Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of China: Final Rescission of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 20317-20318 [2011-8742]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2011 / Notices
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
Secretary’s presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties
occurred and the subsequent assessment
of double antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing this
notice in accordance with sections
751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19
CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Dated: April 4, 2011.
Paul Piquado,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011–8741 Filed 4–11–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–900]
Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof
From the People’s Republic of China:
Final Rescission of Antidumping Duty
New Shipper Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On March 9, 2011, the
Department of Commerce
(‘‘Department’’) issued its preliminary
intent to rescind the new shipper review
(‘‘NSR’’) of Pujiang Talent Diamond
Tools Co., Ltd. (‘‘PTDT’’).1 We gave
interested parties an opportunity to
comment on the Preliminary Intent to
Rescind and, based upon our analysis of
the comments and rebuttal comments
received, we continue to determine that
PTDT has failed to meet the minimum
requirements for entitlement to an NSR.
DATES: Effective Date: April 12, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Alan Ray, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9,
Import Administration, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department
of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–5403.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Case History
The Department received a timely
request from PTDT, in what at the time
appeared to be in accordance with 19
1 See Memorandum to the File, from James C.
Doyle, Office Director, through Gary Taverman,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping
and Countervailing Duty Operations, Preliminary
Intent to Rescind the New Shipper Review of
Pujiang Talent Diamond Tools Co., Ltd., dated
March 9, 2011 (‘‘Preliminary Intent to Rescind’’).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:00 Apr 11, 2011
Jkt 223001
CFR 351.214(c), for an NSR of the
antidumping duty order on diamond
sawblades and parts thereof from the
People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). On
June 28, 2010, the Department
published the initiation of the NSR with
a January 23, 2009, through April 30,
2010 period of review (‘‘POR’’).2
On March 9, 2011, the Department
issued its preliminary intent to rescind
this NSR based on the sale of subject
merchandise to the United States during
the POR that had been produced by a
company that had exported subject
merchandise to the United States during
the period of investigation (‘‘POI’’). See
Preliminary Intent to Rescind.
On March 16, 2011, the Department
received affirmative comments from
PTDT, requesting that the Department
not terminate the NSR. The Department
received rebuttal comments from
Petitioners, the Diamond Sawblades
Manufacturers Coalition, on March 23,
2011, requesting that the Department
terminate the NSR.
Scope of the Order
The products covered by the order are
all finished circular sawblades, whether
slotted or not, with a working part that
is comprised of a diamond segment or
segments, and parts thereof, regardless
of specification or size, except as
specifically excluded below. Within the
scope of the order are semifinished
diamond sawblades, including diamond
sawblade cores and diamond sawblade
segments. Diamond sawblade cores are
circular steel plates, whether or not
attached to non-steel plates, with slots.
Diamond sawblade cores are
manufactured principally, but not
exclusively, from alloy steel. A diamond
sawblade segment consists of a mixture
of diamonds (whether natural or
synthetic, and regardless of the quantity
of diamonds) and metal powders
(including, but not limited to, iron,
cobalt, nickel, tungsten carbide) that are
formed together into a solid shape (from
generally, but not limited to, a heating
and pressing process).
Sawblades with diamonds directly
attached to the core with a resin or
electroplated bond, which thereby do
not contain a diamond segment, are not
included within the scope of the order.
Diamond sawblades and/or sawblade
cores with a thickness of less than 0.025
inches, or with a thickness greater than
1.1 inches, are excluded from the scope
of the order. Circular steel plates that
have a cutting edge of non-diamond
2 See Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from
the People’s Republic of China: Initiation of
Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 75 FR
36632 (June 28, 2010).
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
20317
material, such as external teeth that
protrude from the outer diameter of the
plate, whether or not finished, are
excluded from the scope of the order.
Diamond sawblade cores with a
Rockwell C hardness of less than 25 are
excluded from the scope of the order.
Diamond sawblades and/or diamond
segment(s) with diamonds that
predominantly have a mesh size number
greater than 240 (such as 250 or 260) are
excluded from the scope of the order.
Merchandise subject to the order is
typically imported under heading
8202.39.00.00 of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States
(‘‘HTSUS’’’). When packaged together as
a set for retail sale with an item that is
separately classified under headings
8202 to 8205 of the HTSUS, diamond
sawblades or parts thereof may be
imported under heading 8206.00.00.00
of the HTSUS. The tariff classification is
provided for convenience and customs
purposes; however, the written
description of the scope of the order is
dispositive.
Summary of Comments Received 3
On March 16, 2011, PTDT submitted
comments regarding the Department’s
Preliminary Intent to Rescind. PTDT
raised four main arguments. First, the
purpose of the NSR is to determine if
PTDT was dumping subject
merchandise and then to calculate its
antidumping duty margin. To rescind
the NSR based on an isolated incident,
representing such a low volume, places
too much weight on the insignificant
incident at issue. To rescind the review
would now be a significant waste of
already spent time and resources.
Second, PTDT exported subject
merchandise produced by another
company to fill a customer’s order, not
in an effort to assist that company in
circumventing payment of antidumping
duties. Third, the Department should
exercise its discretion and overlook this
technical violation by applying the same
kind of logic it employs when it extends
the POR of an NSR so as to capture nonentered sales, or the same logic
employed in the application of the de
minimis provision for antidumping duty
margins of less than 0.5 percent. Finally,
PTDT argues that if the Department
determines that rescission is
appropriate, it should instead consider
3 Certain business proprietary information (‘‘BPI’’)
regarding the rescission of this NSR has been
addressed in a public manner in this notice. For an
explanation of the BPI relied upon, see
Memorandum to the File, from Alan Ray, Case
Analyst, Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof
from the People’s Republic of China: BPI
Referenced in Final Rescission, dated concurrently
with this notice.
E:\FR\FM\12APN1.SGM
12APN1
20318
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2011 / Notices
conducting this NSR concurrently with
the first administrative review.
On March 23, 2011, Petitioners
submitted rebuttal comments.4 With
respect to PTDT’s argument that the
rescission would render significant time
and effort a nullity, Petitioners note that
this NSR was undertaken at PTDT’s
request and certification. PTDT’s
certification at the time of the request
for the NSR did not state that PTDT had
exported a low volume of subject
merchandise produced by a company
that exported during the POI. With
respect to PTDT’s argument that the
Department should exercise its
discretion and overlook this technical
violation, Petitioners note that 19 CFR
351.214(b)(2)(ii) requires in cases where
an exporter is not the producer of all
merchandise it ships to the United
States, a secondary certification that the
supplier did not export subject
merchandise to the United States during
the POI. Petitioners further note that as
the Department already stated, the
regulations do not require the
consideration of relative volumes
sourced from a company that exported
to the United States during the POI,
with respect to the secondary
certification requirement. Therefore,
Petitioners argue, PTDT is not entitled
to an NSR.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Final Rescission of Review
As stated in the Preliminary Intent to
Rescind, the Department has
determined that PTDT does not meet the
minimum requirements for establishing
its qualification for an NSR under 19
CFR 351.214(b)(2)(ii)(B) because PTDT
sold and exported subject merchandise
to the United States during the POR that
had been produced by a company that
had exported to the United States
during the POI. Because PTDT could not
produce a certification that none of the
merchandise it exported during the POR
had been produced by a company that
had exported during the POI, PTDT
does not meet the minimum
requirements for establishing
qualification for an NSR. Furthermore,
we note that the regulations provide a
basis for extending the POR of NSRs 5
4 We note that the deadline for submitting
rebuttal comments was March 21, 2011. However,
according to Petitioners, although PTDT certified as
to service, Petitioners still had not received a
service copy of PTDT’s submission as of March 23,
2011. Therefore, we find good cause under 19 CFR
351.302(b) to extend the time limit to submit
rebuttal comments and, accordingly, accept
Petitioners’ submission. Moreover, because PTDT
certified that it served Petitioners with its
submission and subsequently submitted a letter
confirming service, we have not rejected PTDT’s
submission, as requested by Petitioners.
5 See 19 CFR 351.214(f)(2)(ii).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:00 Apr 11, 2011
Jkt 223001
and applying the de minimis provision
for margins of less than 0.5 percent,6 but
there is no basis for overlooking the
requirements set forth in 19 CFR
351.214(b)(2)(ii)(B). Accordingly, we are
rescinding this NSR. As the Department
is rescinding this NSR, we are not
calculating a company-specific rate for
PTDT, and PTDT will remain part of the
PRC-wide entity subject to the PRCwide rate.
Dated: April 6, 2011.
Gary Taverman,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Operations.
Cash Deposit Requirements
[A–552–802]
The following cash deposit
requirements will be effective upon
publication of this final rescission of
this NSR for all shipments of subject
merchandise by PTDT, entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the publication
date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C)
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
(‘‘Act’’): (1) For subject merchandise
produced and exported by PTDT, as part
of the PRC-wide entity the cash deposit
rate will be 164.09 percent; (2) for
subject merchandise exported by PTDT,
but not manufactured by PTDT, as part
of the PRC-wide entity the cash deposit
rate will continue to be the PRC-wide
rate of 164.09 percent; and (3) for
subject merchandise manufactured by
PTDT, but exported by any party other
than PTDT, the cash deposit rate will be
the rate applicable to the exporter.
These cash deposit requirements will
remain in effect until further notice.
Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam:
Initiation and Preliminary Results of
Changed Circumstances Review
Administrative Protective Orders
This notice also serves as a reminder
to parties subject to administrative
protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their
responsibility concerning the return or
destruction of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues
to govern business proprietary
information in this segment of the
proceeding. Timely written notification
of the return/destruction of APO
materials or conversion to judicial
protective order is hereby requested.
Failure to comply with the regulations
and terms of an APO is a violation
which is subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing this
determination in accordance with
sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i) of the
Act, and 19 CFR 351.214(h) and
351.221(b)(5).
6 See
PO 00000
19 CFR 351.106(c)(1).
Frm 00014
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
[FR Doc. 2011–8742 Filed 4–11–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to a petition for
a changed circumstances review (‘‘CCR’’)
of Grobest & I–Mei Industrial (Vietnam)
Co., Ltd. (‘‘Grobest & I–Mei’’), the
Department of Commerce (the
‘‘Department’’) is initiating a CCR of the
antidumping duty order on frozen
warmwater shrimp from the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam (‘‘Vietnam’’). We
have preliminarily concluded that Viet
I–Mei Frozen Foods Co., Ltd. (‘‘Viet I–
Mei’’) is the successor-in-interest to
Grobest & I–Mei, and, as a result, should
be accorded the same treatment
previously accorded to Grobest & I–Mei,
with regard to the antidumping duty
order on frozen warmwater shrimp from
Vietnam. Interested parties are invited
to comment on these preliminary
results.
AGENCY:
Effective Date: April 12, 2011.
Toni
Dach at (202) 482–1655, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 9, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
DATES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Background
The Department published the
antidumping duty order on certain
frozen warmwater shrimp from Vietnam
on February 1, 2005. See Notice of
Amended Final Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value and
Antidumping Duty Order: Certain
Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 70 FR
5152 (February 1, 2005) (‘‘VN Shrimp
Order’’). Grobest & I–Mei participated in
a new shipper review; the second, third,
fourth, and fifth administrative reviews
of the VN Shrimp Order; and requested
an administrative review for the sixth
E:\FR\FM\12APN1.SGM
12APN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 70 (Tuesday, April 12, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20317-20318]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-8742]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-900]
Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of
China: Final Rescission of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On March 9, 2011, the Department of Commerce (``Department'')
issued its preliminary intent to rescind the new shipper review
(``NSR'') of Pujiang Talent Diamond Tools Co., Ltd. (``PTDT'').\1\ We
gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the Preliminary
Intent to Rescind and, based upon our analysis of the comments and
rebuttal comments received, we continue to determine that PTDT has
failed to meet the minimum requirements for entitlement to an NSR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Memorandum to the File, from James C. Doyle, Office
Director, through Gary Taverman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, Preliminary
Intent to Rescind the New Shipper Review of Pujiang Talent Diamond
Tools Co., Ltd., dated March 9, 2011 (``Preliminary Intent to
Rescind'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Effective Date: April 12, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alan Ray, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9,
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5403.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Case History
The Department received a timely request from PTDT, in what at the
time appeared to be in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(c), for an NSR of
the antidumping duty order on diamond sawblades and parts thereof from
the People's Republic of China (``PRC''). On June 28, 2010, the
Department published the initiation of the NSR with a January 23, 2009,
through April 30, 2010 period of review (``POR'').\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People's
Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty New Shipper
Review, 75 FR 36632 (June 28, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 9, 2011, the Department issued its preliminary intent to
rescind this NSR based on the sale of subject merchandise to the United
States during the POR that had been produced by a company that had
exported subject merchandise to the United States during the period of
investigation (``POI''). See Preliminary Intent to Rescind.
On March 16, 2011, the Department received affirmative comments
from PTDT, requesting that the Department not terminate the NSR. The
Department received rebuttal comments from Petitioners, the Diamond
Sawblades Manufacturers Coalition, on March 23, 2011, requesting that
the Department terminate the NSR.
Scope of the Order
The products covered by the order are all finished circular
sawblades, whether slotted or not, with a working part that is
comprised of a diamond segment or segments, and parts thereof,
regardless of specification or size, except as specifically excluded
below. Within the scope of the order are semifinished diamond
sawblades, including diamond sawblade cores and diamond sawblade
segments. Diamond sawblade cores are circular steel plates, whether or
not attached to non-steel plates, with slots. Diamond sawblade cores
are manufactured principally, but not exclusively, from alloy steel. A
diamond sawblade segment consists of a mixture of diamonds (whether
natural or synthetic, and regardless of the quantity of diamonds) and
metal powders (including, but not limited to, iron, cobalt, nickel,
tungsten carbide) that are formed together into a solid shape (from
generally, but not limited to, a heating and pressing process).
Sawblades with diamonds directly attached to the core with a resin
or electroplated bond, which thereby do not contain a diamond segment,
are not included within the scope of the order. Diamond sawblades and/
or sawblade cores with a thickness of less than 0.025 inches, or with a
thickness greater than 1.1 inches, are excluded from the scope of the
order. Circular steel plates that have a cutting edge of non-diamond
material, such as external teeth that protrude from the outer diameter
of the plate, whether or not finished, are excluded from the scope of
the order. Diamond sawblade cores with a Rockwell C hardness of less
than 25 are excluded from the scope of the order. Diamond sawblades
and/or diamond segment(s) with diamonds that predominantly have a mesh
size number greater than 240 (such as 250 or 260) are excluded from the
scope of the order. Merchandise subject to the order is typically
imported under heading 8202.39.00.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule
of the United States (``HTSUS'''). When packaged together as a set for
retail sale with an item that is separately classified under headings
8202 to 8205 of the HTSUS, diamond sawblades or parts thereof may be
imported under heading 8206.00.00.00 of the HTSUS. The tariff
classification is provided for convenience and customs purposes;
however, the written description of the scope of the order is
dispositive.
Summary of Comments Received \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Certain business proprietary information (``BPI'') regarding
the rescission of this NSR has been addressed in a public manner in
this notice. For an explanation of the BPI relied upon, see
Memorandum to the File, from Alan Ray, Case Analyst, Diamond
Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China: BPI
Referenced in Final Rescission, dated concurrently with this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 16, 2011, PTDT submitted comments regarding the
Department's Preliminary Intent to Rescind. PTDT raised four main
arguments. First, the purpose of the NSR is to determine if PTDT was
dumping subject merchandise and then to calculate its antidumping duty
margin. To rescind the NSR based on an isolated incident, representing
such a low volume, places too much weight on the insignificant incident
at issue. To rescind the review would now be a significant waste of
already spent time and resources. Second, PTDT exported subject
merchandise produced by another company to fill a customer's order, not
in an effort to assist that company in circumventing payment of
antidumping duties. Third, the Department should exercise its
discretion and overlook this technical violation by applying the same
kind of logic it employs when it extends the POR of an NSR so as to
capture non-entered sales, or the same logic employed in the
application of the de minimis provision for antidumping duty margins of
less than 0.5 percent. Finally, PTDT argues that if the Department
determines that rescission is appropriate, it should instead consider
[[Page 20318]]
conducting this NSR concurrently with the first administrative review.
On March 23, 2011, Petitioners submitted rebuttal comments.\4\ With
respect to PTDT's argument that the rescission would render significant
time and effort a nullity, Petitioners note that this NSR was
undertaken at PTDT's request and certification. PTDT's certification at
the time of the request for the NSR did not state that PTDT had
exported a low volume of subject merchandise produced by a company that
exported during the POI. With respect to PTDT's argument that the
Department should exercise its discretion and overlook this technical
violation, Petitioners note that 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(ii) requires in
cases where an exporter is not the producer of all merchandise it ships
to the United States, a secondary certification that the supplier did
not export subject merchandise to the United States during the POI.
Petitioners further note that as the Department already stated, the
regulations do not require the consideration of relative volumes
sourced from a company that exported to the United States during the
POI, with respect to the secondary certification requirement.
Therefore, Petitioners argue, PTDT is not entitled to an NSR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ We note that the deadline for submitting rebuttal comments
was March 21, 2011. However, according to Petitioners, although PTDT
certified as to service, Petitioners still had not received a
service copy of PTDT's submission as of March 23, 2011. Therefore,
we find good cause under 19 CFR 351.302(b) to extend the time limit
to submit rebuttal comments and, accordingly, accept Petitioners'
submission. Moreover, because PTDT certified that it served
Petitioners with its submission and subsequently submitted a letter
confirming service, we have not rejected PTDT's submission, as
requested by Petitioners.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Rescission of Review
As stated in the Preliminary Intent to Rescind, the Department has
determined that PTDT does not meet the minimum requirements for
establishing its qualification for an NSR under 19 CFR
351.214(b)(2)(ii)(B) because PTDT sold and exported subject merchandise
to the United States during the POR that had been produced by a company
that had exported to the United States during the POI. Because PTDT
could not produce a certification that none of the merchandise it
exported during the POR had been produced by a company that had
exported during the POI, PTDT does not meet the minimum requirements
for establishing qualification for an NSR. Furthermore, we note that
the regulations provide a basis for extending the POR of NSRs \5\ and
applying the de minimis provision for margins of less than 0.5
percent,\6\ but there is no basis for overlooking the requirements set
forth in 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(ii)(B). Accordingly, we are rescinding
this NSR. As the Department is rescinding this NSR, we are not
calculating a company-specific rate for PTDT, and PTDT will remain part
of the PRC-wide entity subject to the PRC-wide rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See 19 CFR 351.214(f)(2)(ii).
\6\ See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon
publication of this final rescission of this NSR for all shipments of
subject merchandise by PTDT, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section
751(a)(2)(C) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``Act''): (1) For
subject merchandise produced and exported by PTDT, as part of the PRC-
wide entity the cash deposit rate will be 164.09 percent; (2) for
subject merchandise exported by PTDT, but not manufactured by PTDT, as
part of the PRC-wide entity the cash deposit rate will continue to be
the PRC-wide rate of 164.09 percent; and (3) for subject merchandise
manufactured by PTDT, but exported by any party other than PTDT, the
cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the exporter. These
cash deposit requirements will remain in effect until further notice.
Administrative Protective Orders
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (``APO'') of their responsibility
concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues
to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the
proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of
APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby
requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO
is a violation which is subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing this determination in accordance with
sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.214(h) and
351.221(b)(5).
Dated: April 6, 2011.
Gary Taverman,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing
Duty Operations.
[FR Doc. 2011-8742 Filed 4-11-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
