North American Free-Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Article 1904 Binational Panel Reviews, 14917-14918 [2011-6311]
Download as PDF
Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2011 / Notices
have also provided evidence to
demonstrate that finishing processes in
the United Kingdom may add little
value to the merchandise imported into
the United Kingdom, as exported to the
United States. Though UKCG provides
rebuttal evidence to demonstrate that
the processes performed in the United
Kingdom are, indeed, sophisticated and
contend that Petitioners’ arguments are
based on the incorrect conclusion that
the SDGE component inputs sourced
from the PRC are in-scope (citing to the
U.K. Customs and CBP rulings noted
above), we do not find that their
arguments are sufficient to deter the
Department from initiating an anticircumvention inquiry to attain more
information regarding the concerns
raised by Petitioners. As a result, our
subsequent analysis will focus on
UKCG’s machining and finishing
operations in the United Kingdom (in
addition to information regarding
pattern of trade, as discussed below)
and we will closely examine the nature
of the materials sourced from the PRC
and whether those materials are subject
to the scope of the SDGE Order.
With respect to the value of the
merchandise produced in the PRC
pursuant to section 781(b)(1)(D) of the
Act, Petitioners rely on their ‘‘minor or
insignificant processing’’ arguments
summarized above, as well as certain
proprietary cost information provided in
the initial Petition, to indicate that the
value of the unfinished SDGE
components may be significant relative
to the total value of a the finished SDGE
exported to the United States. We find
that the information, as discussed
above, adequately meets the
requirements for initiation pursuant to
section 781(b)(1)(D) of the Act.
Regarding whether action is needed to
prevent evasion of the SDGE Order,
pursuant to section 781(b)(1)(E) of the
Act, Petitioners do not address this
issue directly, instead addressing this
criterion in their arguments regarding
‘‘pattern of trade’’ pursuant to section
781(b)(3) of the Act. Specifically, they
rebut UKCG’s reliance on the BOI ruling
and the CBP ruling as support for either
the appropriateness of the HTS 3801
sub-classification for the unfinished
components or confirmation of U.K.
origin of the finished merchandise in
question. Petitioners conclude that
neither ruling is relevant for the
purposes of the issues present in the
instant proceeding. Conversely, UKCG
emphasizes the weight of these
determinations and implores the
Department to consider them in its
analysis on the issue of proper
classification of the unfinished SDGE
components for the purposes of this
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:30 Mar 17, 2011
Jkt 223001
initiation determination. We will seek
more information regarding the proper
country of origin classification for the
finished SDGE imported into the United
States; however, we note that Petitioners
are correct to point out that neither the
BOI nor the CBP ruling are legally
binding for the purposes of antidumping
proceedings in the United States.61
While we will give each document due
consideration for the purposes of our
ultimate anti-circumvention
determination, we do not find the
content of either document sufficient to
compel the Department to decline to
initiate such a proceeding.
Finally, we find that Petitioners have
provided sufficient evidence, in both
their Initiation Request and SQR, to
fulfill the additional initiation criteria
specified in section 781(b)(3) of the Act.
Though Petitioners do not show that
UKCG is affiliated with any PRC
producer of subject merchandise, they
demonstrate that the company has a
business relationship with PRC
producers of subject merchandise.
Furthermore, information provided by
Petitioners regarding imports and
exports under HTS 3801 and 8545,
suggests that (a) U.K. importers are
sourcing PRC-produced unfinished
SDGE components in increasing
quantities, and (b) exports of finished
SDGE from the United Kingdom have
increased since the beginning of the
initial SDGE investigation. Although
UKCG provides evidence to demonstrate
that Petitioners’ information may be
distorted or misstated due to certain
factors, the Department intends to seek
further information on this pattern of
trade issue during the course of this
inquiry, and will request greater detail
as to the nature of UKCG’s relationship
with PRC producers of subject
merchandise and timing of sales and
sourcing. As such, though we recognize
UKCG’s concerns regarding the
conclusions reached by Petitioners in
their analysis of the pattern of trade data
placed on the record, we do not agree
with UKCG that the Department should
conclude that such concerns are
sufficient to refrain from further inquiry.
Therefore, for the reasons stated
above, we have determined that
Petitioners have provided sufficient
basis for the Department to initiate a
formal anti-circumvention inquiry
concerning the SDGE Order, pursuant to
section 781(b) of the Act. In accordance
with 19 CFR 351.225(l)(2), if the
Department issues a preliminary
affirmative determination, we will then
instruct CBP to suspend liquidation and
61 See,
e.g., Tapered Roller Bearings at Comment
1.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
14917
require a cash deposit of estimated
duties on the merchandise.
This anti-circumvention inquiry
covers UKCG only. If, within sufficient
time, the Department receives a formal
request from an interested party
regarding potential circumvention of the
SDGE Order by other companies in the
United Kingdom, we will consider
conducting additional inquiries
concurrently.
The Department will, following
consultation with interested parties,
establish a schedule for questionnaires
and comments on the issues. The
Department intends to issue its final
determination within 300 days of the
date of publication of this initiation
pursuant to section 781(f) of the Act.
This notice is published in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.225(f).
Dated: February 17, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011–6451 Filed 3–17–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
North American Free-Trade Agreement
(NAFTA), Article 1904 Binational Panel
Reviews
NAFTA Secretariat, United
States Section, International Trade
Administration, Department of
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of decision of panel.
AGENCY:
On March 10, 2011, the
binational panel issued its decision in
the review of the determination on
remand made by the International Trade
Commission, respecting Light-Walled
Rectangular Pipe and Tube from
Mexico: Final Determination of Material
Injury to a U.S. Industry (NAFTA
Secretariat File Number USA–MEX–
2008–1904–04). The binational panel
affirmed the International Trade
Commission’s determination on
remand. Copies of the panel’s order are
available from the U.S. Section of the
NAFTA Secretariat.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Valerie Dees, United States Secretary,
NAFTA Secretariat, Suite 2061,14th and
Constitution Avenue, Washington, DC
20230, (202) 482–5438.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Chapter
19 of the North American Free-Trade
Agreement (‘‘Agreement’’) establishes a
mechanism to replace domestic judicial
review of final determinations in
antidumping and countervailing duty
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\18MRN1.SGM
18MRN1
14918
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2011 / Notices
cases involving imports from a NAFTA
country with review by independent
binational panels. When a Request for
Panel Review is filed, a panel is
established to act in place of national
courts to review expeditiously the final
determination to determine whether it
conforms with the antidumping or
countervailing duty law of the country
that made the determination.
Under Article 1904 of the Agreement,
which came into force on January 1,
1994, the Government of the United
States, the Government of Canada and
the Government of Mexico established
Rules of Procedure for Article 1904
Binational Panel Reviews (‘‘Rules’’).
These Rules were published in the
Federal Register on February 23, 1994
(59 FR 8686). The panel review in this
matter has been conducted in
accordance with these Rules.
Panel Decision: The panel affirmed
the International Trade Commission’s
determination on remand respecting
Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube
from Mexico: Final Determination of
Material Injury to a U.S. Industry.
Dated: March 14, 2011.
Valarie Dees,
U.S. Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat.
[FR Doc. 2011–6311 Filed 3–17–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–GT–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–918]
Steel Wire Garment Hangers From the
People’s Republic of China: Partial
Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective Date: March 18, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert Palmer, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 9, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington DC 20230; (202) 482–6905.
AGENCY:
Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Background
On November 29, 2010, the
Department of Commerce
(‘‘Department’’) published in the Federal
Register a notice of initiation of an
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on steel wire
garment hangers from the People’s
Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) covering the
period October 1, 2009, through
September 30, 2010. See Initiation of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:30 Mar 17, 2011
Jkt 223001
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews 75 FR 73036
(November 29, 2010) (‘‘Initiation
Notice’’). On December 23, 2010, the
M&B Metal Products Inc. (‘‘Petitioner’’)
withdrew its request for an
administrative review of 87 1 companies
out of the 102 companies upon which
we initiated the administrative review.
1 These 87 companies are: Angang Clothes Rack
Manufacture Company Limited; Bazhou Sanqiang
Furniture Co., Ltd.; Bestallied International Corp.;
Bestluck Enterprise Limited; Blue Mountain Imp
Exp Co Ltd.; Bon Voyage Logistics Inc.; Butler
Courtesy (Guilin) Inc.; C Import And Export
(HongKong) Co., Ltd.; Century Distribution System
(Shenzhen) Ltd.; Changzhou Fortune Handicraft
Co., Ltd.; Changzhou MC Imp. & Exp. Co. Ltd. a/
k/a Changzhou MC I E Co., Ltd.; China Fujian
Minhou Shenghua Handicrafts Co., Ltd.; China
Ningbo Wahfay Industrial (Group) Co., Ltd.; CTN
Limited Company; CTO International Co. Ltd.;
Eagle Brand Holdings Limited Ecocom Crafts Co.,
Ltd. a/k/a/Hangzhou Ecocom Crafts Co., Ltd.; Eisho
Co., Ltd. a/k/a Eisho Hanger Co., Ltd.; Fujian
Pucheng Breeze Home Products, Inc.; Good Wonder
Ltd.; Guangdong Machinery Imp. & Exp. Co.;
Guangdong Provincial Taoyue Manufacturing Co.,
Ltd.; Guangxi Yikai Industry and Trade Co., Ltd. ;
Guangzhou Haojin Motorcycle Company;
Guangzhou Zhuocheng Plastic Co., Ltd.; Guilin
Betterall Household Articles Co., Ltd.; Guilin
Harvest Co., Ltd.; Guilin Jinlai Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd.;
Guilin Yusense Home Collection Co., Ltd.; Haimen
Jinhang Business Trading Co.; Haiyan Lianxiang
Hardware Products Co.; Hangzhou Dunli Import &
Export Co.; Hanji Metals and Plastics Crafts Co.; Hd
Supply Shenzhen; Hezhou City Yaolong Trade Co
Ltd.; Jiahe International Trading Co.; Jiangmen
Masters Hardware Products; Jiangsu Y and S Inc.;
Jiangyin Hongji Metal Products Co., Ltd.; K.O.D
Solutions Limited Dongguan Office; Kingtex Imp &
Exp Co., Ltd.; Laidlaw Company LLC; Mainfreight
Int’l Logistics (Shanghai) Co. Ltd.; Maxplus
Industries Co., Ltd.; Nanjing Feisike Import &
Export Trading Co. Ltd.; Ningbo Beilun Huafa Metal
Products; Ningbo Everun International Limited;
Ningbo First Rank International Co.; Ningbo Homedollar Imp. & Exp. Corp.; Ningbo Hongdi Measuring
Tape Co., Ltd.; Ningbo Municipal Xinyu Imp. &
Exp. Co.; Ningbo Wellway Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd.;
Overseas Int’l Group Corp.; Plastic Intercon Co.,
Ltd.; Quyky Yanglei International Co., Ltd., a/k/a/
Quyky Group; Shandong Autjinrong Foundassemble Co., Ltd.; Shanghai Cheertie Display
Fixture; Shanghai Electric Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd.;
Shanghai Hua Yue Packaging Products; Shanghai
International Trade Transportation Co., Ltd.;
Shanghai International Trade Yee Da Imp. & Ex. Co.
Ltd.; Shanghai New Union Textra Import & Export
Co., Ltd.; Shanghai Overseas Enterprises Co.Ltd.;
Shanghai Textile Raw Materials; Shanghai Wintex
Import & Export Co., Ltd.; Shaoxing Amazon Prime
Trade Co., Ltd.; Shaoxing Dingli Metal Clotheshorse
Co., Ltd.; Shaoxing Kinglaw Metal Products Co.,
Ltd.; Shenzhen He Zhenglong Imp. & Exp. Co. Ltd.,
a/k/a Shenzhen He Zhong Long Imxp; Shenzhen
SED Industry Co., Ltd. a/k/a/Shenzhen Sed
Electronics Co.; Sunny Metal Inc.; Taishan Jinji
Hangers Co., Ltd.; Taizhou Huasheng Wooden Co.,
Ltd.; Tianjin Tailai Imp & Exp Co., Ltd.; Transtek
Automotive Products Co. Ltd.; Tri-star Trading Co.;
Uasha Group International Shanghai Ltd.; Universal
Houseware (Dongguan); Wenzhou N.& A. foreign
Trade Corp.; Wenzhou Pan Pacific Foreign Trade
Co., Ltd.; Wesken International (Kunshan) Co., Ltd.;
World Trading Service Limited; X&Y Papa-fix
Industry Limited; Zhangjiagang Maohua Coating &
Adorn Zhejiang Arts and Crafts Import; Zhejiang
Huamao International Co., Ltd.; and Zhejiang
Wenzhou Packaging Imp. & Exp.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Petitioner was the only party to request
a review of these 87 companies.
Partial Rescission
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the
Secretary will rescind an administrative
review, in whole or in part, if a party
who requested the review withdraws
the request within 90 days of the date
of publication of notice of initiation of
the requested review. Petitioner’s
request was submitted within the 90 day
period and, thus, is timely. Because
Petitioner’s withdrawal of its request for
review is timely and because no other
party requested a review of the
aforementioned companies, in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1),
we are partially rescinding this review
with respect to the 87 companies listed
above.
Assessment Rates
The Department will instruct U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’)
to assess antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries. For those
companies for which this review has
been rescinded and which have a
separate rate, antidumping duties shall
be assessed at rates equal to the cash
deposit of estimated antidumping duties
required at the time of entry, or
withdrawal from warehouse, for
consumption, in accordance with 19
CFR 351.212(c)(2). The Department
intends to issue appropriate assessment
instructions directly to CBP 15 days
after publication of this notice for those
companies with a separate rate.
For the above companies that are part
of the PRC-wide entity, the Department
cannot order liquidation at this time
because although they are no longer
under review as a separate entity, they
may still be under review as part of the
PRC-wide entity. Therefore, the
Department cannot order liquidation
instructions at this time because their
respective entries may be under review
in the ongoing administrative review.
The Department intends to issue
assessment instructions for the PRCwide entity, 15 days after publication of
the final results of the ongoing
administrative review.
Notification to Importers
This notice serves as a final reminder
to importers for whom this review is
being rescinded, as of the publication
date of this notice, of their
responsibility under 19 CFR
351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of
antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this
review period. Failure to comply with
this requirement could result in the
E:\FR\FM\18MRN1.SGM
18MRN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 53 (Friday, March 18, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14917-14918]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-6311]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
North American Free-Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Article 1904
Binational Panel Reviews
AGENCY: NAFTA Secretariat, United States Section, International Trade
Administration, Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of decision of panel.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On March 10, 2011, the binational panel issued its decision in
the review of the determination on remand made by the International
Trade Commission, respecting Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube
from Mexico: Final Determination of Material Injury to a U.S. Industry
(NAFTA Secretariat File Number USA-MEX-2008-1904-04). The binational
panel affirmed the International Trade Commission's determination on
remand. Copies of the panel's order are available from the U.S. Section
of the NAFTA Secretariat.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Valerie Dees, United States Secretary,
NAFTA Secretariat, Suite 2061,14th and Constitution Avenue, Washington,
DC 20230, (202) 482-5438.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Chapter 19 of the North American Free-Trade
Agreement (``Agreement'') establishes a mechanism to replace domestic
judicial review of final determinations in antidumping and
countervailing duty
[[Page 14918]]
cases involving imports from a NAFTA country with review by independent
binational panels. When a Request for Panel Review is filed, a panel is
established to act in place of national courts to review expeditiously
the final determination to determine whether it conforms with the
antidumping or countervailing duty law of the country that made the
determination.
Under Article 1904 of the Agreement, which came into force on
January 1, 1994, the Government of the United States, the Government of
Canada and the Government of Mexico established Rules of Procedure for
Article 1904 Binational Panel Reviews (``Rules''). These Rules were
published in the Federal Register on February 23, 1994 (59 FR 8686).
The panel review in this matter has been conducted in accordance with
these Rules.
Panel Decision: The panel affirmed the International Trade
Commission's determination on remand respecting Light-Walled
Rectangular Pipe and Tube from Mexico: Final Determination of Material
Injury to a U.S. Industry.
Dated: March 14, 2011.
Valarie Dees,
U.S. Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat.
[FR Doc. 2011-6311 Filed 3-17-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-GT-P