Heavy Forged Hand Tools From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results of Administrative Review, 3236-3237 [E8-789]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
3236
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 12 / Thursday, January 17, 2008 / Notices
alternatives formulated and discussed in
the statement. Reviewers may wish to
refer to the Council on Environmental
Quality Regulations for implementing
the procedural provisions of the
National Environmental Policy Act at 40
CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.
Comments received, including the
names and addresses of those who
comment, will be considered part of the
public record on this proposal and will
be available for public inspection.
(Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22;
Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Section
21)
Dated: January 9, 2008.
Pauline E. Ellis,
District Ranger/Field Office Manager.
[FR Doc. E8–749 Filed 1–16–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–11–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–849]
Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel
Plate From the People’s Republic of
China; Initiation of New Shipper
Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 17, 2008.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(the ‘‘Department’’) has determined that
a request for a new shipper review of
the antidumping duty order on certain
cut-to-length steel plate (‘‘CTL steel
plate’’) from the People’s Republic of
China (‘‘PRC’’), received in November
2007, meets the statutory and regulatory
requirements for initiation. The period
of review (‘‘POR’’) of this new shipper
review is November 1, 2006, through
October 31, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Demitrios Kalogeropoulos or Blanche
Ziv, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8,
Import Administration, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department
of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–2623
and (202) 482–4207, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Background
The notice announcing the
antidumping duty order on CTL steel
plate from the PRC was published on
October 21, 2003. See Suspension
Agreement on Certain Cut-to-Length
Carbon Steel Plate From the People’s
Republic of China; Termination of
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:07 Jan 16, 2008
Jkt 214001
Suspension Agreement and Notice of
Antidumping Duty Order, 68 FR 60081
(October 21, 2003). On November 30,
2007, we received a timely request for
a new shipper review from Hunan Valin
Xiangtan Iron & Steel Co., Ltd. (‘‘Hunan
Valin’’) in accordance with 19 CFR
351.214(d)(2). Hunan Valin has certified
that it produced and exported the CTL
steel plate on which it based its request
for a new shipper review. The
Department initially denied Hunan
Valin’s request for a new shipper review
in this case. However, as a result of
subsequent information submitted by
the requester, the Department has
reconsidered its decision and is now
initiating the new shipper review.
Initiation of New Shipper Reviews
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(i)(I) of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the
Act’’), and 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2), Hunan
Valin certified that it did not export CTL
steel plate to the United States during
the period of investigation (‘‘POI’’).
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(i)(II) of
the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(A),
Hunan Valin certified that, since the
initiation of the investigation, it has
never been affiliated with any exporter
or producer who exported CTL steel
plate to the United States during the
POI, including those not individually
examined during the investigation. As
required by 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(B),
Hunan Valin also certified that its
export activities were not controlled by
the central government of the PRC.
In addition to the certifications
described above, the exporter submitted
documentation establishing the
following: (1) The date on which it first
shipped CTL steel plate for export to the
United States and the date on which the
CTL steel plate was first entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption; (2) the volume of its first
shipment; and (3) the date of its first
sale to an unaffiliated customer in the
United States.
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B) of the
Act and 19 CFR 351.214(d)(1), we are
initiating this new shipper review for
shipments of CTL steel plate from the
PRC produced and exported by Hunan
Valin.
The POR is November 1, 2006,
through October 31, 2007. See 19 CFR
351.214(g)(1)(i)(B). We intend to issue
preliminary results of these reviews no
later than 180 days from the date of
initiation, and final results of these
reviews no later than 270 days from the
date of initiation. See section
751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act.
On August 17, 2006, the Pension
Protection Act of 2006 (‘‘H.R. 4’’) was
signed into law. Section 1632 of H.R. 4
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
temporarily suspends the authority of
the Department to instruct U.S. Customs
and Border Protection to collect a bond
or other security in lieu of a cash
deposit in new shipper reviews during
the period April 1, 2006, through June
30, 2009. Therefore, the posting of a
bond or other security under section
751(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act in lieu of a
cash deposit is not available in this case.
Importers of CTL steel plate
manufactured and exported by Hunan
Valin must continue to pay a cash
deposit of estimated antidumping duties
on each entry of subject merchandise at
the current PRC-wide rate of 128.59
percent.
Interested parties requiring access to
proprietary information in this new
shipper review should submit
applications for disclosure under
administrative protective order in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 and
351.306. This initiation and notice are
in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B)
of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214 and
351.221(c)(1)(i).
Dated: January 11, 2008.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E8–788 Filed 1–16–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–803]
Heavy Forged Hand Tools From the
People’s Republic of China: Notice of
Court Decision Not in Harmony With
Final Results of Administrative Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On November 20, 2007, the
United States Court of International
Trade (‘‘CIT’’) sustained the remand
redetermination issued by the
Department of Commerce (‘‘the
Department’’) pursuant to the CIT’s
remand of the final results of the twelfth
administrative review of the
antidumping duty orders on heavy
forged hand tools from the People’s
Republic of China. See Shandong
Huarong Machinery Co. Ltd., Shandong
Machinery Import & Export
Corporation, Liaoning Machinery Import
& Export Corporation, and Tianjin
Machinery Import & Export Corporation
v. United States, Slip Op. 07–169 (CIT,
2007) (‘‘Shandong Huarong II’’). On
January 8, 2008, the CIT released the
public version of this opinion. This case
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\17JAN1.SGM
17JAN1
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 12 / Thursday, January 17, 2008 / Notices
arises out of the Department’s final
results in the administrative review
covering the period February 1, 2002,
through January 31, 2003. 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, Final Partial
Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Reviews, and
Determination Not to Revoke in Part, 69
FR 55581 (September 15, 2004) (‘‘Final
Results’’). Consistent with the decision
of the United States Court of Appeals for
the Federal Circuit (‘‘Federal Circuit’’)
in Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d
337 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (‘‘Timken’’), the
Department is notifying the public that
Shandong Huarong II is not in harmony
with the Department’s Final Results.
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 17, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Thomas Martin, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 4, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202)
482–3936.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In
Shandong Huarong Machinery Co. Ltd.,
Liaoning Machinery Import & Export
Corp. Ltd., Shandong Machinery Import
& Export Corp., and Tianjin Machinery
Import & Export Corp. v. United States
and Ames True Temper, Court No. 04–
00460, Slip Op. 06–88 (June 9, 2006)
(‘‘Shandong Huarong I’’), the CIT
remanded the underlying final results of
review to the Department to: (1) Explain
why the failure of Shandong Huarong
Machinery Co., Ltd. (‘‘Huarong’’) and
Tianjin Machinery Import & Export
Corporation (‘‘Tianjin’’) to report
information on scrapers and forged
tampers, respectively, justifies the use of
total adverse facts available (‘‘AFA’’),
rather than just partial AFA, pursuant to
sections 776(a) and (b) of the Tariff Act
of 1930 (the ‘‘Act’’), for the axe/adze
order for Huarong and the bar/wedge
order for Tianjin; (2) provide a factual
basis showing that the rate calculated
for Tianjin is a reasonable estimate of its
actual rate plus an added amount to
encourage cooperation; (3) explain how
the Department’s commercial quantities
methodology fulfills the purpose of 19
CFR 351.222(e)(1), in relation to its
refusal to revoke Shandong Machinery
Import & Export Corporation (‘‘SMC’’)
from the hammers/sledges order; (4)
analyze further the issue of valuation of
steel pallets manufactured by certain
hand tool factories; (5) revisit its
decision that certain miscellaneous
handling expenses are not included in
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:07 Jan 16, 2008
Jkt 214001
the surrogate price of foreign brokerage
and handling and, if the Department
continues to find that the handling
expenses in question are not in the
surrogate price of brokerage and
handling, to provide a thorough
explanation; (6) explain why its
decision to analyze market economy
(‘‘ME’’) purchases of ocean freight in
aggregate is reasonable; and (7) explain
further its decision to deny the request
for a circumstance of sale (‘‘COS’’)
adjustment to Tianjin’s normal value
(‘‘NV’’).
The Department released the Draft
Results of Redetermination Pursuant to
Court Remand (‘‘Draft
Redetermination’’) to the petitioner,
Ames True Temper (‘‘Ames’’), and the
respondents for comment on December
15, 2006. The Department received
comments from both Ames and the
respondents on December 29, 2006. On
January 12, 2007, the Department issued
to the CIT its final results of
redetermination pursuant to Shandong
Huarong I. See Final Results of
Redetermination Pursuant to Court
Remand, Court No. 04–00460, (January
12, 2007) (‘‘Final Redetermination’’),
found at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/remands/
06–88.pdf. In the remand
redetermination the Department did the
following: (1)(a) Explained that AFA
was applied to all of Huarong’s sales of
axes/adzes, pursuant to sections 776(a)
and (b) of the Act, because it failed to
report requested information regarding
its production and sales of scrapers,
which are subject to the axes/adzes
order; (1)(b) explained that total AFA
was applied to Tianjin’s sales of bars/
wedges because, in part, it failed to
report its sales of forged tampers, which
are subject to the bars/wedges order; (2)
redetermined an AFA rate for Tianjin’s
sales of merchandise covered by the
bars/wedges order; (3) explained that
the period of investigation (‘‘POI’’) sales
quantity is a valid benchmark for
determining whether the respondent
sold in commercial quantities because it
represents the respondent’s behavior
without the discipline of an
antidumping order; (4) included in the
Department’s calculation of NV the cost
of labor and welding rod consumed in
making steel pallets; (5) examined the
record of Stainless Steel Wire Rod From
India; Final Results of Administrative
Review, 63 FR 48184 (September 9,
1998), and concluded that the brokerage
and handling surrogate value included
all expenses noted by the petitioner,
except those that the record does not
show were incurred; (6) chose to
continue to apply the respondents’
average ME ocean freight expense to
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
3237
sales shipped with non-market economy
(‘‘NME’’) carriers; and (7) continued to
deny the petitioner’s request for a COS
adjustment to Tianjin’s NV because
there was insufficient detail to
determine whether there was a
correlation between the expenses
incurred by Tianjin and the surrogate
producer. The Department recalculated
the antidumping duty rates applicable
to SMC’s sale of bars/wedges and
Tianjin’s sales of axes/adzes, bars/
wedges, hammers/sledges, and picks/
mattocks as a result of the Department’s
modifications to NV. The Department
made no change to the antidumping
duty rates of Huarong’s and Liaoning
Machinery Import & Export
Corporation’s sales of bars/wedges. On
November 20, 2007, the CIT sustained
all aspects of the remand
redetermination made by the
Department pursuant to the CIT’s
remand of the Final Results.
In its decision in Timken, 893 F.2d at
341, the Federal Circuit held that,
pursuant to section 516A(e) of the Tariff
Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’), the
Department must publish a notice of a
court decision that is not ‘‘in harmony’’
with a Department determination, and
must suspend liquidation of entries
pending a ‘‘conclusive’’ court decision.
As a result of the Department’s addition
of the cost of labor and welded rod
consumed in making steel pallets in the
remand redetermination, the CIT’s
decision in this case on November 20,
2007, constitutes a final decision of the
court that is not in harmony with the
Department’s Final Results. This notice
is published in fulfillment of the
publication requirements of Timken.
Accordingly, the Department will
continue the suspension of liquidation
of the subject merchandise pending the
expiration of the period of appeal or, if
appealed, pending a final and
conclusive court decision. In the event
the CIT’s ruling is not appealed or, if
appealed, upheld by the Federal Circuit,
the Department will instruct U.S.
Customs and Border Protection to revise
the cash deposit rates covering the
subject merchandise.
This notice is issued and published in
accordance with section 516A(c)(1) of
the Act.
Dated: January 11, 2008.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E8–789 Filed 1–16–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
E:\FR\FM\17JAN1.SGM
17JAN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 12 (Thursday, January 17, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3236-3237]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-789]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-803]
Heavy Forged Hand Tools From the People's Republic of China:
Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results of
Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On November 20, 2007, the United States Court of International
Trade (``CIT'') sustained the remand redetermination issued by the
Department of Commerce (``the Department'') pursuant to the CIT's
remand of the final results of the twelfth administrative review of the
antidumping duty orders on heavy forged hand tools from the People's
Republic of China. See Shandong Huarong Machinery Co. Ltd., Shandong
Machinery Import & Export Corporation, Liaoning Machinery Import &
Export Corporation, and Tianjin Machinery Import & Export Corporation
v. United States, Slip Op. 07-169 (CIT, 2007) (``Shandong Huarong
II''). On January 8, 2008, the CIT released the public version of this
opinion. This case
[[Page 3237]]
arises out of the Department's final results in the administrative
review covering the period February 1, 2002, through January 31, 2003.
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, Final Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, and Determination Not to
Revoke in Part, 69 FR 55581 (September 15, 2004) (``Final Results'').
Consistent with the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for
the Federal Circuit (``Federal Circuit'') in Timken Co. v. United
States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (``Timken''), the Department is
notifying the public that Shandong Huarong II is not in harmony with
the Department's Final Results.
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 17, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Martin, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3936.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In Shandong Huarong Machinery Co. Ltd.,
Liaoning Machinery Import & Export Corp. Ltd., Shandong Machinery
Import & Export Corp., and Tianjin Machinery Import & Export Corp. v.
United States and Ames True Temper, Court No. 04-00460, Slip Op. 06-88
(June 9, 2006) (``Shandong Huarong I''), the CIT remanded the
underlying final results of review to the Department to: (1) Explain
why the failure of Shandong Huarong Machinery Co., Ltd. (``Huarong'')
and Tianjin Machinery Import & Export Corporation (``Tianjin'') to
report information on scrapers and forged tampers, respectively,
justifies the use of total adverse facts available (``AFA''), rather
than just partial AFA, pursuant to sections 776(a) and (b) of the
Tariff Act of 1930 (the ``Act''), for the axe/adze order for Huarong
and the bar/wedge order for Tianjin; (2) provide a factual basis
showing that the rate calculated for Tianjin is a reasonable estimate
of its actual rate plus an added amount to encourage cooperation; (3)
explain how the Department's commercial quantities methodology fulfills
the purpose of 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1), in relation to its refusal to
revoke Shandong Machinery Import & Export Corporation (``SMC'') from
the hammers/sledges order; (4) analyze further the issue of valuation
of steel pallets manufactured by certain hand tool factories; (5)
revisit its decision that certain miscellaneous handling expenses are
not included in the surrogate price of foreign brokerage and handling
and, if the Department continues to find that the handling expenses in
question are not in the surrogate price of brokerage and handling, to
provide a thorough explanation; (6) explain why its decision to analyze
market economy (``ME'') purchases of ocean freight in aggregate is
reasonable; and (7) explain further its decision to deny the request
for a circumstance of sale (``COS'') adjustment to Tianjin's normal
value (``NV'').
The Department released the Draft Results of Redetermination
Pursuant to Court Remand (``Draft Redetermination'') to the petitioner,
Ames True Temper (``Ames''), and the respondents for comment on
December 15, 2006. The Department received comments from both Ames and
the respondents on December 29, 2006. On January 12, 2007, the
Department issued to the CIT its final results of redetermination
pursuant to Shandong Huarong I. See Final Results of Redetermination
Pursuant to Court Remand, Court No. 04-00460, (January 12, 2007)
(``Final Redetermination''), found at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/remands/06-
88.pdf. In the remand redetermination the Department did the following:
(1)(a) Explained that AFA was applied to all of Huarong's sales of
axes/adzes, pursuant to sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act, because it
failed to report requested information regarding its production and
sales of scrapers, which are subject to the axes/adzes order; (1)(b)
explained that total AFA was applied to Tianjin's sales of bars/wedges
because, in part, it failed to report its sales of forged tampers,
which are subject to the bars/wedges order; (2) redetermined an AFA
rate for Tianjin's sales of merchandise covered by the bars/wedges
order; (3) explained that the period of investigation (``POI'') sales
quantity is a valid benchmark for determining whether the respondent
sold in commercial quantities because it represents the respondent's
behavior without the discipline of an antidumping order; (4) included
in the Department's calculation of NV the cost of labor and welding rod
consumed in making steel pallets; (5) examined the record of Stainless
Steel Wire Rod From India; Final Results of Administrative Review, 63
FR 48184 (September 9, 1998), and concluded that the brokerage and
handling surrogate value included all expenses noted by the petitioner,
except those that the record does not show were incurred; (6) chose to
continue to apply the respondents' average ME ocean freight expense to
sales shipped with non-market economy (``NME'') carriers; and (7)
continued to deny the petitioner's request for a COS adjustment to
Tianjin's NV because there was insufficient detail to determine whether
there was a correlation between the expenses incurred by Tianjin and
the surrogate producer. The Department recalculated the antidumping
duty rates applicable to SMC's sale of bars/wedges and Tianjin's sales
of axes/adzes, bars/wedges, hammers/sledges, and picks/mattocks as a
result of the Department's modifications to NV. The Department made no
change to the antidumping duty rates of Huarong's and Liaoning
Machinery Import & Export Corporation's sales of bars/wedges. On
November 20, 2007, the CIT sustained all aspects of the remand
redetermination made by the Department pursuant to the CIT's remand of
the Final Results.
In its decision in Timken, 893 F.2d at 341, the Federal Circuit
held that, pursuant to section 516A(e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (``the Act''), the Department must publish a notice of a court
decision that is not ``in harmony'' with a Department determination,
and must suspend liquidation of entries pending a ``conclusive'' court
decision. As a result of the Department's addition of the cost of labor
and welded rod consumed in making steel pallets in the remand
redetermination, the CIT's decision in this case on November 20, 2007,
constitutes a final decision of the court that is not in harmony with
the Department's Final Results. This notice is published in fulfillment
of the publication requirements of Timken. Accordingly, the Department
will continue the suspension of liquidation of the subject merchandise
pending the expiration of the period of appeal or, if appealed, pending
a final and conclusive court decision. In the event the CIT's ruling is
not appealed or, if appealed, upheld by the Federal Circuit, the
Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to revise
the cash deposit rates covering the subject merchandise.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with section
516A(c)(1) of the Act.
Dated: January 11, 2008.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E8-789 Filed 1-16-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
