North American Free-Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Article 1904 Binational Panel Reviews, 68859-68860 [E7-23684]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 234 / Thursday, December 6, 2007 / Notices
sometimes slicing or cutting. These
mushrooms are then packed and heated
in containers including, but not limited
to, cans or glass jars in a suitable liquid
medium, including, but not limited to,
water, brine, butter or butter sauce.
Certain preserved mushrooms may be
imported whole, sliced, diced, or as
stems and pieces. Included within the
scope of this order are ‘‘brined’’
mushrooms, which are presalted and
packed in a heavy salt solution to
provisionally preserve them for further
processing.
Excluded from the scope of this order
are the following: (1) All other species
of mushroom, including straw
mushrooms; (2) all fresh and chilled
mushrooms, including ‘‘refrigerated’’ or
‘‘quick blanched mushrooms’’; (3) dried
mushrooms; (4) frozen mushrooms; and
(5) ‘‘marinated,’’ ‘‘acidified,’’ or
‘‘pickled’’ mushrooms, which are
prepared or preserved by means of
vinegar or acetic acid, but may contain
oil or other additives.1
The merchandise subject to this order
is classifiable under subheadings:
2003.10.0127, 2003.10.0131,
2003.10.0137, 2003.10.0143,
2003.10.0147, 2003.10.0153 and
0711.51.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States
(‘‘HTSUS’’). Although the HTSUS
subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, the
written description of the scope of this
order is dispositive.
Analysis of Comments Received
No interested parties submitted
comments for these final results.
Changes Since the Preliminary Results
We made no changes to the
Preliminary Results.
Final Results of Review
We find that the following margin
exists during the period February 1,
2006, through September 12, 2006:
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
1 On
June 19, 2000, the Department affirmed that
‘‘marinated,’’ ‘‘acidified,’’ or ‘‘pickled’’ mushrooms
containing less than 0.5 percent acetic acid are
within the scope of the antidumping duty order.
See ‘‘Recommendation Memorandum-Final Ruling
of Request by Tak Fat, et al. for Exclusion of Certain
Marinated, Acidified Mushrooms from the Scope of
the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Preserved
Mushrooms from the People’s Republic of China,’’
dated June 19, 2000. On February 9, 2005, this
decision was upheld by the United States Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit. See Tak Fat v.
United States, 396 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:57 Dec 05, 2007
Jkt 214001
CERTAIN PRESERVED MUSHROOMS
FROM THE PRC
68859
assessment of doubled antidumping
duties.
Administrative Protective Orders
This notice also serves as a reminder
to parties subject to administrative
Guangxi Jisheng Foods,
protective orders (‘‘APO’’) of their
Inc. ............................
0.00 responsibility concerning the return or
destruction of proprietary information
Assessment Rates
disclosed under APO in accordance
Upon issuance of the final results, the with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues
to govern business proprietary
Department will determine, and U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) information in this segment of the
proceeding. Timely written notification
shall assess, antidumping duties on all
of the return/destruction of APO
appropriate entries. The Department
intends to issue assessment instructions materials or conversion to judicial
for Jisheng to CBP 15 days after the date protective order is hereby requested.
of publication of the final results of
Failure to comply with the regulations
review. Pursuant to 19 CFR
and terms of an APO is a violation
351.212(b)(1), we will calculate
which is subject to sanction.
This new shipper review and notice
importer-specific (or customer) ad
valorem duty assessment rates based on are in accordance with sections
751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i) of the Tariff Act
the ratio of the total amount of the
dumping margins calculated for the
of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR
examined sales to the total entered
351.214(h).
value of those same sales. We will
Dated: November 28, 2007.
instruct CBP to assess antidumping
David M. Spooner,
duties on all appropriate entries covered
Assistant Secretary for Import
by this review if any importer-specific
Administration.
assessment rate calculated in the final
[FR Doc. E7–23688 Filed 12–5–07; 8:45 am]
results of this review is above de
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
minimis.
Exporter/
manufacturer
Weighted-average
margin (percent)
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit
requirements will be effective upon
publication of these results of the new
shipper review for all shipments of
subject merchandise from Jisheng
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption on or after the
publication date: (1) For subject
merchandise produced and exported by
Jisheng, no cash deposit will be
required; (2) for subject merchandise
exported by Jisheng but not
manufactured by itself, the cash deposit
rate will continue to be the PRC-wide
rate (i.e., 198.63 percent); and (3) for
subject merchandise manufactured by
Jisheng but exported by any other party,
the cash deposit rate will be the rate
applicable to the exporter. These
requirements will 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 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
comply with this requirement could
result in the Secretary’s presumption
that reimbursement of antidumping
duties occurred and the subsequent
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
North American Free-Trade Agreement
(NAFTA), Article 1904 Binational Panel
Reviews
NAFTA Secretariat, United
States Section, International Trade
Administration, Department of
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of Decision of Panel.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: On November 28, 2007 the
binational panel issued its decision in
the review of the 2nd Administrative
Review made by the International Trade
Administration, respecting Carbon and
Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from
Canada, Secretariat File No. USA–CDA–
2006–1904–04. The binational panel
remanded a portion of the decision to
the Import Administration with a partial
dissenting opinion and a further dissent.
Copies of the panel decision are
available from the U.S. Section of the
NAFTA Secretariat.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Caratina L. Alston, United States
Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat, Suite
2061, 14th and Constitution Avenue,
Washington, DC 20230, (202) 482–5438.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Chapter
19 of the North American Free-Trade
Agreement (‘‘Agreement’’) establishes a
E:\FR\FM\06DEN1.SGM
06DEN1
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
68860
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 234 / Thursday, December 6, 2007 / Notices
mechanism to replace domestic judicial
review of final determinations in
antidumping and countervailing duty
cases involving imports from a NAFTA
country with review by independent
binational panels. When a Request for
Panel Review is filed, a panel is
established to act in place of national
courts to review expeditiously the final
determination to determine whether it
conforms with the antidumping or
countervailing duty law of the country
that made the determination.
Under Article 1904 of the Agreement,
which came into force on January 1,
1994, the Government of the United
States, the Government of Canada and
the Government of Mexico established
Rules of Procedure for Article 1904
Binational Panel Reviews (‘‘Rules’’).
These Rules were published in the
Federal Register on February 23, 1994
(59 FR 8686). The panel review in this
matter has been conducted in
accordance with these Rules.
Panel Decision: The panel remanded
the International Trade Administration’s
final determination respecting Carbon
and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from
Canada with a partial dissenting
opinion and a further dissent. The panel
remanded the opinion as follows:
1. On the issue of the permissibility
of zeroing, the Panel remands this
matter back to Commerce to re-calculate
Mittal’s dumping margins without
zeroing.
2. On the issue of the significance of
the actual cost increases, the Panel
remands the question of the significance
of the cost increase back to Commerce
for a reasoned explanation of its
decision, based on the record and
corrected for any errors in calculation of
costs that may have been made in the
original decision. At a minimum, the
revised determination should include a
description of the criteria that
Commerce applied and an explanation
of how Commerce decided on the
significance or lack thereof of the cost
increases in this case.
3. On the issue of the consistency of
the cost increases between the two cost
periods proposed by Mittal, this Panel
remands this matter back to Commerce
to clarify what is its test for consistent
cost increases in this case, to explain
why that test is reasonable and to
provide a reasoned explanation of
whether Mittal’s costs met that test in
this case.
4. On the issue of the linkage between
changes in costs and prices, this Panel
also remands this matter back to
Commerce to provide a reasoned
description and explanation of its
linkage test, to apply that test to the
costs and prices in this case, and to
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:57 Dec 05, 2007
Jkt 214001
provide a reasoned explanation of
whether Mittal has actually met this
linkage test in its proposed cost periods
in this case.
Commerce is further directed to issue
its Final Re-determination on Remand
within forty-five days from the date of
this Panel Decision or by January 14,
2008.
Dated: December 3, 2007.
Caratina L. Alston,
U.S. Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat.
[FR Doc. E7–23684 Filed 12–5–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–GT–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
North American Free-Trade
Agreement, Article 1904 Binational
Panel Reviews
NAFTA Secretariat, United
States Section, International Trade
Administration, Department of
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of First Request for Panel
Review.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: On November 21, 2007, The
United States Steel Corporation (‘‘U.S.
Steel’’) filed a First Request for Panel
Review with the United States section of
the NAFTA Secretariat pursuant to
Article 1904 of the North American Free
Trade Agreement. Panel review was
requested of the Final Determination of
the Antidumping Duty Review made by
the International Trade Commission,
respecting Certain Welded Large
Diameter Line Pipe from Mexico. This
determination was published in the
Federal Register (72 FR 59551) on
October 22, 2007. The NAFTA
Secretariat has assigned Case Number
USA–MEX–2007–1904–03 to this
request.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Caratina L. Alston, United States
Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat, Suite
2061, 14th and Constitution Avenue,
Washington, DC 20230, (202) 482–5438.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Chapter
19 of the North American Free-Trade
Agreement (‘‘Agreement’’) establishes a
mechanism to replace domestic judicial
review of final determinations in
antidumping and countervailing duty
cases involving imports from a NAFTA
country with review by independent binational panels. When a Request for
Panel Review is filed, a panel is
established to act in place of national
courts to review expeditiously the final
determination to determine whether it
conforms with the antidumping or
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
countervailing duty law of the country
that made the determination.
Under Article 1904 of the Agreement,
which came into force on January 1,
1994, the Government of the United
States, the Government of Canada and
the Government of Mexico established
Rules of Procedure for Article 1904
Binational Panel Reviews (‘‘Rules’’).
These Rules were published in the
Federal Register on February 23, 1994
(59 FR 8686).
A first Request for Panel Review was
filed with the United States Section of
the NAFTA Secretariat, pursuant to
Article 1904 of the Agreement, on
November 6, 2007, requesting panel
review of the Notice of Final
Antidumping Changed Circumstances
Review described above.
The Rules provide that:
(a) A Party or interested person may
challenge the final determination in
whole or in part by filing a Complaint
in accordance with Rule 39 within 30
days after the filing of the first Request
for Panel Review (the deadline for filing
a Complaint is December 21, 2007);
(b) A Party, investigating authority or
interested person that does not file a
Complaint but that intends to appear in
support of any reviewable portion of the
final determination may participate in
the panel review by filing a Notice of
Appearance in accordance with Rule 40
within 45 days after the filing of the first
Request for Panel Review (the deadline
for filing a Notice of Appearance is
January 7, 2008); and
(c) The panel review shall be limited
to the allegations of error of fact or law,
including the jurisdiction of the
investigating authority, that are set out
in the Complaints filed in the panel
review and the procedural and
substantive defenses raised in the panel
review.
Dated: December 3, 2007.
Caratina L. Alston,
United States Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat.
[FR Doc. E7–23686 Filed 12–5–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–GT–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
RIN 0648–XE16
Schedules for Atlantic Shark
Identification Workshops and
Protected Species Safe Handling,
Release, and Identification Workshops
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\06DEN1.SGM
06DEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 234 (Thursday, December 6, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68859-68860]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-23684]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
North American Free-Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Article 1904
Binational Panel Reviews
AGENCY: NAFTA Secretariat, United States Section, International Trade
Administration, Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of Decision of Panel.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On November 28, 2007 the binational panel issued its decision
in the review of the 2nd Administrative Review made by the
International Trade Administration, respecting Carbon and Certain Alloy
Steel Wire Rod from Canada, Secretariat File No. USA-CDA-2006-1904-04.
The binational panel remanded a portion of the decision to the Import
Administration with a partial dissenting opinion and a further dissent.
Copies of the panel decision are available from the U.S. Section of the
NAFTA Secretariat.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Caratina L. Alston, United States
Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat, Suite 2061, 14th and Constitution Avenue,
Washington, DC 20230, (202) 482-5438.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Chapter 19 of the North American Free-Trade
Agreement (``Agreement'') establishes a
[[Page 68860]]
mechanism to replace domestic judicial review of final determinations
in antidumping and countervailing duty cases involving imports from a
NAFTA country with review by independent binational panels. When a
Request for Panel Review is filed, a panel is established to act in
place of national courts to review expeditiously the final
determination to determine whether it conforms with the antidumping or
countervailing duty law of the country that made the determination.
Under Article 1904 of the Agreement, which came into force on
January 1, 1994, the Government of the United States, the Government of
Canada and the Government of Mexico established Rules of Procedure for
Article 1904 Binational Panel Reviews (``Rules''). These Rules were
published in the Federal Register on February 23, 1994 (59 FR 8686).
The panel review in this matter has been conducted in accordance with
these Rules.
Panel Decision: The panel remanded the International Trade
Administration's final determination respecting Carbon and Certain
Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Canada with a partial dissenting opinion and
a further dissent. The panel remanded the opinion as follows:
1. On the issue of the permissibility of zeroing, the Panel remands
this matter back to Commerce to re-calculate Mittal's dumping margins
without zeroing.
2. On the issue of the significance of the actual cost increases,
the Panel remands the question of the significance of the cost increase
back to Commerce for a reasoned explanation of its decision, based on
the record and corrected for any errors in calculation of costs that
may have been made in the original decision. At a minimum, the revised
determination should include a description of the criteria that
Commerce applied and an explanation of how Commerce decided on the
significance or lack thereof of the cost increases in this case.
3. On the issue of the consistency of the cost increases between
the two cost periods proposed by Mittal, this Panel remands this matter
back to Commerce to clarify what is its test for consistent cost
increases in this case, to explain why that test is reasonable and to
provide a reasoned explanation of whether Mittal's costs met that test
in this case.
4. On the issue of the linkage between changes in costs and prices,
this Panel also remands this matter back to Commerce to provide a
reasoned description and explanation of its linkage test, to apply that
test to the costs and prices in this case, and to provide a reasoned
explanation of whether Mittal has actually met this linkage test in its
proposed cost periods in this case.
Commerce is further directed to issue its Final Re-determination on
Remand within forty-five days from the date of this Panel Decision or
by January 14, 2008.
Dated: December 3, 2007.
Caratina L. Alston,
U.S. Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat.
[FR Doc. E7-23684 Filed 12-5-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-GT-P
