Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors from the Republic of Korea: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of the Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 18771-18772 [E8-7212]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 67 / Monday, April 7, 2008 / Notices
from Thailand causes material injury to
the domestic industry; that finding was
undisturbed by the partial revocation of
SSI. Further, that revocation was
premised on the absence of dumping
rather than the absence of injury and
was expressly conditioned on the
possibility of reinstatement should
dumping resume.
The partial revocation of the order
with respect to SSI did not nullify the
validity of the underlying injury and
less than fair value determinations that
resulted in the issuance of an
antidumping duty order which remains
in force, particularly when the partial
revocation is the result of behavior
subsequent to those earlier
determinations. The ITC’s injury
determination, furthermore, does not
examine the injury caused by discrete
companies, but rather the injury caused
by all dumped exports originating in a
particular exporting country. Even if
one or more exporters in that country
may have been revoked from the order
on the basis of absence of dumping, all
dumped exports of subject merchandise
from that country continue to cause or
threaten material injury, pursuant to the
ITC’s affirmative injury determination.
Thus, unless all exporters are revoked
from the order, the order continues to
exist, as does the potential for
reinstatement. SSI itself agreed to such
a reinstatement as a condition of its
partial revocation, if the Department
were to conclude that it has sold the
merchandise at below NV. Specifically,
SSI filed a certification from a company
official pursuant to the Department’s
regulations that it agreed to the
immediate reinstatement in the order, so
long as any exporter or producer is
subject to the order, if the Secretary
concludes that, subsequent to the
revocation, it sold hot–rolled steel at
less than NV. Thus, a new injury finding
specific to SSI is neither necessary nor
appropriate for reinstatement pursuant
to 19 CFR 351.222(h)(2)(i)(B).
The standard for initiation of a
changed circumstances review under
751(b) of the Act is whether a request
from an interested party for a review of
a final affirmative determination that
resulted in an antidumping duty order,
a suspension agreement, or a final
affirmative determination shows
changed circumstances sufficient to
warrant a review of such determination
or agreement. The information
submitted by petitioner in its letters of
November 8, 2006, December 5, 2006,
January 12, 2007, and February 26,
2007, September 27, 2007, and January
29, 2008, concerning SSI’s COP and U.S.
sales activity, suggest SSI may have
resumed dumping subsequent to SSI’s
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:24 Apr 04, 2008
Jkt 214001
revocation from the order. Depending
on the source of data used to value SSI’s
steel slab prices, petitioner alleges
underselling of hot–rolled steel by SSI
in the United States at prices between
2.00 and 23.89 percent below NV during
the 05–06 period, and 0.60 percent and
28.22 percent below NV during the 06–
07 period. The Department finds that
the petitioner’s changed circumstances
request, which suggests a resumption of
dumping, satisfies that standard for
initiating.
Based on the foregoing, we find that
petitioner has provided sufficient
evidence to initiate a changed
circumstances review to examine SSI’s
pricing and determine whether SSI has
resumed dumping sufficient to reinstate
the company within the order of hot–
rolled steel from Thailand.
For purposes of this initiation, the
evidence provided by petitioner
indicates that SSI may have resumed
dumping in not just one, but two
periods. This evidence further supports
the Department’s determination to
initiate a review to determine whether
in fact SSI has resumed dumping.
Period of Changed Circumstances
Review
The Department expects to request
data from SSI for the July 1, 2006,
through June 30, 2007 period in order to
determine whether SSI has resumed
dumping sufficient to warrant
reinstatement within the order of hot–
rolled steel from Thailand.
Public Comment
The Department will publish in the
Federal Register a notice of preliminary
results of changed circumstances review
in accordance with 19 CFR
351.221(b)(4) and 351.221(c)(3)(i),
which will set forth the Department’s
preliminary factual and legal
conclusions. Pursuant to 19 CFR
351.221(b)(4)(ii), interested parties will
have an opportunity to comment on the
preliminary results. The Department
will issue its final results of review in
accordance with the time limits set forth
in 19 CFR 351.216(e).
This notice is published in
accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and
777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.221(b) of the Department’s
regulations.
Dated: March 28, 2008.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E8–7204 Filed 4–4–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
18771
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
ADMINISTRATION
(C–580–851)
Dynamic Random Access Memory
Semiconductors from the Republic of
Korea: Extension of Time Limit for
Preliminary Results of the
Countervailing Duty Administrative
Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 7, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Shane Subler at (202) 482–0189 or
David Neubacher at (202) 482–5823;
AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
Background
On September 25, 2007, the
Department published a notice of
initiation of administrative review of the
countervailing duty order on dynamic
random access memory semiconductors
from the Republic of Korea, covering the
period January 1, 2006 through
December 31, 2006. See Initiation of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews and Requests
for Revocation in Part, 72 FR 54428
(September 25, 2007). On December 14,
2007, the petitioner alleged that Hynix
Semiconductor, Inc., received new
subsidies.
Statutory Time Limits
Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act
of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’),
requires the Department of Commerce
(‘‘the Department’’) to issue the
preliminary results of an administrative
review within 245 days after the last day
of the anniversary month of an order for
which a review is requested and the
final results of review within 120 days
after the date on which the preliminary
results are published. If it is not
practicable to complete the review
within the time period, section
751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the
Department to extend these deadlines to
a maximum of 365 days and 180 days,
respectively.
Extension of Time Limits for
Preliminary Results
This administrative review is
extraordinarily complicated due to the
complexity of the countervailable
E:\FR\FM\07APN1.SGM
07APN1
18772
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 67 / Monday, April 7, 2008 / Notices
subsidy practices found in the
investigation and the new subsidy
allegations. Because the Department
requires additional time to review,
analyze, and possibly verify the
information, and to issue supplemental
questionnaires, if necessary, it is not
practicable to complete this review
within the originally anticipated time
limit (i.e., by May 2, 2008). Therefore,
the Department is extending the time
limit for completion of the preliminary
results by 90 days to not later than July
31, 2008, in accordance with section
751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
We are issuing and publishing this
notice in accordance with sections
751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: March 31, 2008.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E8–7212 Filed 4–4–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
(A–570–851)
Certain Preserved Mushrooms from
the People(s Republic of China:
Initiation of New Shipper Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 7, 2008.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(the ‘‘Department’’) has received a
request from Zhangzhou Golden Banyan
Foodstuffs Industrial Co., Ltd. (‘‘Golden
Banyan’’),1 a producer and exporter of
preserved mushrooms, to conduct a new
shipper review (‘‘NSR’’) of the
antidumping duty order on certain
preserved mushrooms from the People’s
Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). Since this
request meets the statutory and
regulatory requirements for initiation,
the Department is initiating a NSR of
Golden Banyan, in accordance with
section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES
AGENCY:
1 Zhangzhou Golden Banyan Foodstuffs
Industrial Co., Ltd., has applied to the Zhangzhou
Municipal Industrial and Commercial
Administrative Bureau (‘‘Commercial
Administrative Bureau’’) to change its name to
Fujian Golden Banyan Foodstuffs Industrial Co.,
Ltd. On December 21, 2007, the Commercial
Administrative Bureau granted Golden Banyan
advanced approval for the company’s requested
name change. However, Golden Banyan is still
waiting for the name change to apply to the
company’s business license and certificate of
approval. Accordingly, Golden Banyan submitted
its request for a new shipper review under both the
company’s current and pending corporate names.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:24 Apr 04, 2008
Jkt 214001
1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’), and 19
CFR 351.214(d).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Shawn Higgins; 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)
482–0679.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On February 19, 1999, the Department
published the antidumping duty order
on certain preserved mushrooms from
the PRC. See Notice of Amendment of
Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty
Order: Certain Preserved Mushrooms
From the People(s Republic of China, 64
FR 8308 (February 19, 1999). Thus, the
antidumping duty order on certain
preserved mushrooms from the PRC has
a February anniversary month. The
Department received a request for a NSR
from Golden Banyan on February 29,
2008, which is during the annual
anniversary month.
Golden Banyan identified itself as a
producer and exporter of preserved
mushrooms. Pursuant to section
751(a)(2)(B)(i)(I) of the Act, and 19 CFR
351.214(b)(2)(i), Golden Banyan
certified that it did not export preserved
mushrooms 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), Golden Banyan
also certified that it has never been
affiliated with any exporter or producer
that exported preserved mushrooms to
the United States during the POI.
Furthermore, the company also certified
that its export activities are not
controlled by the government of the
PRC, satisfying the requirement of 19
CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(B).
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iv),
Golden Banyan submitted
documentation establishing the date on
which the subject merchandise was first
entered for consumption in the United
States, the volume of that first shipment
and any subsequent shipments, and the
date of the first sale to an unaffiliated
customer in the United States. The
Department queried the U.S. Customs
and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) entry
database, which confirmed that Golden
Banyan had officially entered subject
merchandise into the United States via
assignment of an entry date in the
Customs database by CBP. The
Department issued Golden Banyan a
supplemental questionnaire, focused on
inconsistencies we observed between
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
information supplied in Golden
Banyan’s NSR request and the CBP data,
on March 11, 2008. On March 20, 2008,
the Department received a timely
response from Golden Banyan to the
supplemental questionnaire.
We note that although Golden Banyan
submitted documentation regarding the
volume of its shipment and the date of
their first sale to an unaffiliated
customer in the United States, our
customs query shows that Golden
Banyan’s shipment entered the United
States shortly after the anniversary
month. Under 19 CFR 351.214(f)(2)(ii),
when the sale of the subject
merchandise occurs within the period of
review (‘‘POR’’), but the entry occurs
after the normal POR, the POR may be
extended unless it would be likely to
prevent the completion of the review
within the time limits set by the
Department’s regulations. The preamble
to the Department’s regulations states
that both the entry and the sale should
occur during the POR, and that under
‘‘appropriate’’ circumstances the
Department has the flexibility to extend
the POR. See Antidumping Duties;
Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR
27296, 27319–27320 (May 19, 1997). In
this instance, Golden Banyan’s
shipment entered a few days into the
month following the end of the POR.
The Department does not find that this
delay prevents the completion of the
review within the time limits set by the
Department’s regulations.
Initiation of Review
Based on the information on the
record, and in accordance with section
751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.214(d)(1), we have determined that
Golden Banyan has met the statutory
and regulatory requirements for the
initiation of a NSR. Therefore, we are
initiating a NSR for Golden Banyan. See
Memorandum to the File, from Shawn
Higgins, International Trade
Compliance Analyst, through Abdelali
Elouaradia, Director, Office 4, AD/CVD
Operations, ‘‘Initiation of Antidumping
Duty New Shipper Review: Certain
Preserved Mushrooms from the People(s
Republic of China,’’ dated March 31,
2008.
We intend to issue the preliminary
results of this review not later than 180
days after the date on which this review
is initiated, and the final results of this
review within 90 days after the date on
which the preliminary results are
issued. See section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of
the Act; 19 CFR 351.214(h)(i).
Pursuant to 19 CFR
351.214(g)(1)(i)(A), the POR for a NSR
initiated in the month immediately
following the anniversary month will be
E:\FR\FM\07APN1.SGM
07APN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 67 (Monday, April 7, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18771-18772]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
INTERNATIONAL TRADE ADMINISTRATION
(C-580-851)
Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors from the Republic of
Korea: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of the
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 7, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shane Subler at (202) 482-0189 or
David Neubacher at (202) 482-5823; AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC
20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On September 25, 2007, the Department published a notice of
initiation of administrative review of the countervailing duty order on
dynamic random access memory semiconductors from the Republic of Korea,
covering the period January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006. See
Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 72 FR 54428 (September 25,
2007). On December 14, 2007, the petitioner alleged that Hynix
Semiconductor, Inc., received new subsidies.
Statutory Time Limits
Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the
Act''), requires the Department of Commerce (``the Department'') to
issue the preliminary results of an administrative review within 245
days after the last day of the anniversary month of an order for which
a review is requested and the final results of review within 120 days
after the date on which the preliminary results are published. If it is
not practicable to complete the review within the time period, section
751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the Department to extend these deadlines
to a maximum of 365 days and 180 days, respectively.
Extension of Time Limits for Preliminary Results
This administrative review is extraordinarily complicated due to
the complexity of the countervailable
[[Page 18772]]
subsidy practices found in the investigation and the new subsidy
allegations. Because the Department requires additional time to review,
analyze, and possibly verify the information, and to issue supplemental
questionnaires, if necessary, it is not practicable to complete this
review within the originally anticipated time limit (i.e., by May 2,
2008). Therefore, the Department is extending the time limit for
completion of the preliminary results by 90 days to not later than July
31, 2008, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: March 31, 2008.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E8-7212 Filed 4-4-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
