regard to AVISMA.
The final dumping margins for this
review are listed in the ‘‘Final Results
of Review’’ section below.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 11, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mark Hoadley (AVISMA and SMW),
Gene Calvert (AVISMA), Jack Zhao
(SMW); AD/CVD Operations, Office 6,
Import Administration, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department
of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington,
DC 20230, telephone numbers (202)
482–3148, (202) 482–3586, and (202)
482–1396, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Background
On May 7, 2007, the Department
published the preliminary results of this
review in the Federal Register. See
Preliminary Results. Since the
Preliminary Results, the following
events have occurred. On June 6, 2007,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:06 Sep 10, 2007
Jkt 211001
U.S. Magnesium LLC (U.S. Magnesium),
one of the petitioners in the original
investigation, submitted a case brief
regarding the cost calculation of certain
by–products internally consumed by
SMW. On June 6, 2007, AVISMA
submitted a case brief commenting on
the calculation of AVISMA’s General
and Administrative (G&A) expenses and
a small number of sales of cylinders in
the home market. On June 15, 2007,
SMW filed a rebuttal brief regarding
U.S. Magnesium’s case brief and U.S.
Magnesium submitted a rebuttal brief
regarding AVISMA’s case brief. All case
and rebuttal briefs were timely filed.
Period of Review
This review covers the period October
4, 2004 through March 31, 2006.
Scope of the Order
The merchandise covered by this
order is magnesium metal (also referred
to as magnesium), which includes
primary and secondary pure and alloy
magnesium metal, regardless of
chemistry, raw material source, form,
shape, or size. Magnesium is a metal or
alloy containing by weight primarily the
element magnesium. Primary
magnesium is produced by
decomposing raw materials into
magnesium metal. Secondary
magnesium is produced by recycling
magnesium–based scrap into
magnesium metal. The magnesium
covered by this order includes blends of
primary and secondary magnesium.
The subject merchandise includes the
following pure and alloy magnesium
metal products made from primary and/
or secondary magnesium, including,
without limitation, magnesium cast into
ingots, slabs, rounds, billets, and other
shapes, and magnesium ground,
chipped, crushed, or machined into
raspings, granules, turnings, chips,
powder, briquettes, and other shapes:
(1) products that contain at least 99.95
percent magnesium, by weight
(generally referred to as ‘‘ultra–pure’’
magnesium); (2) products that contain
less than 99.95 percent but not less than
99.8 percent magnesium, by weight
(generally referred to as ‘‘pure’’
magnesium); and (3) chemical
combinations of magnesium and other
material(s) in which the magnesium
content is 50 percent or greater, but less
that 99.8 percent, by weight, whether or
not conforming to an ‘‘ASTM
Specification for Magnesium Alloy’’.
The scope of this order excludes: (1)
magnesium that is in liquid or molten
form; and (2) mixtures containing 90
percent or less magnesium in granular
or powder form by weight and one or
more of certain non–magnesium
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
51791
granular materials to make magnesium–
based reagent mixtures, including lime,
calcium metal, calcium silicon, calcium
carbide, calcium carbonate, carbon, slag
coagulants, fluorspar, nephaline syenite,
feldspar, alumina (Al203), calcium
aluminate, soda ash, hydrocarbons,
graphite, coke, silicon, rare earth
metals/mischmetal, cryolite, silica/fly
ash, magnesium oxide, periclase,
ferroalloys, dolomite lime, and
colemanite.1
The merchandise subject to this order
is currently classifiable under items
8104.11.00, 8104.19.00, 8104.30.00, and
8104.90.00 of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).
Although the HTSUS item numbers are
provided for convenience and customs
purposes, the written description of the
merchandise covered by this order is
dispositive.
On November 9, 2006, in response to
U.S. Magnesium’s request for scope
rulings, the Department issued a final
scope ruling in which we determined
that the processing of pure magnesium
ingots, imported from Russia by
Timminco, a Canadian company, into
pure magnesium extrusion billets
constitutes substantial transformation.
Therefore, such alloy magnesium
extrusion billets produced and exported
by Timminco are a product of Canada,
and thus not included within the scope
of the order. See November 9, 2006
Memorandum for Stephen J. Claeys,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration, from Barbara E.
Tillman, Director, Office 6, and Wendy
Frankel, Director, Office 8, China/NME
Group, AD/CVD Operations: Pure
Magnesium from the People’s Republic
of China (A–570–832), Magnesium
Metal from the People’s Republic of
China (A–570–896), and Magnesium
Metal from Russia (A–821–819): Final
Ruling in the Scope Inquiry on Russian
and Chinese Magnesium Processed in
Canada.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and
rebuttal briefs by parties to this
proceeding are listed in the Appendix to
1 This second exclusion for magnesium-based
reagent mixtures is based on the exclusion for
reagent mixtures in the 2000–2001 investigations of
magnesium from China, Israel, and Russia. See
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Pure Magnesium in Granular Form
From the People’s Republic of China, 66 FR 49345
(September 27, 2001); Notice of Final Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Pure Magnesium
From Israel, 66 FR 49349 (September 27, 2001);
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Not Less
Than Fair Value: Pure Magnesium From the
Russian Federation, 66 FR 49347 (September 27,
2001). These mixtures are not magnesium alloys,
because they are not chemically combined in liquid
form and cast into the same ingot.
E:\FR\FM\11SEN1.SGM
11SEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 11, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51787-51791]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-17857]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 and
Rescissions of the 2005-2006 Administrative Reviews
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On March 8, 2007, the Department published the preliminary
results of the 2005-2006 administrative reviews of the antidumping duty
orders on heavy forged hand tools, finished or unfinished, with or
without handles, 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 and Partial
[[Page 51788]]
Rescission of the 2005-2006 Administrative Reviews, 72 FR 10492 (March
8, 2007) (Preliminary Results). This review covers four classes or
kinds: (1) Axes/Adzes; (2) Bars/Wedges; (3) Hammers/Sledges; and (4)
Picks/Mattocks. This review covers nine exporters or producer/
exporters: (1) Iron Bull Industrial Co., Ltd. (Iron Bull); (2) Jafsam
Metal Products (Jafsam); (3) Shanghai Machinery Import & Export Corp.
(Shanghai Machinery); (4) Shanghai Xinike Trading Company (Xinike); (5)
Shandong Huarong Machinery Co., Ltd. (Huarong); (6) Shandong Jinma
Industrial Group Co., Ltd. (Jinma); (7) Shandong Machinery Import and
Export Corporation (SMC); (8) Tianjin Machinery Import and Export
Corporation (TMC); and (9) Truper Herramientas S.A. de C.V. (Truper).
The period of review (POR) is February 1, 2005, through January 31,
2006. Based on our analysis of the record, including factual
information obtained since the Preliminary Results, we have reversed
the decision to rescind the administrative review of the antidumping
duty order on the class or kind Axes/Adzes covering SMC and have
applied adverse facts available (AFA). Therefore, the final results
differ from the Preliminary Results. See ``Final Results of Review''
section below.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 11, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Flessner or Robert James at (202)
482-6312 or (202) 482-0649, respectively; Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Enforcement Office 7, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14\th\
Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Since the Preliminary Results, we received a case brief from
respondent SMC on April 9, 2007. Separate rebuttal briefs were received
from both petitioners, Ames True Temper (Ames) and Council Tool Company
(Council Tools), on April 16, 2007. On April 24, 2007, the Department's
Customs Liaison Unit forwarded certain U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) documents to the team. These were placed on the record
of this review on April 24, 2007. See the Memorandum to the File from
Mark Flessner, Case Analyst, entitled ``Heavy Forged Hand Tools,
Finished or Unfinished, With or Without Handles, From the People's
Republic of China (A-570-803): U.S. Entry Documents and Opportunity to
Comment'' (April 24, 2007). SMC, Ames, and Council Tools all filed
comments concerning these documents on May 9, 2007. SMC requested and
was granted time to file a rebuttal to Ames' and Council Tools'
comments; SMC filed its rebuttal comments on May 16, 2007. On July 6,
2007, the Department published in the Federal Register an extension of
the time limit for the final results until August 6, 2007. See Notice
of Extension of Time Limit for Final Results and Partial Rescission of
the 2005-2006 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Heavy Forged
Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or Without Handles, from the
People's Republic of China, 72 FR 36959 (July 6, 2007). On August 8,
2007, the Department published in the Federal Register a further
extension of the time limit for the final results until September 4,
2007. See Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or
Without Handles, from the People's Republic of China: Notice of
Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of the 2005-2006 Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 44495 (August 8, 2007).
Scope of the Antidumping Duty Order
The products covered by these orders are heavy forged hand tools
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. Heavy forged
hand tools 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. Heavy forged hand
tools 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. Heavy forged hand tools 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 and 8201.40.60. Specifically excluded from these orders 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.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the briefs are addressed in the accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice.
A list of the issues raised, all of which are in the Issues and
Decision Memorandum, is as follows: (1) whether SMC demonstrated a lack
of de jure and de facto government control to warrant receiving a
separate rate; (2) whether the Department was correct in applying AFA
to SMC's sales of Bars/Wedges and Hammers/Sledges; (3) whether the AFA
rates applied to SMC's sales of Bars/Wedges, Hammers/Sledges, and Axes/
Adzes were properly corroborated and reasonable; (4) whether the
Department ought to reverse its preliminary rescission of the review
for Axes/Adzes; (5) whether the Department ought to apply facts
available for Axes/Adzes; and (6) whether the Department ought to apply
AFA for Axes/Adzes. Parties can find a complete discussion of all
issues raised in the briefs 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
complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed
directly on the internet at https://ia.ita.doc.gov. The paper copy and
electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical
in content.
Changes Since the Preliminary Results
Based upon our analysis of the record (including factual
information obtained since the Preliminary Results) and upon comments
received from the interested parties, we are reversing our preliminary
rescission of the administrative review covering the class or kind
Axes/Adzes with respect to SMC. We are also basing our margin for SMC
for Axes/Adzes on AFA. For a discussion of these changes, see the
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.
The PRC-wide Rate and Application of Facts Otherwise Available
The Department did not receive comments specifically pertaining to
its Preliminary Results regarding the application of AFA to the PRC-
wide entity for any of the four classes or kinds. (SMC did submit
comments with regard to the rates it received as part of the PRC-wide
entity for all classes or
[[Page 51789]]
kinds except Picks/Mattocks; for details and a full discussion, see the
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.) As a result, we have not
altered our decision to apply total AFA to the PRC-wide entity for all
four classes or kinds for these final results, in accordance with
sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (B), as well as section 776(b), of the Tariff
Act of 1930, as amended (the Tariff Act). See ``Final Results of
Review'' section below.
As stated in the Preliminary Results, by failing to adequately
respond to the Department's requests for information, SMC (with respect
to Axes/Adzes, Bars/Wedges, and Hammers/Sledges), TMC (with respect to
Picks/Mattocks), Huarong (with respect to Hammers/Sledges and Picks/
Mattocks), and Jafsam (with respect to all four classes or kinds) have
not demonstrated they are free of government control, and are therefore
not eligible to receive a separate rate. See, e.g., Natural Bristle
Paint Brushes and Brush Heads From the People's Republic of China;
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 11823
(March 13, 1997); Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value:
Certain Helical Spring Lock Washers From the People's Republic of
China, 58 FR 48833 (September 20, 1993); and Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Compact Ductile Iron Waterworks
Fittings and Accessories Thereof From the People's Republic of China,
58 FR 37908 (July 14, 1993). Consequently, consistent with the
Preliminary Results, we continue to find that, because these companies
did not qualify for separate rates, they are deemed to be part of the
PRC-entity. See Preliminary Results at 10494.
As stated above, the PRC-wide entity did not respond to our
requests for information. Because the PRC-wide entity did not respond
to our request for information, we find it necessary, under sections
776(a)(2) and 776(b) of the Tariff Act, to use AFA as the basis for
these final results of review for the PRC-wide entity.
In accordance with the Department's practice, we have assigned to
the PRC-wide entity (including Jafsam and SMC) the rate of 189.37
percent as AFA for Axes/Adzes. This is the highest calculated rate of
any segment in this proceeding, which was calculated in the 2004-2005
administrative review. See 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, 71 FR 54269 (September 14, 2006) (Final Results
of 14\th\ Review). We have assigned to the PRC-wide entity (including
Jafsam and SMC) the rate of 139.31 percent as AFA for Bars/Wedges. This
rate is the highest dumping margin from any segment of this proceeding
and was calculated during the 1998-1999 administrative review. See the
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 3; see also
Notice of Final Results and Partial Recission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Reviews: Heavy Forged Hand Tools From the People's
Republic of China, 65 FR 43290 (July 13, 2000); Heavy Forged Hand Tools
From the People's Republic of China; Amended Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 65 FR 50499 (August 18, 2000).
We have assigned to the PRC-wide entity (including Huarong, Jafsam, and
SMC) the rate of 45.42 percent as AFA for Hammers/Sledges. This rate is
the highest dumping margin from any segment of this proceeding and was
applied as ``best information available'' (the predecessor to AFA)
during the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation for the sole
respondent China National Machinery Import & Export Corporation, and
was again corroborated and used as the PRC-wide and AFA rate in the
2004-2005 review. See Final Results of 14\th\ Review. We have assigned
to the PRC-wide entity (including TMC, Huarong, and Jafsam) the rate of
98.77 percent as AFA for Picks/Mattocks. This rate is the highest
dumping margin from any segment of this proceeding; it was calculated
in the fifth review, became the PRC-wide and AFA rate in the seventh
review, and has been used since. Id. This is consistent with our
practice in, e.g., Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's
Republic of China; Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 68 FR 19504 (April 21, 2003); see also Stainless
Steel Plate in Coils From Taiwan: Final Results and Rescission in Part
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 67 FR 40914 (June 14, 2002).
The U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) and the Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit have consistently upheld the Department's
practice to assign AFA to non-cooperative respondents in several cases.
See Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. United States, 899 F.2d 1185, 1190 (Fed.
Cir. 1990); see also Shanghai Taoen International Trading Co., Ltd. v.
United States, Slip Op. 05-22, at 16 (CIT 2005) (upholding a 223.01
percent total AFA rate, the highest available dumping margin from a
different respondent in a previous administrative review); NSK Ltd. v.
United States, 346 F.Supp.2d 1312, 1335 (CIT 2004) (upholding a 73.55
percent total AFA rate, the highest available dumping margin from a
different respondent in a LTFV investigation); Kompass Food Trading
Int'l v. United States, 24 CIT 678, 689 (2000) (upholding a 51.16
percent total AFA rate, the highest available dumping margin from a
different, fully cooperative respondent).
Corroboration of Secondary Information Applied as AFA
Section 776(c) of the Act requires that the Department corroborate,
to the extent practicable, secondary information used as facts
available. Secondary information has been interpreted as ``information
derived from the petition that gave rise to the investigation or
review, the final determination concerning the subject merchandise, or
any previous review under section 751 concerning the subject
merchandise.'' See Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Doc 103-316, Vol. 1, 103d Cong.
(1994) (SAA) at 870. Under section 776(c) of the Act, the Department is
granted a wide discretion in its selection of secondary information,
i.e., the AFA rate, as long as the Department can determine, to the
extent practicable, that the AFA rate has probative value. See
generally SAA at 870.
The term ``corroborate'' has been interpreted to mean that the
Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be
used has probative value. See SAA at 870. Thus, to corroborate
secondary information, the Department will, to the extent practicable,
examine the reliability and relevance of the information used. However,
unlike other types of information, such as input costs or selling
expenses, there are no independent sources for calculated dumping
margins per se other than are administrative determinations. These
rates are applied to the PRC-wide entity, i.e., those companies not
eligible for a separate rate with regard to the individual class or
kind of merchandise. No information has been presented in the current
review that calls into question the reliability of the information used
for these AFA rates. Thus, the Department finds that the information is
reliable. See the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 3.
Reversal of Preliminary Rescission
Based upon CBP information received subsequent to the publication
of the
[[Page 51790]]
Preliminary Results (see the Memorandum to the File from Mark Flessner,
Case Analyst, entitled ``Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or
Unfinished, With or Without Handles, From the People's Republic of
China (A-580-803): U.S. Entry Documents and Opportunity to Comment,''
dated April 24, 2007), we have determined that the review for Axes/
Adzes with respect to SMC should not be rescinded. We based our margin
for Axes/Adzes with respect to SMC on AFA because of SMC's failure to
report sales and factor information for this class or kind, which
prevented the Department from being able to calculate a margin. See the
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comments 4, 5, and 6.
Final Rescissions
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3) and consistent with the
Department's practice, we finally rescind the following administrative
reviews: (a) with respect to SMC for Picks/Mattocks; (b) with respect
to Iron Bull for Axes/Adzes, Hammers/Sledges, and Picks/Mattocks; and
(c) with respect to Xinike in all four classes or kinds. For rescission
of these reviews with respect to Jinma (all four classes or kinds),
Shanghai Machinery (all four classes or kinds), Truper (all four
classes or kinds), TMC (Axes/Adzes, Hammers/Sledges, and Bars/Wedges),
Huarong (Axes/Adzes and Bars/Wedges), and Iron Bull (Bars/Wedges), see
Administrative Review (02/01/2005 01/31/2006) of Heavy Forged Hand
Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or Without Handles, from the
People's Republic of China: Notice of Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Reviews, 71 FR 53403 (September 11, 2006).
Final Results of Review
As a result of our reviews, we determine that the following
antidumping margins exist for the period February 1, 2005, through
January 31, 2006:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer/exporter Weighted-average margin (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heavy Forged Hand Tools from the
PRC: Axes/Adzes...................
PRC-Wide Rate...................... 189.37\1\
Heavy Forged Hand Tools from the
PRC: Bars/Wedges..................
PRC-Wide Rate...................... 139.31\2\
Heavy Forged Hand Tools from the
PRC: Hammers/Sledges..............
PRC-Wide Rate...................... 45.42\3\
Heavy Forged Hand Tools from the
PRC: Picks/Mattocks...............
PRC-Wide Rate...................... 98.77\4\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The PRC-wide entity for Axes/Adzes includes SMC and Jafsam.
\2\ The PRC-wide entity for Bars/Wedges includes SMC and Jafsam.
\3\ The PRC-wide entity for Hammers/Sledges includes SMC, Jafsam, and
Huarong.
\4\ The PRC-wide entity for Picks/Mattocks includes Jafsam, TMC, and
Huarong.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following deposit requirements will be effective upon
publication of these final results for this administrative review for
all shipments of heavy forged hand tools, finished or unfinished, with
or without handles, from the PRC, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption on or after the date of publication, as provided by
section 751(a)(2)(c) of the Tariff Act: (1) for SMC, Jafsam, Huarong,
and TMC, the cash deposit rate will be the rates listed above under the
``Final Results of Review'' section for each class or kind and for each
company as set forth in Footnotes 1-4; (2) for previously-reviewed PRC
and non-PRC exporters with separate rates, the cash deposit rate will
be the company-specific rate established for the most recent period;
(3) for all other PRC exporters (including the exporters named as part
of the PRC-wide entity above), the cash deposit rates will be the PRC-
wide rates established in the final results of this review; and (4) for
all other non-PRC exporters of the subject merchandise, the cash
deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that
supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit requirements shall remain
in effect until further notice.
Assessment of Antidumping Duties
The Department will determine, and CBP will assess, antidumping
duties on all appropriate entries. We will direct CBP to assess the
resulting assessment rates against the CBP values for the subject
merchandise on each of the exporter's entries during the POR. In
accordance with 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to liquidate
any entries without regard to antidumping duties for which the
assessment rate is de minimis. The Department will issue appropriate
assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication
of the final results of review.
Notification to Importers
This notice 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 review period. Failure to comply with this
requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and subsequent assessment
of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). 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.
This administrative review and notice are in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act.
Dated: September 4, 2007.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix--Issues in Decision Memorandum
1: SMC and de facto and de jure government control
2: Use of adverse facts available (AFA) for Bars/Wedges and Hammers/
Sledges
3: Corroboration of AFA rates for Bars/Wedges, Hammers/Sledges, and
Axes/Adzes
4: Preliminary rescission of review for Axes/Adzes
5: Use of facts available if Preliminary rescission of review for Axes/
Adzes is reversed
[[Page 51791]]
6: Use of adverse facts available if Preliminary rescission of review
for Axes/Adzes is reversed
[FR Doc. E7-17857 Filed 9-10-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
