North American Free-Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Article 1904 Binational Panel Reviews, 68859-68860 [E7-23684]

Download as PDF 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