Oil Country Tubular Goods, Other Than Drill Pipe, from Korea: Amended Final Results of the Administrative Review Pursuant to Final Court Decision, 12112-12113 [E9-6326]
Download as PDF
12112
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 54 / Monday, March 23, 2009 / Notices
opportunity to fully review and provide
comments regarding this project, the
decision was made to withdraw the
ROD of July 2007 and issue a second
draft work plan and second draft EIS for
the Lost River Subwatershed Project.
Dated: February 19, 2009.
Kevin Wickey,
State Conservationist.
[FR Doc. E9–6247 Filed 3–20–09; 8:45 am]
growing economic activities arising
from innovative and advancing
technologies, and provides
recommendations from the perspectives
of the economics profession, business,
and government. This will be the
Committee’s eighteenth meeting.
Dated: March 13, 2009.
Rosemary D. Marcuss,
Deputy Director, Bureau of Economic
Analysis.
[FR Doc. E9–6248 Filed 3–20–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–16–P
BILLING CODE 3510–06–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Economics and Statistics
Administration
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Bureau of Economic Analysis Advisory
Committee
(A–533–848)
Bureau of Economic Analysis,
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of public meeting.
Commodity Matchbooks from India:
Notice of Extension of Time Limits for
Preliminary Determination of
Antidumping Duty Investigation
International Trade Administration
dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–
463 as amended by Pub. L. 94–409, Pub.
L. 96–523, Pub. L. 97–375 and Pub. L.
105–153), we are announcing a meeting
of the Bureau of Economic Analysis
Advisory Committee. The meeting will
address ways in which the national
economic accounts can be presented
more effectively for current economic
analysis and recent statistical
developments in national accounting.
DATES: Friday, May 1, 2009, the meeting
will begin at 9 a.m. and adjourn at 3:30
p.m.
ADDRESSES: The meeting will take place
at the Bureau of Economic Analysis at
1441 L St. NW., Washington, DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jeffrey Newman, Media and Outreach
Lead, Bureau of Economic Analysis,
U.S. Department of Commerce,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone
number: (202) 606–9265.
Public Participation: This meeting is
open to the public. Because of security
procedures, anyone planning to attend
the meeting must contact Jeffrey
Newman of BEA at (202) 606–9265 in
advance. The meeting is physically
accessible to people with disabilities.
Requests for foreign language
interpretation or other auxiliary aids
should be directed to Jeffrey Newman at
(202) 606–9265.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Committee was established September
2, 1999. The Committee advises the
Director of BEA on matters related to the
development and improvement of BEA’s
national, regional, industry, and
international economic accounts,
especially in areas of new and rapidly
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:47 Mar 20, 2009
Jkt 217001
AGENCY: Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 23, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Elizabeth Eastwood, 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) 482–3874.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Postponement of Preliminary
Determination
On November 24, 2008, the
Department of Commerce (the
Department) published a notice of
initiation of antidumping investigation
of imports of commodity matchbooks
from India. See Commodity Matchbooks
from India: Initiation of Antidumping
Duty Investigation, 73 FR 70965 (Nov.
24, 2008). The notice of initiation stated
that we would issue our preliminary
determination no later than 140 days
after the date of initiation, in accordance
with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff
Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The
preliminary determination is currently
due no later than April 7, 2009.
On March 12, 2009, the petitioner, D.
D. Bean & Sons Co., made a timely
request pursuant to section 733(c)(1)(A)
of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(e) for a
50–day extension of the preliminary
determination. The petitioner requested
that the determination be extended due
to the complexities of the case and the
difficulty in obtaining useable
information from the sole respondent,
Triveni Safety Matches Pvt. Ltd.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Under section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act,
if the petitioner makes a timely request
for an extension of the period within
which the preliminary determination
must be made under subsection (b)(1),
then the Department may postpone
making the preliminary determination
under subsection (b)(1) until not later
than the 190th day after the date on
which the administering authority
initiated the investigation. Therefore, for
the reasons identified by the petitioner
and because there are no compelling
reasons to deny the request, the
Department is postponing the
preliminary determination in this
investigation until May 27, 2009, which
is 190 days from the date on which the
Department initiated this investigation.
This notice is issued and published
pursuant to section 733(c)(2) of the Act
and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1).
Dated: March 16, 2009.
John M. Andersen,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Operations.
[FR Doc. E9–6177 Filed 3–20–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
(A–580–825)
Oil Country Tubular Goods, Other
Than Drill Pipe, from Korea: Amended
Final Results of the Administrative
Review Pursuant to Final Court
Decision
AGENCY: Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 23, 2009.
SUMMARY: On December 22, 2008, the
United States Court of International
Trade (CIT) sustained the Department of
Commerce (the Department) results of
redetermination pursuant to the CIT
remand and entered final judgment in
Husteel Company, Ltd. and SeAH Corp.,
Ltd., v. United States, Consol. Ct. No.
06–00075, Slip Op. 08–139 (CIT
December 22, 2008) (Husteel v. United
States III). See Results of
Redetermination on Remand Pursuant
to Husteel Company, Ltd., and SeAH
Corp., Ltd., v. United States, dated
December 5, 2008 (Final Remand
Results) (available at https://
ia.ita.doc.gov/remands).
As there is now a final and conclusive
court decision in this case, the
Department is amending its final results
to the administrative review covering oil
country tubular goods, other than drill
E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM
23MRN1
12113
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 54 / Monday, March 23, 2009 / Notices
pipe, from Korea covering the period of
review (POR) of August 1, 2003 through
July 31, 2004 to reflect the Final
Remand Results.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Scott Lindsay, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 6, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202)
482–0780.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
Background
This matter arose from a challenge to
Oil Country Tubular Goods, Other Than
Drill Pipe, from Korea: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 71 FR 13091 (March 14, 2006)
(Final Results), and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum
covering the POR of August 1, 2003
through July 31, 2004. In the Final
Results, the Department found that the
use of third country sales to a non–
market economy, the People’s Republic
of China (PRC) in this case, were
inappropriate for determining normal
value, because these sales were not
representative. Id. As such, in
calculating normal value for SeAH Steel
Corp. Ltd. (SeAH), the Department used
SeAH’s third country sales to Canada,
and in calculating normal value for
Husteel Co. Ltd. (Husteel), the
Department used constructed value.
Therefore, SeAH was assigned a rate of
6.84 percent, and Husteel was assigned
a rate of 12.30 percent. Id.
In Husteel Co., Ltd. and SeAH Steel
Corporation Ltd. v. United States,
Consol. Ct. No. 06–00075, Slip Op. 06–
2 (May 15, 2007 CIT), the CIT remanded
the Department’s Final Results holding
that Department did not adequately
explain its basis for finding that the
prices of HuSteel’s and SeAH’s
(collectively plaintiffs) sales to the PRC
were not representative pursuant to
section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii)(I) of the Tariff
Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).
Specifically, the CIT found that the
Department failed to explain: (1) why
plaintiffs’ sales should be treated as
sales into a non–market economy
(NME); and (2) why the Department
treated plaintiffs’ price data differently
than it treats price data for sales from
market economy suppliers to NME
respondents in its NME dumping cases.
On October 30, 2007, the Department
issued its Results of Redetermination on
Remand Pursuant to Husteel Co., Ltd.
and SeAH Steel Corporation Ltd. v.
United States, Consol. Ct. No. 06–00075,
Slip Op. 06–2 (May 15, 2007 CIT),
(Remand Results I). In Remand Results
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:28 Mar 20, 2009
Jkt 217001
I, the Department continued to find
Plaintiffs’ sales into the PRC were not
representative of section
773(a)(1)(B)(ii)(I) of the Act and
provided additional support for this
determination.
In Husteel Company, Ltd., and SeAH
Corp., Ltd., v. United States, Consol. Ct.
No. 06–00075, Slip Op. 08–62 (CIT June
2, 2008) (HuSteel vs United States II),
the CIT remanded the Department’s
Remand Results I, holding that the
Department’s finding, that sales into an
NME are not representative, was not
supported by substantial record
evidence. The CIT directed the
Department to either present persuasive
record evidence that plaintiffs’ sales
into the PRC were not representative
within the meaning of 19 U.S.C.
§ 1677b(a)(1)(B)(ii)(I), or find the sales
into the PRC to be representative, and
then recalculate and assign the plaintiffs
new antidumping duty assessment rates.
On August 29, 2008, the Department
issued its final results of
redetermination pursuant to Husteel vs
United States II. See Results of
Redetermination on Remand Pursuant
to Husteel Company, Ltd., and SeAH
Corp., Ltd., v. United States (August 29,
2008) (Remand Results II). The remand
redetermination explained that, in
accordance with the CIT’s instructions,
after finding sales to the PRC to be
representative, the Department
recalculated the assessment rate for
SeAH and Husteel. Specifically, the
Department determined SeAH’s new
weighted–average margin to be 0.59
percent, and Husteel’s new weighted–
average margin to be 0.62 percent.
However, in the Remand Results II for
Husteel, the Department inadvertently
treated certain Korean inventory
carrying costs as if they were
denominated in U.S. dollars when they,
in fact, had been denominated in
Korean won. Therefore, in Husteel
Company Ltd. and SeAH Corp. Ltd., v.
United States, Consol. Ct. No. 06–
000075, Slip Op. 08–127 (CIT November
21, 2008), the CIT upheld the
Department’s Remand Results II, with
the exception of the calculation of
certain inventory carrying costs. The
CIT ordered the Department to correct
its calculation of Husteel’s Korean
inventory carrying costs. In accordance
with the CIT’s order, the Department
corrected its calculation with regard to
Husteel’s Korean inventory carrying
costs. See Final Remand Results. As a
result, Husteel’s new dumping margin is
now de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50
percent) and SeAH’s margin remains
0.59 percent.
On January 29, 2009, consistent with
the decision in Timken Co. v. United
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 1990), the
Department notified the public that the
CIT’s decision was not in harmony with
Department’s final results. See Oil
Country Tubular Goods, Other Than
Drill Pipe, From Korea: Notice of Court
Decision Not in Harmony with Final
Results of Administrative Review, 74 FR
5147 (January 29, 2009). There was no
appeal of the CIT’s decision to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
filed within the appeal period.
Therefore, the CIT’s decision is now
final and conclusive.
Amended Final Results of the Review
As the litigation in this case has
concluded, the Department is amending
the Final Results to reflect the results of
our remand redetermination. The
revised dumping margin in the
amended final results is as follows:
Exporter/Manufacturer
Husteel Company, Ltd ..
SeAH Corp., Ltd. ..........
Weighted–Average
Margin (Percent)
de minimis
0.59
The Department will instruct U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to
liquidate entries of OCTG from Korea
during the review period at the
assessment rate the Department
calculated for the final results of review,
as amended. Pursuant to 19 CFR
351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to
liquidate without regard to antidumping
duties any entries for which the
assessment rate is de minimis. We
intend to issue assessment instructions
to CBP 15 days after the date of
publication of these amended final
results of review.
This notice is published in
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and
777(i) of the Act.
Dated: March March 13, 2009.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E9–6326 Filed 3–20–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
RIN 0648–XN80
Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic
Zone off Alaska; Application for an
Exempted Fishing Permit
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM
23MRN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 54 (Monday, March 23, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12112-12113]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-6326]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
(A-580-825)
Oil Country Tubular Goods, Other Than Drill Pipe, from Korea:
Amended Final Results of the Administrative Review Pursuant to Final
Court Decision
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 23, 2009.
SUMMARY: On December 22, 2008, the United States Court of International
Trade (CIT) sustained the Department of Commerce (the Department)
results of redetermination pursuant to the CIT remand and entered final
judgment in Husteel Company, Ltd. and SeAH Corp., Ltd., v. United
States, Consol. Ct. No. 06-00075, Slip Op. 08-139 (CIT December 22,
2008) (Husteel v. United States III). See Results of Redetermination on
Remand Pursuant to Husteel Company, Ltd., and SeAH Corp., Ltd., v.
United States, dated December 5, 2008 (Final Remand Results) (available
at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/remands).
As there is now a final and conclusive court decision in this case,
the Department is amending its final results to the administrative
review covering oil country tubular goods, other than drill
[[Page 12113]]
pipe, from Korea covering the period of review (POR) of August 1, 2003
through July 31, 2004 to reflect the Final Remand Results.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Lindsay, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0780.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
This matter arose from a challenge to Oil Country Tubular Goods,
Other Than Drill Pipe, from Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 71 FR 13091 (March 14, 2006) (Final Results),
and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum covering the POR of
August 1, 2003 through July 31, 2004. In the Final Results, the
Department found that the use of third country sales to a non-market
economy, the People's Republic of China (PRC) in this case, were
inappropriate for determining normal value, because these sales were
not representative. Id. As such, in calculating normal value for SeAH
Steel Corp. Ltd. (SeAH), the Department used SeAH's third country sales
to Canada, and in calculating normal value for Husteel Co. Ltd.
(Husteel), the Department used constructed value. Therefore, SeAH was
assigned a rate of 6.84 percent, and Husteel was assigned a rate of
12.30 percent. Id.
In Husteel Co., Ltd. and SeAH Steel Corporation Ltd. v. United
States, Consol. Ct. No. 06-00075, Slip Op. 06-2 (May 15, 2007 CIT), the
CIT remanded the Department's Final Results holding that Department did
not adequately explain its basis for finding that the prices of
HuSteel's and SeAH's (collectively plaintiffs) sales to the PRC were
not representative pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii)(I) of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Specifically, the CIT found
that the Department failed to explain: (1) why plaintiffs' sales should
be treated as sales into a non-market economy (NME); and (2) why the
Department treated plaintiffs' price data differently than it treats
price data for sales from market economy suppliers to NME respondents
in its NME dumping cases. On October 30, 2007, the Department issued
its Results of Redetermination on Remand Pursuant to Husteel Co., Ltd.
and SeAH Steel Corporation Ltd. v. United States, Consol. Ct. No. 06-
00075, Slip Op. 06-2 (May 15, 2007 CIT), (Remand Results I). In Remand
Results I, the Department continued to find Plaintiffs' sales into the
PRC were not representative of section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii)(I) of the Act
and provided additional support for this determination.
In Husteel Company, Ltd., and SeAH Corp., Ltd., v. United States,
Consol. Ct. No. 06-00075, Slip Op. 08-62 (CIT June 2, 2008) (HuSteel vs
United States II), the CIT remanded the Department's Remand Results I,
holding that the Department's finding, that sales into an NME are not
representative, was not supported by substantial record evidence. The
CIT directed the Department to either present persuasive record
evidence that plaintiffs' sales into the PRC were not representative
within the meaning of 19 U.S.C. Sec. 1677b(a)(1)(B)(ii)(I), or find
the sales into the PRC to be representative, and then recalculate and
assign the plaintiffs new antidumping duty assessment rates. On August
29, 2008, the Department issued its final results of redetermination
pursuant to Husteel vs United States II. See Results of Redetermination
on Remand Pursuant to Husteel Company, Ltd., and SeAH Corp., Ltd., v.
United States (August 29, 2008) (Remand Results II). The remand
redetermination explained that, in accordance with the CIT's
instructions, after finding sales to the PRC to be representative, the
Department recalculated the assessment rate for SeAH and Husteel.
Specifically, the Department determined SeAH's new weighted-average
margin to be 0.59 percent, and Husteel's new weighted-average margin to
be 0.62 percent.
However, in the Remand Results II for Husteel, the Department
inadvertently treated certain Korean inventory carrying costs as if
they were denominated in U.S. dollars when they, in fact, had been
denominated in Korean won. Therefore, in Husteel Company Ltd. and SeAH
Corp. Ltd., v. United States, Consol. Ct. No. 06-000075, Slip Op. 08-
127 (CIT November 21, 2008), the CIT upheld the Department's Remand
Results II, with the exception of the calculation of certain inventory
carrying costs. The CIT ordered the Department to correct its
calculation of Husteel's Korean inventory carrying costs. In accordance
with the CIT's order, the Department corrected its calculation with
regard to Husteel's Korean inventory carrying costs. See Final Remand
Results. As a result, Husteel's new dumping margin is now de minimis
(i.e., less than 0.50 percent) and SeAH's margin remains 0.59 percent.
On January 29, 2009, consistent with the decision in Timken Co. v.
United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 1990), the Department notified
the public that the CIT's decision was not in harmony with Department's
final results. See Oil Country Tubular Goods, Other Than Drill Pipe,
From Korea: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony with Final Results
of Administrative Review, 74 FR 5147 (January 29, 2009). There was no
appeal of the CIT's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit filed within the appeal period. Therefore, the CIT's
decision is now final and conclusive.
Amended Final Results of the Review
As the litigation in this case has concluded, the Department is
amending the Final Results to reflect the results of our remand
redetermination. The revised dumping margin in the amended final
results is as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-Average
Exporter/Manufacturer Margin (Percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Husteel Company, Ltd................................ de minimis
SeAH Corp., Ltd..................................... 0.59
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP) to liquidate entries of OCTG from Korea during the review period
at the assessment rate the Department calculated for the final results
of review, as amended. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will
instruct CBP to liquidate without regard to antidumping duties any
entries for which the assessment rate is de minimis. We intend to issue
assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of
these amended final results of review.
This notice is published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and
777(i) of the Act.
Dated: March March 13, 2009.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E9-6326 Filed 3-20-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S