Notice of Amended Final Results in Accordance With Court Decision: Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or Without Handles, From the People(s Republic of China, 11615-11617 [E8-4128]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 43 / Tuesday, March 4, 2008 / Notices
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Fellowships and for Designation as a
Sea Grant College or Regional
Consortium.
OMB Control Number: 0648–0362.
Form Number(s): None.
Type of Request: Regular submission.
Burden Hours: 857.
Number of Respondents: 162.
Average Hours Per Response: Control
forms, 30 minutes; program record
forms, 20 minutes; budget forms, 15
minutes; applications for designation as
a Sea Grant college or regional
consortium, 20 hours; and fellowship
applications, 2 hours.
Needs and Uses: Applications are
required for the designation of a public
or private institution of higher
education, institute, laboratory, or State
or local agency as a Sea Grant college or
Sea Grant institute. Applications are
also required in order to be awarded a
Sea Grant Fellowship, including the
Dean John A. Knauss Marine Policy
Fellowships. The grant monies are
available for funding activities that help
attain the objectives of the Sea Grant
Program. In addition to the SF–424 and
other standard grant application
requirements, three NOAA forms are
required with a grant application. These
are the Sea Grant Control Form, used to
identify the organizations and personnel
who would be involved in the grant; the
Project Record Form, which collects
summary data on projects; and the Sea
Grant Budget Form (used in place of the
SF–424A or SF–424C).
Affected Public: Not-for-profit
institutions; individuals or households.
Frequency: Annually.
Respondent’s Obligation: Required to
obtain or retain benefits.
OMB Desk Officer: David Rostker,
(202) 395–3897.
Copies of the above information
collection proposal can be obtained by
calling or writing Diana Hynek,
Departmental Paperwork Clearance
Officer, (202) 482–0266, Department of
Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
dHynek@doc.gov).
Written comments and
recommendations for the proposed
information collection should be sent
within 30 days of publication of this
notice to David Rostker, OMB Desk
Officer, Fax number (202) 395–7285, or
David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov.
Dated: February 28, 2008.
Gwellnar Banks,
Management Analyst, Office of the Chief
Information Officer.
[FR Doc. E8–4093 Filed 3–3–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:57 Mar 03, 2008
Jkt 214001
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–868]
Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from
the People’s Republic of China: Notice
of Extension of Time Limit for the
Preliminary Results of the
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce
EFFECTIVE DATE: (March 4, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Laurel LaCivita or Benjamin Caryl, 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) 482–4243 or (202) 482–
3003, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
Background
On July 26, 2007, the Department of
Commerce (‘‘the Department’’)
published the initiation of the
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on folding
metal tables and chairs from the
People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). See
Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews and Request for Revocation in
Part, 72 FR 41057 (July 26, 2007). This
review covers the period June 1, 2006,
through May 31, 2007. The preliminary
results of review are currently due no
later than March 1, 2008.
Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary
Results of Review
Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the
Act’’), the Department shall make a
preliminary determination in an
administrative review of an
antidumping duty order within 245
days after the last day of the anniversary
month of the date of publication of the
order. The Act further provides,
however, that the Department may
extend that 245-day period to 365 days
if it determines it is not practicable to
complete the review within the
foregoing time period.
The Department finds that it is not
practicable to complete the preliminary
results of the administrative review of
folding metal tables and chairs from the
PRC within this time limit. Specifically,
due to complex issues related to the
selection of surrogate values, we find
that additional time is needed to
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
11615
complete these preliminary results.
Therefore, in accordance with section
751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department
is extending the time period for
completion of the preliminary results of
this review by 90 days until May 30,
2008.
This notice is published in
accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A)
and 777(i) of the Act.
Dated: February 27, 2008.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E8–4130 Filed 3–3–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–803]
Notice of Amended Final Results in
Accordance With Court Decision:
Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or
Unfinished, With or Without Handles,
From the People(s Republic of China
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 4, 2008.
SUMMARY: On November 20, 2007, the
U.S. 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 (‘‘PRC’’). 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’’). The
CIT issued the public version of
Shandong Huarong II on January 8,
2008. The period of review (‘‘POR’’) for
the twelfth review is February 1, 2002,
through January 31, 2003.
In its redetermination, the Department
assigned dumping margins to sales of (1)
bars/wedges by Shandong Huarong
Machinery Corporation Limited
(‘‘Huarong’’); (2) bars/wedges by
Liaoning Machinery Import & Export
Corporation/Liaoning Machinery Import
& Export Corporation Ltd. (collectively
‘‘LMC/LIMAC’’); (3) bars/wedges by
Shandong Machinery Import & Export
Corporation (‘‘SMC’’); and (4) axes/
adzes, bars/wedges, hammers/sledges,
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\04MRN1.SGM
04MRN1
11616
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 43 / Tuesday, March 4, 2008 / Notices
and picks/mattocks by Tianjin
Machinery Import & Export Corporation
(‘‘TMC’’). As there is now a final and
conclusive court decision in this case
which is not in harmony with the
underlying results of the disputed
administrative review, the Department
is amending the final results of the
2002–2003 antidumping duty
administrative review of heavy forged
hand tools from the PRC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom
Martin, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4,
Import Administration, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department
of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington,
DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3936.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Background
On September 15, 2004, the
Department published its final results of
antidumping duty 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, Final
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Reviews, and
Determination Not to Revoke in Part, 69
FR 55581 (September 15, 2004) (‘‘Final
Results’’). In its Final Results the
Department calculated antidumping
duty margins for Huarong, LMC/LIMAC,
SMC, and TMC. On September 16, 2004,
the four respondents filed a summons
with the CIT, and on September 20,
2004, they filed a complaint with the
CIT in which they identified the aspects
of the Final Results they are
challenging. On September 17, 2004, the
petitioner, Ames True Temper ((Ames(),
submitted comments alleging that the
Department made certain ministerial
errors in the Final Results. On
September 28, 2004, the Department
requested a voluntary remand to
consider certain ministerial error
allegations raised by the parties. The
CIT granted the Department(s request on
November 3, 2004, and ordered the
Department to address the alleged
ministerial errors (without issuing a slip
opinion). The Department corrected
certain errors and published amended
final results on December 1, 2004. See
Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or
Unfinished, With or Without Handles,
From the People’s Republic of China:
Notice of Amended Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Reviews, 69 FR 69892 (December 1,
2004).
In Shandong Huarong Machinery Co.
Ltd., Liaoning Machinery Import &
Export Corp. Ltd., Shandong Machinery
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:57 Mar 03, 2008
Jkt 214001
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 Huarong
and TMC 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 axes/adzes
order for Huarong and the bars/wedges
order for TMC; (2) provide a factual
basis showing that the rate calculated
for TMC 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 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 TMC’s normal value
(‘‘NV’’).
The Department released the Draft
Results of Redetermination Pursuant to
Court Remand to the petitioner 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) found at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/
remands/06–88.pdf. In the remand
redetermination the Department did the
following: (1)(i) 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;
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
(1)(ii) explained that total AFA was
applied to TMC’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 TMC’s
sales of merchandise covered by the
bars/wedges order; (3) explained that
the period of investigation 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 carriers; and (7) continued to
deny the petitioner’s request for a COS
adjustment to TMC’s NV because there
was insufficient detail to determine
whether there was a correlation between
the expenses incurred by TMC and the
surrogate producer. Based on the above
redeterminations, the Department
recalculated the antidumping duty rates
applicable to SMC’s sale of bars/wedges
and TMC’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 LMC/
LIMAC’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. See
Shandong Huarong II. The CIT issued
the public version of Shandong
Huarong II on January 8, 2008.
Consistent with the decision made by
the Court of Appeal for the Federal
Circuit (‘‘CAFC’’) in Timken Company
v. United States, 893 F.2d 337, 341 (Fed.
Cir. 1990), on January 17, 2008, the
Department published a ‘‘Notice of
Court Decision Not in Harmony with
Final Results of Administrative
Review,’’ which continued suspension
of liquidation of the subject
merchandise until there was a (final and
conclusive( decision in this case. See
Heavy Forged Hand Tools From the
People’s Republic of China: Notice of
E:\FR\FM\04MRN1.SGM
04MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 43 / Tuesday, March 4, 2008 / Notices
Court Decision Not in Harmony With
Final Results of Administrative Review,
73 FR 3236 (January 17, 2008). On
January 20, 2008, the opportunity to
appeal the CIT’s decision to the CAFC
expired. Since no party has appealed
this decision to the CAFC, the CIT’s
decision upholding the Department’s
remand redetermination is final and
conclusive.
Amended Final Results
The time period for appealing the
CIT’s final decision to the CAFC has
expired and no party has appealed this
decision. As there is now a final and
conclusive court decision with respect
to litigation for Huarong, LMC/LIMAC,
SMC, and TMC, we are amending the
final results of review to reflect the
findings of the remand results, pursuant
to section 516A(e) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’). The
amended weighted–average margins are
as follows:
Exporter
Weighted–Average Margin (Percent)
Shandong Huarong Machinery Corporation Limited (Huarong).
Bars/Wedges .....................................................................................................................................
Liaoning Machinery Import & Export Corporation (LMC)/.
Liaoning Machinery Import & Export Corporation Ltd. (LIMAC).
Bars/Wedges .....................................................................................................................................
Shandong Machinery Import & Export Corporation (SMC).
Bars/Wedges .....................................................................................................................................
Tianjin Machinery Import & Export Corporation (TMC).
Axes/Adzes ........................................................................................................................................
Bars/Wedges .....................................................................................................................................
Hammers/Sledges .............................................................................................................................
Picks/Mattocks .................................................................................................................................................
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Assessment Rates
The Department will determine, and
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(‘‘CBP’’) shall assess, antidumping
duties on all appropriate entries. In
accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1),
we have calculated importer–specific
assessment rates. Where the importer–
specific assessment rate is above de
minimis on an ad valorem basis,
calculated by dividing the dumping
margins found on examined subject
merchandise by the estimated entered
value, we will instruct CBP to assess
antidumping duties on that importer(s
entries of subject merchandise. In
accordance with 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2),
we will instruct CBP to liquidate
without regard to antidumping duties
any entries for which the importer–
specific assessment rate is de minimis
(i.e., less than 0.5 percent ad valorem).
Since the actual entered value of the
merchandise was not reported to the
Department, we have divided, where
applicable, the total dumping margins
(calculated as the difference between
NV and export price) for each importer
by the total number of units sold to the
importer. We will direct CBP to assess
the resulting unit dollar amount against
each unit of subject merchandise
entered by the importer during the POR.
The Department will issue appropriate
assessment instructions directly to CBP
15 days after publication of these
amended final results of review.
This notice is published in
accordance with section 516A(e) of the
Act.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:57 Mar 03, 2008
Jkt 214001
11617
139.31
139.31
4.05
10.39
139.31
6.38
4.61
Dated: February 26, 2008.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E8–4128 Filed 3–3–08; 8:45 am]
March 1, 2008. See Initiation of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews and Request for
Revocation in Part, 72 FR 41057 (July
26, 2007).
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
Extension of Time Limit of Preliminary
Results.
Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act
of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’),
requires the Department to issue
preliminary results within 245 days
after the last day of the anniversary
month of an order. However, if it is not
practicable to complete the review
within this time period, section
751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the
Department to extend the time period to
a maximum of 365 days. Completion of
the preliminary results of this review
within the 245-day period is not
practicable because the Department
needs additional time to analyze
information pertaining to the
respondents’ reporting methodology
with respect to U.S. sales, to evaluate
certain issues raised by the petitioners,
and to issue and review responses to
supplemental questionnaires.
Because it is not practicable to
complete this review within the time
specified under the Act, we are fully
extending the time period for issuing
the preliminary results of review to 365
days until June 29, 2008, in accordance
with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
Because this deadline falls on a
weekend, the appropriate deadline is
the next business day (i.e., Monday).
Therefore, we will issue the preliminary
results no later than June 30, 2008. The
final results continue to be due 120 days
after the publication of the preliminary
results. This notice is published
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–601]
Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts
Thereof, Finished or Unfinished, from
the People’s Republic of China:
Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 4, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul
Stolz, 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) 482–4474.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
Background
On July 26, 2007 the Department of
Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) initiated
an administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on tapered
roller bearings and parts thereof,
finished or unfinished (‘‘TRBs’’), from
the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’)
for the period June 1, 2006 through May
31, 2007. The preliminary results of this
review are currently due no later than
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\04MRN1.SGM
04MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 43 (Tuesday, March 4, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11615-11617]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-4128]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-803]
Notice of Amended Final Results in Accordance With Court
Decision: Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or
Without Handles, From the People(s Republic of China
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 4, 2008.
SUMMARY: On November 20, 2007, the U.S. 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 (``PRC''). 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''). The CIT issued the public version of Shandong Huarong II on
January 8, 2008. The period of review (``POR'') for the twelfth review
is February 1, 2002, through January 31, 2003.
In its redetermination, the Department assigned dumping margins to
sales of (1) bars/wedges by Shandong Huarong Machinery Corporation
Limited (``Huarong''); (2) bars/wedges by Liaoning Machinery Import &
Export Corporation/Liaoning Machinery Import & Export Corporation Ltd.
(collectively ``LMC/LIMAC''); (3) bars/wedges by Shandong Machinery
Import & Export Corporation (``SMC''); and (4) axes/adzes, bars/wedges,
hammers/sledges,
[[Page 11616]]
and picks/mattocks by Tianjin Machinery Import & Export Corporation
(``TMC''). As there is now a final and conclusive court decision in
this case which is not in harmony with the underlying results of the
disputed administrative review, the Department is amending the final
results of the 2002-2003 antidumping duty administrative review of
heavy forged hand tools from the PRC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Martin, AD/CVD Operations, Office
4, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3936.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On September 15, 2004, the Department published its final results
of antidumping duty 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, Final Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Reviews, and Determination Not to Revoke in Part, 69 FR 55581
(September 15, 2004) (``Final Results''). In its Final Results the
Department calculated antidumping duty margins for Huarong, LMC/LIMAC,
SMC, and TMC. On September 16, 2004, the four respondents filed a
summons with the CIT, and on September 20, 2004, they filed a complaint
with the CIT in which they identified the aspects of the Final Results
they are challenging. On September 17, 2004, the petitioner, Ames True
Temper ((Ames(), submitted comments alleging that the Department made
certain ministerial errors in the Final Results. On September 28, 2004,
the Department requested a voluntary remand to consider certain
ministerial error allegations raised by the parties. The CIT granted
the Department(s request on November 3, 2004, and ordered the
Department to address the alleged ministerial errors (without issuing a
slip opinion). The Department corrected certain errors and published
amended final results on December 1, 2004. See Heavy Forged Hand Tools,
Finished or Unfinished, With or Without Handles, From the People's
Republic of China: Notice of Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Reviews, 69 FR 69892 (December 1, 2004).
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 Huarong and TMC 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 axes/adzes order for Huarong
and the bars/wedges order for TMC; (2) provide a factual basis showing
that the rate calculated for TMC 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 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 TMC's normal value
(``NV'').
The Department released the Draft Results of Redetermination
Pursuant to Court Remand to the petitioner 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) found at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/remands/06-88.pdf. In the
remand redetermination the Department did the following: (1)(i)
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)(ii) explained
that total AFA was applied to TMC'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
TMC's sales of merchandise covered by the bars/wedges order; (3)
explained that the period of investigation 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 carriers; and (7) continued to deny the petitioner's
request for a COS adjustment to TMC's NV because there was insufficient
detail to determine whether there was a correlation between the
expenses incurred by TMC and the surrogate producer. Based on the above
redeterminations, the Department recalculated the antidumping duty
rates applicable to SMC's sale of bars/wedges and TMC'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 LMC/LIMAC'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. See Shandong Huarong II. The CIT issued
the public version of Shandong Huarong II on January 8, 2008.
Consistent with the decision made by the Court of Appeal for the
Federal Circuit (``CAFC'') in Timken Company v. United States, 893 F.2d
337, 341 (Fed. Cir. 1990), on January 17, 2008, the Department
published a ``Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony with Final
Results of Administrative Review,'' which continued suspension of
liquidation of the subject merchandise until there was a (final and
conclusive( decision in this case. See Heavy Forged Hand Tools From the
People's Republic of China: Notice of
[[Page 11617]]
Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results of Administrative
Review, 73 FR 3236 (January 17, 2008). On January 20, 2008, the
opportunity to appeal the CIT's decision to the CAFC expired. Since no
party has appealed this decision to the CAFC, the CIT's decision
upholding the Department's remand redetermination is final and
conclusive.
Amended Final Results
The time period for appealing the CIT's final decision to the CAFC
has expired and no party has appealed this decision. As there is now a
final and conclusive court decision with respect to litigation for
Huarong, LMC/LIMAC, SMC, and TMC, we are amending the final results of
review to reflect the findings of the remand results, pursuant to
section 516A(e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act'').
The amended weighted-average margins are as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exporter Weighted-Average Margin (Percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shandong Huarong Machinery
Corporation Limited (Huarong)......
Bars/Wedges................. 139.31
Liaoning Machinery Import & Export
Corporation (LMC)/.................
Liaoning Machinery Import & Export
Corporation Ltd. (LIMAC)...........
Bars/Wedges................. 139.31
Shandong Machinery Import & Export
Corporation (SMC)..................
Bars/Wedges................. 4.05
Tianjin Machinery Import & Export
Corporation (TMC)..................
Axes/Adzes.................. 10.39
Bars/Wedges................. 139.31
Hammers/Sledges............. 6.38
Picks/Mattocks...................... 4.61
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assessment Rates
The Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (``CBP'') shall assess, antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have
calculated importer-specific assessment rates. Where the importer-
specific assessment rate is above de minimis on an ad valorem basis,
calculated by dividing the dumping margins found on examined subject
merchandise by the estimated entered value, we will instruct CBP to
assess antidumping duties on that importer(s entries of subject
merchandise. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct
CBP to liquidate without regard to antidumping duties any entries for
which the importer-specific assessment rate is de minimis (i.e., less
than 0.5 percent ad valorem). Since the actual entered value of the
merchandise was not reported to the Department, we have divided, where
applicable, the total dumping margins (calculated as the difference
between NV and export price) for each importer by the total number of
units sold to the importer. We will direct CBP to assess the resulting
unit dollar amount against each unit of subject merchandise entered by
the importer during the POR. The Department will issue appropriate
assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication of
these amended final results of review.
This notice is published in accordance with section 516A(e) of the
Act.
Dated: February 26, 2008.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E8-4128 Filed 3-3-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
