Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results of Administrative Review, 7562-7563 [2010-3266]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
7562
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 34 / Monday, February 22, 2010 / Notices
Respondents
Annual
frequency per
response
...........................................................
........................
Data collection activity
Total ...........................................
Comments are invited on: (1) Whether
the proposed collection of information
is necessary for the proper performance
of the functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have
practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the
agency’s estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information
including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and (4) ways to minimize the
burden of the collection of information
on those who are to respond, including
the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other
technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
All comments received will be available
for public inspection during regular
business hours at the same address.
All responses to this notice will be
summarized and included in the request
for the Office of Management and
Budget approval. All comments will
become a matter of public record.
Dated: February 8, 2010.
Joe Leonard, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, United
States Department of Agriculture.
[FR Doc. 2010–3359 Filed 2–19–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–489–807]
cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing
Bars From Turkey: Notice of Court
Decision Not in Harmony With Final
Results of Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On January 19, 2010, the
United States Court of International
Trade (CIT) sustained the Department of
Commerce’s (the Department’s) results
of redetermination pursuant to the CIT’s
remand order in Nucor Corporation,
Gerdau Ameristeel Corporation, and
Commercial Metals Company v. United
States and Icdas Celik Enerji Tersane ve
Ulasim Sanayi A.S., Court No. 05–
00616, Slip Op. 10–6 (Jan. 19, 2010). See
Results of Redetermination Pursuant to
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:26 Feb 19, 2010
Jkt 220001
Remand, dated November 6, 2009
(found at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/remands).
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 steel
concrete reinforcing bars (rebar) from
Turkey covering the period of review
(POR) of April 1, 2003, through March
31, 2004. See Certain Steel Concrete
Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Final
Results, Rescission of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review in Part, and
Determination To Revoke in Part, 70 FR
67665 (Nov. 8, 2005) (Final Results).
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:
Background
On November 8, 2005, the Department
published the final results of the
administrative review. See Final
Results. In the final results, the
Department: (1) Reversed its
preliminary decision with respect to the
U.S. date of sale for ICDAS and used the
contract date as the date of sale for
ICDAS’s U.S. sales, rather than the
invoice date, because it determined that
the material terms of sale were
established at the contract date; (2)
computed ICDAS’s cost of production
(COP) using annual-average, rather than
quarterly, costs; and (3) defined the
universe of U.S. sales transactions
examined during the administrative
review to rely on the date that subject
merchandise entered the customs
territory of the United States, rather
than the date that subject merchandise
was sold here.
On November 18, 2005, the
Department requested a voluntary
remand in order to reconsider the dateof-sale issue. On December 15, 2005, the
CIT granted the Department’s request to
reconsider whether, based upon the
record evidence, the Department
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Estimated
number of
respondents
15,100
Estimated
burden per
respondent
(minutes)
........................
Total burden
estimate
(hours)
5,200
reasonably applied its date-of-sale
methodology to the facts at issue.
On January 31, 2006, the Department
issued its final results of
redetermination pursuant to the CIT’s
December 15, 2005, ruling. In its
remand results, the Department
determined that the invoice date is the
appropriate date of sale for ICDAS’s U.S.
sales in the 2003–2004 administrative
review.
On March 24, 2009, the CIT again
remanded this issue to the Department,
requiring that the Department provide a
more in-depth analysis as to why the
use of invoice date as U.S. date of sale
was appropriate. In addition, the CIT
remanded two additional issues, at the
Department’s request, related to the
calculation of ICDAS’s COP and an
explanation for the methodology used to
determine the universe of U.S. sales
examined in the review.
On November 6, 2009, the Department
issued its final results of
redetermination pursuant to the CIT’s
March 24, 2009, ruling. In its remand
redetermination the Department
explained that, in accordance with the
CIT’s instructions, it reconsidered the
issues contained in the CIT’s March 24,
2009, ruling and determined that it was
appropriate to: (1) Base ICDAS’s
universe of sales on entry date; (2) use
invoice date as the date of sale for
ICDAS’s U.S. sales; and (3) use ICDAS’s
quarterly-average costs in its margin
calculations. On January 19, 2010, the
CIT affirmed the Department’s
November 6, 2009, remand
redetermination.
The Department’s redetermination
resulted in changes to the Final Results
weighted-average margin for ICDAS
from 0.16 percent to 0.70 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 on January 19,
2010, constitutes a final decision of that
Court that is not in harmony with the
Department’s Final Results.
Accordingly, this notice is published in
E:\FR\FM\22FEN1.SGM
22FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 34 / Monday, February 22, 2010 / Notices
fulfillment of the publication
requirements of Timken, with an
effective date of January 29, 2010, (i.e.,
10 days following the CIT’s ruling). 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 ICDAS based on the revised
assessment rates calculated by the
Department.
This notice is issued and published in
accordance with section 516A(c)(1) of
the Act.
Dated: February 12, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010–3266 Filed 2–19–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–533–843]
Certain Lined Paper Products from
India: Notice of Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review
cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
AGENCY: Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On October 7, 2009, the
Department of Commerce (the
Department) published in the Federal
Register the preliminary results of the
antidumping duty administrative review
for certain lined paper products from
India (CLPP). See Certain Lined Paper
Products From India: Notice of
Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR
51558 (October 7, 2009) (Preliminary
Results). This review covers 25
manufacturers and exporters of the
subject merchandise.1 As a result of our
1 On September 29, 2008, the Department
received a timely request for an administrative
review filed on behalf of Kejriwal Paper Limited
(Kejriwal) and a timely request for an
administrative review filed on behalf of Navneet
Publications (India) Ltd., (Navneet). On September
30, 2008, the Department received a timely request
for an administrative review of the following 25
companies, filed on behalf of the Association of
American School Paper Suppliers (Petitioner), a
domestic interested party: Agility Logistics Pvt.
Ltd., Blue Bird (India) Limited (Blue Bird), Ceal
Shipping Logistics Pvt. Ltd., Cello International Pvt.
Ltd., Corporate Stationary Pvt. Ltd., Creative Divya,
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:26 Feb 19, 2010
Jkt 220001
analysis of the comments received,
these final results differ from the
Preliminary Results.
For our final results, we continue to
find that Navneet and Blue Bird made
sales of subject merchandise at less than
normal value (NV). In addition, based
on the final results for Navneet, we have
determined a weighted–average margin
for those companies that were not
selected for individual review.
DATES: Effective Date:
February 22, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Stephanie Moore (Navneet, and non–
selected companies) and Cindy
Robinson (Blue Bird), AD/CVD
Operations, Office 3, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–3692, (202) 482–
3797, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On November 25, 2008, the
Department selected Kejriwal and Blue
Bird as companies to be individually
examined in this second administrative
review of the antidumping duty order
on CLPP from India. See Memorandum
to Melissa Skinner from George
McMahon titled ‘‘Certain Lined Paper
Products from India: Selection of
Respondents for Individual Review’’
(Respondent Selection Memo), dated
November 25, 2008. On December 22,
2008, both Kejriwal and petitioner
timely withdrew their requests for a
review of Kejriwal. On January 9, 2009,
after we determined that we would
rescind the review with respect to
Kejriwal, we selected Navneet as a
mandatory respondent.
On October 7, 2009, the Department
published the Preliminary Results. As
noted in the Preliminary Results, Blue
Bird withheld requested information,
significantly impeded the proceeding,
and failed to cooperate to the best of its
ability. Therefore, pursuant to sections
776(a)(2)(A) and (C) and 776(b) of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act),
the Department preliminarily
determined that the use of facts
available for Blue Bird was appropriate,
and assigned a rate of 72.96 percent,
which was based on the highest margin
Exel India Pvt. Ltd., FFI International, Global Art
India Inc., International Greetings Pvt. Ltd., Karim
General Handmade Paper DIAR, Kejriwal Exports,
M/S Super ImpEx., Magic International, Marigold
ExIm Pvt. Ltd., Marisa International, Navneet,
Pentagon Waterlines Pvt. Ltd., Pioneer Stationery
Pvt. Ltd., Rajvansh International, Riddhi
Enterprises, SAB International, TKS Overseas,
Unlimited Accessories Worldwide, and V. Joshi Co.
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
7563
preliminarily calculated for Navneet in
this review.
Comments from Interested Parties
We invited parties to comment on our
Preliminary Results. Case briefs were
filed November 20, 2009, by Navneet,
and Blue Bird; November 24, 2009, by
petitioner; and on November 25, 2009,
by IScholar, Inc., an importer of subject
merchandise from respondent Blue
Bird. On December 4, 2009, petitioner
and Navneet filed rebuttal briefs.
Scope of the Order
The scope of this order includes
certain lined paper products, typically
school supplies (for purposes of this
scope definition, the actual use of or
labeling these products as school
supplies or non–school supplies is not
a defining characteristic) composed of
or including paper that incorporates
straight horizontal and/or vertical lines
on ten or more paper sheets (there shall
be no minimum page requirement for
loose leaf filler paper) including but not
limited to such products as single- and
multi–subject notebooks, composition
books, wireless notebooks, loose leaf or
glued filler paper, graph paper, and
laboratory notebooks, and with the
smaller dimension of the paper
measuring 6 inches to 15 inches
(inclusive) and the larger dimension of
the paper measuring 8–3/4 inches to 15
inches (inclusive). Page dimensions are
measured size (not advertised, stated, or
‘‘tear–out’’ size), and are measured as
they appear in the product (i.e., stitched
and folded pages in a notebook are
measured by the size of the page as it
appears in the notebook page, not the
size of the unfolded paper). However,
for measurement purposes, pages with
tapered or rounded edges shall be
measured at their longest and widest
points. Subject lined paper products
may be loose, packaged or bound using
any binding method (other than case
bound through the inclusion of binders
board, a spine strip, and cover wrap).
Subject merchandise may or may not
contain any combination of a front
cover, a rear cover, and/or backing of
any composition, regardless of the
inclusion of images or graphics on the
cover, backing, or paper. Subject
merchandise is within the scope of this
order whether or not the lined paper
and/or cover are hole punched, drilled,
perforated, and/or reinforced. Subject
merchandise may contain accessory or
informational items including but not
limited to pockets, tabs, dividers,
closure devices, index cards, stencils,
protractors, writing implements,
reference materials such as
mathematical tables, or printed items
E:\FR\FM\22FEN1.SGM
22FEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 34 (Monday, February 22, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7562-7563]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-3266]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-489-807]
Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey: Notice of
Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results of Administrative
Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On January 19, 2010, the United States Court of International
Trade (CIT) sustained the Department of Commerce's (the Department's)
results of redetermination pursuant to the CIT's remand order in Nucor
Corporation, Gerdau Ameristeel Corporation, and Commercial Metals
Company v. United States and Icdas Celik Enerji Tersane ve Ulasim
Sanayi A.S., Court No. 05-00616, Slip Op. 10-6 (Jan. 19, 2010). See
Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Remand, dated November 6, 2009
(found at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/remands). 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 steel
concrete reinforcing bars (rebar) from Turkey covering the period of
review (POR) of April 1, 2003, through March 31, 2004. See Certain
Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Final Results, Rescission
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part, and Determination To
Revoke in Part, 70 FR 67665 (Nov. 8, 2005) (Final Results).
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:
Background
On November 8, 2005, the Department published the final results of
the administrative review. See Final Results. In the final results, the
Department: (1) Reversed its preliminary decision with respect to the
U.S. date of sale for ICDAS and used the contract date as the date of
sale for ICDAS's U.S. sales, rather than the invoice date, because it
determined that the material terms of sale were established at the
contract date; (2) computed ICDAS's cost of production (COP) using
annual-average, rather than quarterly, costs; and (3) defined the
universe of U.S. sales transactions examined during the administrative
review to rely on the date that subject merchandise entered the customs
territory of the United States, rather than the date that subject
merchandise was sold here.
On November 18, 2005, the Department requested a voluntary remand
in order to reconsider the date-of-sale issue. On December 15, 2005,
the CIT granted the Department's request to reconsider whether, based
upon the record evidence, the Department reasonably applied its date-
of-sale methodology to the facts at issue.
On January 31, 2006, the Department issued its final results of
redetermination pursuant to the CIT's December 15, 2005, ruling. In its
remand results, the Department determined that the invoice date is the
appropriate date of sale for ICDAS's U.S. sales in the 2003-2004
administrative review.
On March 24, 2009, the CIT again remanded this issue to the
Department, requiring that the Department provide a more in-depth
analysis as to why the use of invoice date as U.S. date of sale was
appropriate. In addition, the CIT remanded two additional issues, at
the Department's request, related to the calculation of ICDAS's COP and
an explanation for the methodology used to determine the universe of
U.S. sales examined in the review.
On November 6, 2009, the Department issued its final results of
redetermination pursuant to the CIT's March 24, 2009, ruling. In its
remand redetermination the Department explained that, in accordance
with the CIT's instructions, it reconsidered the issues contained in
the CIT's March 24, 2009, ruling and determined that it was appropriate
to: (1) Base ICDAS's universe of sales on entry date; (2) use invoice
date as the date of sale for ICDAS's U.S. sales; and (3) use ICDAS's
quarterly-average costs in its margin calculations. On January 19,
2010, the CIT affirmed the Department's November 6, 2009, remand
redetermination.
The Department's redetermination resulted in changes to the Final
Results weighted-average margin for ICDAS from 0.16 percent to 0.70
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 on January 19, 2010, constitutes a final
decision of that Court that is not in harmony with the Department's
Final Results. Accordingly, this notice is published in
[[Page 7563]]
fulfillment of the publication requirements of Timken, with an
effective date of January 29, 2010, (i.e., 10 days following the CIT's
ruling). 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 ICDAS based on the revised assessment rates
calculated by the Department.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with section
516A(c)(1) of the Act.
Dated: February 12, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-3266 Filed 2-19-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
