Certain Preserved Mushrooms from India: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony with Final Results of Administrative Review, 30051-30052 [E8-11622]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 101 / Friday, May 23, 2008 / Notices 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 via the Internet at David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov. Dated: May 20, 2008. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E8–11600 Filed 5–22–08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Comments: None received. Decision: Approved. No instrument of equivalent scientific value to the foreign instrument, for such purposes as these instruments are intended to be used, was being manufactured in the United States at the time the instruments were ordered. Reasons: Each foreign instrument is an electron microscope and is intended for research or scientific educational uses requiring an electron microscope. We know of no electron microscope, or any other instrument suited to these purposes, which was being manufactured in the United States at the time of order of each instrument. Dated: May 19, 2008. Faye Robinson, Director, Statutory Import Programs Staff, Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8–11624 Filed 5–22–08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S International Trade Administration dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with NOTICES University of Dayton Research Institute, et al., Notice of Consolidated Decision on Applications, for DutyFree Entry of Electron Microscopes DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE This is a decision consolidated pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89–651, 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301). Related records can be viewed between 8:30 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. in Room 2104, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. Docket Number: 08–010. Applicant: University of Dayton Research Institute, Dayton, OH 45469–0106. Instrument: Electron Microscope, Model FEI Quanta 600 FEG. Manufacturer: FEI Company, Czech Republic. Intended Use: See notice at 73 FR 21310, April 21, 2008. Docket Number: 08–011. Applicant: University of Minnesota Institute of Technology Characterization Facility, Minneapolis, MN 55455. Instrument: Electron Microscope, Model Tecnai G2 F30 Twin. Manufacturer: FEI Company, Netherlands. Intended Use: See notice at 73 FR 21310, April 21, 2008. Docket Number: 08–012. Applicant: Alfred E. Mann Foundation for Scientific Research, Santa Clarita, CA 91355. Instrument: Electron Microscope, Model FEI Inspect S. Manufacturer: FEI Company, Czech Republic. Intended Use: See notice at 73 FR 21310, April 21, 2008. Docket Number: 08–013. Applicant: National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892. Instrument: Electron Microscope, Model Tecnai G2 20 Twin. Manufacturer: FEI Company, Netherlands. Intended Use: See notice at 73 FR 21310, April 21, 2008. (A–533–813) VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:27 May 22, 2008 Jkt 214001 International Trade Administration Certain Preserved Mushrooms from India: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony with Final Results of Administrative Review Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On May 8, 2008, the United States Court of International Trade (CIT) sustained the results of redetermination made by the Department of Commerce (the Department) pursuant to the CIT’s remand in Agro Dutch Industries Limited v. United States, Slip Op. 07– 185 (December 26, 2007) (Agro Dutch II). See Agro Dutch Industries Limited v. United States, Slip Op. 08–50 (May 8, 2008) (Agro Dutch III). Consistent with the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) in Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (Timken), the Department is notifying the public that the final judgment in this case is not in harmony with the Department’s final results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms from India covering the period of review (POR) of February 1, 2000, through January 31, 2001. See Certain Preserved Mushrooms From India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 67 FR 46172 (July 12, 2002), and accompanying Issues and Decisions Memorandum (Final Results). EFFECTIVE DATE: May 23, 2008. AGENCY: PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 30051 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Goldberger or Katherine Johnson, AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482–4136 or (202) 482– 4929, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On July 12, 2002, the Department issued its final results in the antidumping duty administrative review of certain preserved mushrooms from India covering the POR of February 1, 2000, through January 31, 2001. See Final Results. Agro Dutch challenged three aspects of the Department’s Final Results: (1) that the use of partial facts available and adverse inferences for certain of its sales was improper; (2) that the methodology used to determine Agro Dutch’s constructed value was in error; and (3) that the calculation of its imputed credit expenses was in error. In Agro Dutch Industries Limited v. United States, Slip Op. 07–25 (February 16, 2007) (Agro Dutch I), the CIT upheld the Department’s determinations on issues (2) and (3) regarding constructive value and imputed credit expense methodologies. However, with respect to the first issue, that the use of partial facts available and adverse inferences for certain of Agro Dutch’s sales was improper, the CIT instructed the Department on remand to revisit its determination that the use of partial facts available and adverse inferences was warranted for the transactions where the Department applied them. On March 3, 2007, the Department filed its remand redetermination and further explained its use and application of facts available in this review. In Agro Dutch II, the CIT did not accept the Department’s explanation and again remanded the case to the Department, instructing the Department to either reopen the proceeding for the limited purpose of obtaining satisfactory answers to the Department’s questions that generated the Department’s use of partial facts available, or make a determination on the basis of facts available without imputing an adverse inference on the record evidence obtained during the review. On April 3, 2008, the Department issued its final results of redetermination pursuant to Agro Dutch II. The remand redetermination explained that, in accordance with the CIT’s instructions, the Department analyzed the information on the record and made its determination for certain Agro Dutch sales on the basis of facts E:\FR\FM\23MYN1.SGM 23MYN1 30052 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 101 / Friday, May 23, 2008 / Notices available without imputing an adverse inference. The Department’s redetermination resulted in a change from the Final Results weighted–average margin for Agro Dutch from 27.80 percent to 1.54 percent. Timken Notice In its decision in Timken, 893 F.2d at 341, the CAFC 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. The CIT’s decision in Agro Dutch III on May 8, 2008, constitutes a final decision of that 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 CAFC, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to assess antidumping duties on entries of the subject merchandise during the POR from Agro Dutch based on the revised importer–specific assessment rates calculated by the Department. This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 516A(c)(1) of the Act. Dated: May 19, 2008. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8–11622 Filed 5–22–08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S same treatment previously accorded to MSPL in regard to the antidumping duty order on carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod from Trinidad and Tobago as of the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. DATES: Effective Date: May 23, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dennis McClure or Stephanie Moore; AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–5973 or (202) 482– 3692, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On January 30, 2008, MSPL requested that the Department initiate and conduct an expedited changed circumstances review to determine whether AMPL is the successor-ininterest to MSPL. On March 27, 2008, the Department initiated this review and made its preliminary determination that AMPL is the successor-in-interest to MSPL and should be treated as such for antidumping duty cash deposit purposes. See Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Trinidad and Tobago: Notice of Initiation and Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review, 73 FR 17952 (April 2, 2008) (Preliminary Results). In the Preliminary Results, we stated that interested parties could request a hearing or submit case briefs and/or written comments to the Department no later than 30 days after publication of the Preliminary Results in the Federal Register, and submit rebuttal briefs, limited to the issues raised in those case briefs, seven days subsequent to the case briefs due date. We did not receive any hearing requests or comments on the Preliminary Results. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Scope of the Order International Trade Administration The merchandise subject to this order is certain hot-rolled products of carbon steel and alloy steel, in coils, of approximately round cross section, 5.00 mm or more, but less than 19.00 mm, in solid cross-sectional diameter. Specifically excluded are steel products possessing the above-noted physical characteristics and meeting the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) definitions for (a) stainless steel; (b) tool steel; c) high nickel steel; (d) ball bearing steel; and (e) concrete reinforcing bars and rods. Also excluded are (f) free machining steel products (i.e., products that contain by weight one or more of the [A–274–804] Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Trinidad and Tobago: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) has determined that Arcelor Mittal Point Lisas Limited (AMPL) is the successor-in-interest to Mittal Steel Point Lisas Limited (MSPL) and, as a result, should be accorded the dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with NOTICES AGENCY: VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:27 May 22, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 following elements: 0.03 percent or more of lead, 0.05 percent or more of bismuth, 0.08 percent or more of sulfur, more than 0.04 percent of phosphorus, more than 0.05 percent of selenium, or more than 0.01 percent of tellurium). Also excluded from the scope are 1080 grade tire cord quality wire rod and 1080 grade tire bead quality wire rod. This grade 1080 tire cord quality rod is defined as: (i) Grade 1080 tire cord quality wire rod measuring 5.0 mm or more but not more than 6.0 mm in cross-sectional diameter; (ii) with an average partial decarburization of no more than 70 microns in depth (maximum individual 200 microns); (iii) having no non-deformable inclusions greater than 20 microns and no deformable inclusions greater than 35 microns; (iv) having a carbon segregation per heat average of 3.0 or better using European Method NFA 04– 114; (v) having a surface quality with no surface defects of a length greater than 0.15 mm; (vi) capable of being drawn to a diameter of 0.30 mm or less with 3 or fewer breaks per ton, and (vii) containing by weight the following elements in the proportions shown: (1) 0.78 percent or more of carbon, (2) less than 0.01 percent of aluminum, (3) 0.040 percent or less, in the aggregate, of phosphorus and sulfur, (4) 0.006 percent or less of nitrogen, and (5) not more than 0.15 percent, in the aggregate, of copper, nickel and chromium. This grade 1080 tire bead quality rod is defined as: (i) Grade 1080 tire bead quality wire rod measuring 5.5 mm or more but not more than 7.0 mm in cross-sectional diameter; (ii) with an average partial decarburization of no more than 70 microns in depth (maximum individual 200 microns); (iii) having no non-deformable inclusions greater than 20 microns and no deformable inclusions greater than 35 microns; (iv) having a carbon segregation per heat average of 3.0 or better using European Method NFA 04– 114; (v) having a surface quality with no surface defects of a length greater than 0.2 mm; (vi) capable of being drawn to a diameter of 0.78 mm or larger with 0.5 or fewer breaks per ton; and (vii) containing by weight the following elements in the proportions shown: (1) 0.78 percent or more of carbon, (2) less than 0.01 percent of soluble aluminum, (3) 0.040 percent or less, in the aggregate, of phosphorus and sulfur, (4) 0.008 percent or less of nitrogen, and (5) either not more than 0.15 percent, in the aggregate, of copper, nickel and chromium (if chromium is not specified), or not more than 0.10 percent in the aggregate of copper and nickel E:\FR\FM\23MYN1.SGM 23MYN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 101 (Friday, May 23, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30051-30052]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-11622]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

(A-533-813)


Certain Preserved Mushrooms from India: Notice of Court Decision 
Not in Harmony with Final Results of Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On May 8, 2008, the United States Court of International Trade 
(CIT) sustained the results of redetermination made by the Department 
of Commerce (the Department) pursuant to the CIT's remand in Agro Dutch 
Industries Limited v. United States, Slip Op. 07-185 (December 26, 
2007) (Agro Dutch II). See Agro Dutch Industries Limited v. United 
States, Slip Op. 08-50 (May 8, 2008) (Agro Dutch III). Consistent with 
the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal 
Circuit (CAFC) in Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 
1990) (Timken), the Department is notifying the public that the final 
judgment in this case is not in harmony with the Department's final 
results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on 
certain preserved mushrooms from India covering the period of review 
(POR) of February 1, 2000, through January 31, 2001. See Certain 
Preserved Mushrooms From India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 67 FR 46172 (July 12, 2002), and accompanying 
Issues and Decisions Memorandum (Final Results).

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 23, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Goldberger or Katherine Johnson, 
AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-
4136 or (202) 482-4929, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On July 12, 2002, the Department issued its final results in the 
antidumping duty administrative review of certain preserved mushrooms 
from India covering the POR of February 1, 2000, through January 31, 
2001. See Final Results. Agro Dutch challenged three aspects of the 
Department's Final Results: (1) that the use of partial facts available 
and adverse inferences for certain of its sales was improper; (2) that 
the methodology used to determine Agro Dutch's constructed value was in 
error; and (3) that the calculation of its imputed credit expenses was 
in error.
    In Agro Dutch Industries Limited v. United States, Slip Op. 07-25 
(February 16, 2007) (Agro Dutch I), the CIT upheld the Department's 
determinations on issues (2) and (3) regarding constructive value and 
imputed credit expense methodologies. However, with respect to the 
first issue, that the use of partial facts available and adverse 
inferences for certain of Agro Dutch's sales was improper, the CIT 
instructed the Department on remand to revisit its determination that 
the use of partial facts available and adverse inferences was warranted 
for the transactions where the Department applied them.
    On March 3, 2007, the Department filed its remand redetermination 
and further explained its use and application of facts available in 
this review. In Agro Dutch II, the CIT did not accept the Department's 
explanation and again remanded the case to the Department, instructing 
the Department to either reopen the proceeding for the limited purpose 
of obtaining satisfactory answers to the Department's questions that 
generated the Department's use of partial facts available, or make a 
determination on the basis of facts available without imputing an 
adverse inference on the record evidence obtained during the review.
    On April 3, 2008, the Department issued its final results of 
redetermination pursuant to Agro Dutch II. The remand redetermination 
explained that, in accordance with the CIT's instructions, the 
Department analyzed the information on the record and made its 
determination for certain Agro Dutch sales on the basis of facts

[[Page 30052]]

available without imputing an adverse inference. The Department's 
redetermination resulted in a change from the Final Results weighted-
average margin for Agro Dutch from 27.80 percent to 1.54 percent.

Timken Notice

    In its decision in Timken, 893 F.2d at 341, the CAFC 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. The 
CIT's decision in Agro Dutch III on May 8, 2008, constitutes a final 
decision of that 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 CAFC, the Department will 
instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to assess antidumping 
duties on entries of the subject merchandise during the POR from Agro 
Dutch based on the revised importer-specific assessment rates 
calculated by the Department.
    This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 
516A(c)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: May 19, 2008.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E8-11622 Filed 5-22-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S