Certain Preserved Mushrooms from India: Notice of Amended Final Results Pursuant to Final Court Decision, 18151-18152 [2010-8164]

Download as PDF srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 68 / Friday, April 9, 2010 / Notices Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110–2993 Phone: 717/237–2203 Fax: 717/237–2238 (V) 9039–2203 (E) dave.brown@pa.usda.gov PR—Angel Figueroa, Acting Director, Caribbean Area IBM Building, Suite 604 654 Munoz Rivera Avenue Hato Rey, Puerto Rico 00918–4123 Phone: 787/766–5206, ext. 237 Fax: 787/766–5987 (V) 9000–769–1030 (E) angel.figueroa@wdc.usda.gov RI—Richard ‘‘Pooh’’ Vongkhamdy 60 Quaker Lane, Suite 46 Warwick, Rhode Island 02886–0111 Phone: 401/828–1300 Fax: 401/828–0433 (V) 9023–115 (E) pooh.vongkhamdy@ri.usda.gov SC—Keisha Brown, Acting Strom Thurmond Federal Building 1835 Assembly Street, Room 950 Columbia, South Carolina 29201–2489 Phone: 803/253–3935 Fax: 803/253–3670 (V) 9031–3940 (E) Keisha.brown@sc.usda.gov SD—Janet L. Oertly Federal Building, Room 203 200 Fourth Street, S.W. Huron, South Dakota 57350–2475 Phone: 605/352–1200 Fax: 605/352–1288 (V) 9036–1201 (E) janet.oertly@sd.usda.gov TN—Kevin Brown 675 U.S. Courthouse 801 Broadway Nashville, Tennessee 37203–3878 Phone: 615/277–2531 Fax: 615/277–2578 (V) 9058–2530 (E) kevin.brown@tn.usda.gov TX—Donald W. Gohmert W.R. Poage Federal Building 101 South Main Street Temple, Texas 76501–7602 Phone: 254/742–9800 Fax: 254/742–9819 (V) 9038–9803 (E) don.gohmert@tx.usda.gov UT—Sylvia A. Gillen W.F. Bennett Federal Building 125 South State Street, Room 4402 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Phone: 801/524–4555 Fax: 801/524–4403 (V) 9000–625–1550 (E) sylvia.gillen@ut.usda.gov VT—Judith M. Doerner 356 Mountain View Drive, Suite 105 Colchester, Vermont 05446 Phone: 802/951–6795 Fax: 802/951–6327 (V) 9000–768–1240 (E) judy.doerner@vt.usda.gov VA—Vicky Drew, Acting Jack Bricker Culpeper Building, Suite 209 1606 Santa Rosa Road Richmond, Virginia 23229–5014 Phone: 804/287–1691 VerDate Nov<24>2008 17:07 Apr 08, 2010 Jkt 220001 Fax: 804/287–1737 (V) 9003–1682 (E) jack.bricker@va.usda.gov WA—Roylene Rides at the Door Rock Pointe Tower II W. 316 Boone Avenue, Suite 450 Spokane, Washington 99201–2348 Phone: 509/323–2900 Fax: 509/323–2909 (V) 9035–2901 (E) door@wa.usda.gov WV—Kevin Wickey 75 High Street, Room 301 Morgantown, West Virginia 26505 Phone: 304/284–7540 Fax: 304/284–4839 (V) 9049–7542 (E) kevin.wickey@wv.usda.gov WI—Ivan Dozier, Acting Patricia Leavenworth 8030 Excelsior Drive, Suite 200 Madison, Wisconsin 53717 Phone: 608/662–4422 Fax: 608/662–4430 (V) 9018–222 (E) pat.leavenworth@wi.usda.gov WY—J. Xavier Montoya Federal Building, Room 3124 100 East B Street Casper, Wyoming 82601–1911 Phone: 307/233–6750 Fax: 307/233–6753 (V) 9000–951–1015 (E) Xavier.montoya@wy.usda.gov [FR Doc. 2010–8143 Filed 4–8–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410–16–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–533–813] Certain Preserved Mushrooms from India: Notice of Amended Final Results Pursuant to Final Court Decision 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 (CIT December 26, 2007) (Agro Dutch II). See Agro Dutch Industries Limited v. United States, Slip Op. 08– 50 (CIT May 8, 2008) (Agro Dutch III). Subsequent to the CIT’s judgment upholding Commerce’s remand redetermination, in October 2008, the CIT exercised its equitable power to order reliquidation of some of Agro Dutch’s entries. See Agro Dutch Industries Limited v. United States, Slip Op. 08–110 (CIT October 17, 2008) (Agro Dutch IV). The Government appealed the CIT’s decision in Agro PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 18151 Dutch IV to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), and on December 15, 2009, the CAFC affirmed the CIT’s decision. See Agro Dutch Industries Limited v. United States, Slip Op. 2009–1127 (Fed.Cir. December 15, 2009) (Agro Dutch V). As there is now a final and conclusive court decision in this case, the Department is amending the final results of the 2000–2001 administrative review of certain preserved mushrooms from India. EFFECTIVE DATE: April 9, 2010. 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 period of review 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). Agro Dutch challenged certain 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; (3) that the calculation of its imputed credit expenses was in error; and (4) that its entries were improperly and prematurely liquidated. In Agro Dutch Industries Limited v. United States, Slip Op. 07–25 (CIT 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. 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 E:\FR\FM\09APN1.SGM 09APN1 18152 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 68 / Friday, April 9, 2010 / Notices and again remanded the case to the Department. 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 available without imputing an adverse inference. The Department’s redetermination resulted in a change to the Final Results weighted–average margin for Agro Dutch from 27.80 percent to 1.54 percent. The CIT sustained the Department’s remand redetermination on May 8, 2008. See Agro Dutch III. On May 23, 2008, 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 the Department’s Final Results. See Certain Preserved Mushrooms from India: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony with Final Results of Administrative Review, 73 FR 30051 (May 23, 2008). Subsequent to the CIT’s judgment upholding Commerce’s remand redetermination, in October 2008, the CIT exercised its equitable power to order reliquidation of some of Agro Dutch’s entries. Specifically, the CIT amended the effective date of the injunction retroactively to the date the CIT granted the injunction (i.e., October 1, 2002) and ordered that Agro Dutch’s entries of subject merchandise that were liquidated on or after October 1, 2002, pursuant to the Department’s Final Results, be reliquidated in accordance with the CIT’s judgment in Agro Dutch III. See Agro Dutch IV. The Government appealed the CIT’s decision in Agro Dutch IV to the CAFC and on December 15, 2009, the CAFC affirmed the CIT’s decision. See Agro Dutch V. Because there is now a final and conclusive court decision in this case, the Department is amending the final results of the 2000–2001 administrative review. srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES Amended Final Results of Review We are amending the final results of the 2000–2001 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms from India to reflect the results of our remand redetermination. Specifically, the Department’s redetermination resulted in changes to the Final Results weighted–average margin for Agro Dutch from 27.80 percent to 1.54 percent. VerDate Nov<24>2008 17:07 Apr 08, 2010 Jkt 220001 Assessment The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries for this review in accordance with these amended final results of review. Additionally, pursuant to the CIT’s decision in Agro Dutch IV, as affirmed by the CAFC, the Department will instruct CBP to reliquidate, in accordance with these amended final results of review, Agro Dutch’s entries of subject merchandise that were liquidated on or after October 1, 2002, pursuant to the Final Results. We intend to issue the assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these amended final results of review. This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: April 2, 2010. John M. Andersen, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. 2010–8164 Filed 4–8–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C–533–821] Certain Hot–Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India: Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gayle Longest, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 4014, 14th Street and Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482–3338. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On January 11, 2010, the U.S. Department of Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) published a notice of preliminary results of the administrative review of the countervailing duty order on certain hot–rolled carbon steel flat products from India covering the period January 1, 2008, through December 31, 2008. See Certain Hot–Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From India: Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 1496 (January 11, 2010). Therefore, the final PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 results were originally due no later than May 11, 2010. As explained in the memorandum from the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, the Department has exercised its discretion to toll deadlines for the duration of the closure of the Federal Government from February 5, through February 12, 2010. Thus, all deadlines in this segment of the proceeding have been extended by seven days. The revised deadline for the final results of this review is now May 18, 2010. See Memorandum to the Record from Ronald Lorentzen, DAS for Import Administration, regarding ‘‘Tolling of Administrative Deadlines As a Result of the Government Closure During the Recent Snowstorm,’’ dated February 12, 2010. Extension of Time Limit for Final Results Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’), requires the Department to make a final determination within 120 days after the date on which the preliminary results is published. Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act further states that if it is not practicable to complete the review within the time period specified, the administering authority may extend the 120-day period to issue its final results to up to 180 days. Due to the issues in this administrative review, such as the number and complexity of programs under review during the POR, we have determined that it is not practicable to complete the final results within the 120-day period. Therefore, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, we are extending the time period for issuing the final results of the review by 60 days. The final results are now due no later than July 17, 2010. However, because July 17, 2010, falls on a weekend, the actual due date will be the first business day following the weekend, i.e., July 19, 2010. This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. Dated: April 5, 2010. John M. Andersen, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations. [FR Doc. 2010–8158 Filed 4–8–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S E:\FR\FM\09APN1.SGM 09APN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 68 (Friday, April 9, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18151-18152]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-8164]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-533-813]


Certain Preserved Mushrooms from India: Notice of Amended Final 
Results Pursuant to Final Court Decision

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 (CIT December 26, 
2007) (Agro Dutch II). See Agro Dutch Industries Limited v. United 
States, Slip Op. 08-50 (CIT May 8, 2008) (Agro Dutch III). Subsequent 
to the CIT's judgment upholding Commerce's remand redetermination, in 
October 2008, the CIT exercised its equitable power to order 
reliquidation of some of Agro Dutch's entries. See Agro Dutch 
Industries Limited v. United States, Slip Op. 08-110 (CIT October 17, 
2008) (Agro Dutch IV). The Government appealed the CIT's decision in 
Agro Dutch IV to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal 
Circuit (CAFC), and on December 15, 2009, the CAFC affirmed the CIT's 
decision. See Agro Dutch Industries Limited v. United States, Slip Op. 
2009-1127 (Fed.Cir. December 15, 2009) (Agro Dutch V). As there is now 
a final and conclusive court decision in this case, the Department is 
amending the final results of the 2000-2001 administrative review of 
certain preserved mushrooms from India.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 9, 2010.

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 period of review 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). Agro Dutch challenged certain 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; (3) that the calculation of its imputed credit expenses was in 
error; and (4) that its entries were improperly and prematurely 
liquidated.
    In Agro Dutch Industries Limited v. United States, Slip Op. 07-25 
(CIT 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.
    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

[[Page 18152]]

and again remanded the case to the Department.
    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 
available without imputing an adverse inference. The Department's 
redetermination resulted in a change to the Final Results weighted-
average margin for Agro Dutch from 27.80 percent to 1.54 percent. The 
CIT sustained the Department's remand redetermination on May 8, 2008. 
See Agro Dutch III. On May 23, 2008, 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 the Department's Final Results. See Certain Preserved 
Mushrooms from India: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony with 
Final Results of Administrative Review, 73 FR 30051 (May 23, 2008).
    Subsequent to the CIT's judgment upholding Commerce's remand 
redetermination, in October 2008, the CIT exercised its equitable power 
to order reliquidation of some of Agro Dutch's entries. Specifically, 
the CIT amended the effective date of the injunction retroactively to 
the date the CIT granted the injunction (i.e., October 1, 2002) and 
ordered that Agro Dutch's entries of subject merchandise that were 
liquidated on or after October 1, 2002, pursuant to the Department's 
Final Results, be reliquidated in accordance with the CIT's judgment in 
Agro Dutch III. See Agro Dutch IV.
    The Government appealed the CIT's decision in Agro Dutch IV to the 
CAFC and on December 15, 2009, the CAFC affirmed the CIT's decision. 
See Agro Dutch V. Because there is now a final and conclusive court 
decision in this case, the Department is amending the final results of 
the 2000-2001 administrative review.

Amended Final Results of Review

    We are amending the final results of the 2000-2001 administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms 
from India to reflect the results of our remand redetermination. 
Specifically, the Department's redetermination resulted in changes to 
the Final Results weighted-average margin for Agro Dutch from 27.80 
percent to 1.54 percent.

Assessment

    The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection 
(CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries for this 
review in accordance with these amended final results of review. 
Additionally, pursuant to the CIT's decision in Agro Dutch IV, as 
affirmed by the CAFC, the Department will instruct CBP to reliquidate, 
in accordance with these amended final results of review, Agro Dutch's 
entries of subject merchandise that were liquidated on or after October 
1, 2002, pursuant to the Final Results. We intend to issue the 
assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of 
these amended final results of review.
    This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 
751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: April 2, 2010.
John M. Andersen,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-8164 Filed 4-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.