Certain Cased Pencils From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results of Administrative Review and Notice of Amended Final Results of Administrative Review Pursuant to Court Decision, 57017-57019 [2011-23681]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
57017
Notices
Federal Register
Vol. 76, No. 179
Thursday, September 15, 2011
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains documents other than rules or
proposed rules that are applicable to the
public. Notices of hearings and investigations,
committee meetings, agency decisions and
rulings, delegations of authority, filing of
petitions and applications and agency
statements of organization and functions are
examples of documents appearing in this
section.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Submission for OMB Review;
Comment Request
wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
September 12, 2011.
The Department of Agriculture has
submitted the following information
collection requirement(s) to OMB for
review and clearance under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
Public Law 104–13. Comments
regarding (a) Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the
agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility;
(b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate
of burden including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility and
clarity of the information to be
collected; (d) ways to minimize the
burden of the collection of information
on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate
automated, electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection
techniques or other forms of information
technology should be addressed to: Desk
Officer for Agriculture, Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), OIRA_Submission@OMB.EOP.
gov or fax (202) 395–5806 and to
Departmental Clearance Office, USDA,
OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC
20250–7602. Comments regarding these
information collections are best assured
of having their full effect if received
within 30 days of this notification.
Copies of the submission(s) may be
obtained by calling (202) 720–8958.
An agency may not conduct or
sponsor a collection of information
unless the collection of information
displays a currently valid OMB control
number and the agency informs
potential persons who are to respond to
the collection of information that such
persons are not required to respond to
the collection of information unless it
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:07 Sep 14, 2011
Jkt 223001
displays a currently valid OMB control
number.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service
Title: NAHMS Emergency
Epidemiologic Investigations.
OMB Control Number: 0579–0376.
Summary of Collection: Collection
and dissemination of animal health data
and information is mandated by
7 U.S.C. 391, the Animal Industry Act
of 1884, which established the precursor
of the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS), Veterinary
Services, the Bureau of Animal
Industry. Legal requirements for
examining and reporting on animal
disease control methods were further
mandated by 7 U.S.C. 8308, 8314 of the
Animal Health Protection Act,
‘‘Detection, Control, and Eradication of
Disease and Pests,’’ May 13, 2002.
Emergency epidemiologic investigations
will allow Veterinary Services Officials
to rapidly implement prevention and
control measures, keep the public
informed to reduce fear or panic, and
keep international markets open by
informing trading partners.
Need and Use of the Information: The
primary objective of the National
Animal Health Monitoring System’s
(NAHMS) emergency epidemiologic
investigations is to provide for the
prevention and control of animal
disease conditions and protect the U.S.
livestock population from the
introduction and spread of domestic,
emerging, zoonotic, and foreign animal
disease. APHIS will collect information
using a questionnaire or telephone
interview or direct interview. APHIS
will use the data collected to (1) Identify
the scope of the problem, (2) Define and
describe the affected population and the
susceptible population, (3) Predict or
detect trends in disease occurrence and
movement, (4) Understand the risk
factors for disease, (5) Estimate the cost
of disease control and develop
intervention options, (6) Provide
parameters for mathematical models of
animal disease to evaluate potential
control scenarios, (7) Make
recommendation for disease control, (8)
Provide lessons learned and guidance
on the best methods to avoid future
outbreaks, and (9) Identify areas for
further research, e.g. mechanisms of
disease transfer, vaccine technology,
and diagnostic testing needs.
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Description of Respondents: Business
or other for-profit.
Number of Respondents: 3,000.
Frequency of Responses: Reporting:
On occasion;
Total Burden Hours: 2,175.
Ruth Brown,
Departmental Information Collection
Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 2011–23660 Filed 9–14–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–34–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–827]
Certain Cased Pencils From the
People’s Republic of China: Notice of
Court Decision Not in Harmony With
Final Results of Administrative Review
and Notice of Amended Final Results
of Administrative Review Pursuant to
Court Decision
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On August 30, 2011, the
United States Court of International
Trade (‘‘CIT’’) sustained the Department
of Commerce’s (‘‘the Department’’)
results of redetermination as applied to
respondent Shandong Rongxin Import &
Export Co., Ltd. (‘‘Rongxin’’) pursuant to
the CIT’s remand order in Shandong
Rongxin Import & Export Co., Ltd. v.
United States, Court No. 09–00316, Slip
Op. 11–45 (Ct. Int’l Trade April 21,
2011) (‘‘Shandong Rongxin I’’). See
Final Results of Redetermination
Pursuant to Remand, Court No. 09–
00316, dated August 4, 2011, available
at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/remands
(‘‘Second Remand Results’’); Shandong
Rongxin Import & Export Co., Ltd. v.
United States, Court No. 09–00316, Slip
Op. 11–105 (Ct. Int’l Trade August 30,
2011) (‘‘Shandong Rongxin II’’).
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’’), as clarified by
Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v.
United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir.
2010) (‘‘Diamond Sawblades’’), the
Department is notifying the public that
the final judgment in this case is not in
harmony with the Department’s final
determination and is amending the final
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\15SEN1.SGM
15SEN1
57018
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Notices
wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
results of the administrative review of
the antidumping duty order on certain
cased pencils (‘‘pencils’’) from the
People’s Republic of China covering the
period of review (‘‘POR’’) of December
1, 2006, through November 30, 2007
with respect to Rongxin. See Certain
Cased Pencils from the People’s
Republic of China: Final Results and
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 74 FR 33406
(July 13, 2009) (‘‘Final Results’’) and
accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum (‘‘I&D Memorandum’’), as
amended by Certain Cased Pencils from
the People’s Republic of China:
Amended Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR
45177 (September 1, 2009).
DATES: Effective Date: September 9,
2011
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Alexander Montoro or Nancy Decker,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import
Administration—International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, 20230;
telephone (202) 482–0238 or (202) 482–
0196.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On July 13, 2009, the Department
published its Final Results. In the Final
Results, the Department valued
lindenwood pencil slats used by the
respondent Rongxin with publicly
available, published U.S. prices for
American basswood lumber. See Final
Results and accompanying I&D
Memorandum at Comment 4a. In China
First Pencil Co., Ltd. v. United States,
721 F. Supp. 2d 1369 (Ct. Int’l Trade
2010) (‘‘China First’’), the CIT
determined that the Department’s
surrogate value for pencils slats used in
the Final Results was unsupported by
substantial evidence and was not in
accordance with law. The CIT remanded
the Department to recalculate a
surrogate value for pencil slats using
data from ‘‘Paper and Stationery,’’ an
Indian trade publication. See China
First, 721 F. Supp. 2d at 1375–77. On
first remand, the Department used
‘‘Paper and Stationery’’ data to
recalculate the surrogate value for
pencil slats. See Final Results of
Redetermination Pursuant to Remand,
Consol. Court No. 09–00325, dated
December 20, 2010, at 3–4, available at
https://ia.ita.doc.gov/remands (‘‘First
Remand Results’’). This redetermination
on slats was sustained with respect to
Rongxin in Shangdong Rongxin I.
Also in the Final Results, the
Department valued black and color
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:07 Sep 14, 2011
Jkt 223001
cores for Rongxin using World Trade
Atlas data. See Final Results and
accompanying I&D Memorandum at
Comment 4b. In China First, the CIT
determined that the Department’s
surrogate value for cores used in the
Final Results was unsupported by
substantial evidence and was not in
accordance with law. The CIT remanded
to the Department to identify separate
surrogate values, supported by
substantial evidence on the record, for
black cores, color cores, thick black
cores, and thick color cores. See China
First, 721 F. Supp. 2d at 1379–1380. On
first remand, the Department used
‘‘Paper and Stationery’’ data to
recalculate the surrogate value for black
and color cores. See First Remand
Results at 4–6. The Department’s
redetermination on cores was sustained
in Shangdong Rongxin I.
Additionally, in the Final Results, the
Department calculated a surrogate wage
value for Rongxin in accordance with
the regression-based methodology set
forth in 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3). See Final
Results and accompanying I&D
Memorandum at Comment 3. In Dorbest
Ltd. v. United States, 604 F.3d 1363
(Fed. Cir. 2010) (‘‘Dorbest’’), the CAFC
held that the Department’s ‘‘{regressionbased} method for calculating wage
rates {as stipulated by 19 CFR
351.408(c)(3)} uses data not permitted
by {the statutory requirements laid out
in section 773 of the Tariff Act of 1930,
as amended (‘‘the Act’’) (i.e. 19 U.S.C.
1677b(c))}.’’ Dorbest, 604 F.3d at 1372.
Specifically, the CAFC interpreted
section 773(c) of the Act to require the
use of data from market economy
countries that are both economically
comparable to the non-market economy
country at issue and significant
producers of the subject merchandise,
unless such data are unavailable.
Because the Department’s regulation
requires the Department to use data
from economically dissimilar countries
and from countries that do not produce
comparable merchandise, the CAFC
invalidated the Department’s labor
regulation at 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3).
Following Dorbest, the Department
requested a voluntary remand for its
wage rate calculations for Rongxin in
the Final Results. The CIT granted that
request and in China First remanded the
Final Results with instructions that the
labor wage value be recalculated in
accordance with the decision in
Dorbest. See China First, 721 F. Supp.
2d at 1373.
On first remand, the Department
adopted a wage calculation
methodology with respect to Rongxin
that averaged wages across countries
that are both economically comparable
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
and significant producers of
merchandise comparable to the subject
merchandise. See First Remand Results
at 7–31. In Shandong Rongxin I, the CIT
again remanded to the Department to
address two issues concerning the
surrogate value for labor applied with
respect to Rongxin in the First Remand
Results: (1) The Department’s decision
to omit certain labor data from its
calculations because the data were
reported under a previous revision of
ISIC; 1 and (2) the Department’s
methodology for determining whether a
country is a significant producer of
comparable merchandise within the
meaning of section 773(c)(4) of the Act.
On second remand, the Department
revised its wage rate methodology to
rely upon labor cost data from a single
surrogate country. See Second Remand
Results at 4–6 (citing Antidumping
Methodologies in Proceedings Involving
Non-Market Economies: Valuing the
Factor of Production: Labor, 76 FR
36092 (June 21, 2011)). Through this
revised approach, the Department’s
redetermination resulted in a change to
Rongxin’s margin from 11.48 percent in
the Final Results to 0.72 percent. The
CIT sustained the Department’s Second
Remand Results in Shangdong Rongxin
II.
Timken Notice
In its decision in Timken, 893 F.2d at
341, as clarified by Diamond Sawblades,
the CAFC has held that, pursuant to
section 516A(e) of 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 August 30, 2011 judgment
sustaining the Department’s remand
redetermination with respect to Rongxin
constitutes a final decision of that court
that is not in harmony with the
Department’s Final Results. This notice
is published in fulfillment of the
publication requirements of Timken.
Accordingly, 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. The cash
deposit rate will remain the companyspecific rate established for the
subsequent and most recent period
during which the respondent was
1 The International Standard Industrial
Classification of all Economic Activities (‘‘ISIC’’) is
‘‘a uniform, periodically updated system for the
classification of economic activity, not unlike what
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule is for the
classification of imported merchandise.’’ See
Shangdong Rongxin I, Slip Op. 11–45 at 7, n.3.
E:\FR\FM\15SEN1.SGM
15SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Notices
reviewed. See Certain Cased Pencils
From the People’s Republic of China:
Final Results of the Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 76 FR 27988
(May 13, 2011).
Amended Final Results
Because there is now a final court
decision with respect to Rongxin, the
revised dumping margin is as follows:
Margin
(percent)
Shandong Rongxin Import & Export Co., Ltd ............................
0.72
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 Rongxin on the revised assessment
rate calculated by the Department.
This notice is issued and published in
accordance with sections 516A(e)(1),
751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: September 9, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011–23681 Filed 9–14–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–427–801, A–428–801, A–475–801]
Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From
France, Germany and Italy: Final
Results of Sunset Reviews and
Revocation of Antidumping Duty
Orders
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On August 1, 2011, the
Department of Commerce (the
Department) initiated the sunset reviews
of the antidumping duty orders on ball
bearings and parts thereof from France,
Germany, and Italy. See Initiation of
Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) Review, 76 FR
45778 (August 1, 2011) (Initiation
Notice). Because no domestic interested
party filed a notice of intent to
participate in response to the notice of
initiation of the sunset reviews by the
applicable deadline, the Department is
revoking the antidumping duty orders
on ball bearings and parts thereof from
France, Germany, and Italy.
DATES: Effective Date: September 15,
2011.
wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:07 Sep 14, 2011
Jkt 223001
Sandra Stewart at (202) 482–0768, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 5, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Exporter
AGENCY:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
On May 15, 1989, the Department
published in the Federal Register the
antidumping duty orders on ball
bearings and parts thereof from France,
Germany, and Italy. See Antidumping
Duty Orders: Ball Bearings, Cylindrical
Roller Bearings, Spherical Plain
Bearings, and Parts Thereof From
France, 54 FR 20902 (May 15, 1989),
Antidumping Duty Orders: Ball
Bearings, Cylindrical Roller Bearings,
and Spherical Plain Bearings and Parts
Thereof From the Federal Republic of
Germany, 54 FR 20900 (May 15, 1989),
and Antidumping Duty Orders: Ball
Bearings and Cylindrical Roller
Bearings, and Parts Thereof From Italy,
54 FR 20903 (May 15, 1989).
On August 1, 2011, the Department
initiated the sunset reviews of the
antidumping duty orders on ball
bearings and parts thereof from France,
Germany, and Italy pursuant to section
751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the Act). See Initiation
Notice.1 We received no notice of intent
to participate in response to the notice
of initiation from domestic interested
parties by the applicable deadline. See
19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i). As a result, the
Department has concluded that no
domestic party intends to participate in
the sunset reviews. See 19 CFR
351.218(d)(1)(iii)(A). On August 24,
2011, we notified the International
Trade Commission, in writing, that we
intend to revoke the antidumping duty
orders on ball bearings and parts thereof
from France, Germany, and Italy. See 19
CFR 351.218(d)(1)(iii)(B)(2).
Scope of the Orders
The products covered by the orders
are ball bearings and parts thereof.
These products include all antifriction
bearings that employ balls as the rolling
element. Imports of these products are
classified under the following
categories: antifriction balls, ball
bearings with integral shafts, ball
bearings (including radial ball bearings)
and parts thereof, and housed or
mounted ball bearing units and parts
thereof.
1 The Department inadvertently included two
revoked antidumping duty orders in the Initiation
Notice. See Initiation of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’)
Review: Correction, 76 FR 47149 (August 4, 2011).
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
57019
Imports of these products are
classified under the following
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (HTSUS) subheadings:
3926.90.45, 4016.93.10, 4016.93.50,
6909.19.50.10, 8414.90.41.75,
8431.20.00, 8431.39.00.10, 8482.10.10,
8482.10.50, 8482.80.00, 8482.91.00,
8482.99.05, 8482.99.35, 8482.99.25.80,
8482.99.65.95, 8483.20.40, 8483.20.80,
8483.30.40, 8483.30.80, 8483.50.90,
8483.90.20, 8483.90.30, 8483.90.70,
8708.50.50, 8708.60.50, 8708.60.80,
8708.93.30, 8708.93.60.00, 8708.99.06,
8708.99.31.00, 8708.99.40.00,
8708.99.49.60, 8708.99.58,
8708.99.80.15, 8708.99.80.80,
8803.10.00, 8803.20.00, 8803.30.00,
8803.90.30, 8803.90.90, 8708.30.50.90,
8708.40.75.70, 8708.40.75.80,
8708.50.79.00, 8708.50.89.00,
8708.50.91.50, 8708.50.99.00,
8708.70.60.60, 8708.80.65.90,
8708.93.75.00, 8708.94.75,
8708.95.20.00, 8708.99.55.00,
8708.99.68, and 8708.99.81.80.
Although the HTSUS item numbers
above are provided for convenience and
customs purposes, the written
descriptions of the scope of the orders
remain dispositive.
The size or precision grade of a
bearing does not influence whether the
bearing is covered by one of the orders.
The orders cover all the subject bearings
and parts thereof (inner race, outer race,
cage, rollers, balls, seals, shields, etc.)
outlined above with certain limitations.
With regard to finished parts, all such
parts are included in the scope of the
orders. For unfinished parts, such parts
are included if they have been heattreated or if heat treatment is not
required to be performed on the part.
Thus, the only unfinished parts that are
not covered by the orders are those that
will be subject to heat treatment after
importation. The ultimate application of
a bearing also does not influence
whether the bearing is covered by the
orders. Bearings designed for highly
specialized applications are not
excluded. Any of the subject bearings,
regardless of whether they may
ultimately be utilized in aircraft,
automobiles, or other equipment, are
within the scope of the orders.
For a list of scope determinations
which pertain to the orders, see the
‘‘Memorandum to Laurie Parkhill’’
regarding scope determinations for the
2009/2010 administrative reviews dated
April 14, 2011, which is on file in the
Central Records Unit (CRU) of the main
Commerce building, room 7046, in the
General Issues record (A–100–001).
E:\FR\FM\15SEN1.SGM
15SEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 179 (Thursday, September 15, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57017-57019]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-23681]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-827]
Certain Cased Pencils From the People's Republic of China: Notice
of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results of Administrative
Review and Notice of Amended Final Results of Administrative Review
Pursuant to Court Decision
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On August 30, 2011, the United States Court of International
Trade (``CIT'') sustained the Department of Commerce's (``the
Department'') results of redetermination as applied to respondent
Shandong Rongxin Import & Export Co., Ltd. (``Rongxin'') pursuant to
the CIT's remand order in Shandong Rongxin Import & Export Co., Ltd. v.
United States, Court No. 09-00316, Slip Op. 11-45 (Ct. Int'l Trade
April 21, 2011) (``Shandong Rongxin I''). See Final Results of
Redetermination Pursuant to Remand, Court No. 09-00316, dated August 4,
2011, available at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/remands (``Second Remand
Results''); Shandong Rongxin Import & Export Co., Ltd. v. United
States, Court No. 09-00316, Slip Op. 11-105 (Ct. Int'l Trade August 30,
2011) (``Shandong Rongxin II''). 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''), as clarified by Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v.
United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (``Diamond Sawblades''),
the Department is notifying the public that the final judgment in this
case is not in harmony with the Department's final determination and is
amending the final
[[Page 57018]]
results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on
certain cased pencils (``pencils'') from the People's Republic of China
covering the period of review (``POR'') of December 1, 2006, through
November 30, 2007 with respect to Rongxin. See Certain Cased Pencils
from the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 33406 (July
13, 2009) (``Final Results'') and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum (``I&D Memorandum''), as amended by Certain Cased Pencils
from the People's Republic of China: Amended Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 45177 (September 1,
2009).
DATES: Effective Date: September 9, 2011
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alexander Montoro or Nancy Decker, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration--International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, 20230; telephone (202) 482-
0238 or (202) 482-0196.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On July 13, 2009, the Department published its Final Results. In
the Final Results, the Department valued lindenwood pencil slats used
by the respondent Rongxin with publicly available, published U.S.
prices for American basswood lumber. See Final Results and accompanying
I&D Memorandum at Comment 4a. In China First Pencil Co., Ltd. v. United
States, 721 F. Supp. 2d 1369 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2010) (``China First''),
the CIT determined that the Department's surrogate value for pencils
slats used in the Final Results was unsupported by substantial evidence
and was not in accordance with law. The CIT remanded the Department to
recalculate a surrogate value for pencil slats using data from ``Paper
and Stationery,'' an Indian trade publication. See China First, 721 F.
Supp. 2d at 1375-77. On first remand, the Department used ``Paper and
Stationery'' data to recalculate the surrogate value for pencil slats.
See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Remand, Consol. Court
No. 09-00325, dated December 20, 2010, at 3-4, available at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/remands (``First Remand Results''). This redetermination
on slats was sustained with respect to Rongxin in Shangdong Rongxin I.
Also in the Final Results, the Department valued black and color
cores for Rongxin using World Trade Atlas data. See Final Results and
accompanying I&D Memorandum at Comment 4b. In China First, the CIT
determined that the Department's surrogate value for cores used in the
Final Results was unsupported by substantial evidence and was not in
accordance with law. The CIT remanded to the Department to identify
separate surrogate values, supported by substantial evidence on the
record, for black cores, color cores, thick black cores, and thick
color cores. See China First, 721 F. Supp. 2d at 1379-1380. On first
remand, the Department used ``Paper and Stationery'' data to
recalculate the surrogate value for black and color cores. See First
Remand Results at 4-6. The Department's redetermination on cores was
sustained in Shangdong Rongxin I.
Additionally, in the Final Results, the Department calculated a
surrogate wage value for Rongxin in accordance with the regression-
based methodology set forth in 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3). See Final Results
and accompanying I&D Memorandum at Comment 3. In Dorbest Ltd. v. United
States, 604 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (``Dorbest''), the CAFC held
that the Department's ``{regression-based{time} method for calculating
wage rates {as stipulated by 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3){time} uses data not
permitted by {the statutory requirements laid out in section 773 of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act'') (i.e. 19 U.S.C.
1677b(c)){time} .'' Dorbest, 604 F.3d at 1372. Specifically, the CAFC
interpreted section 773(c) of the Act to require the use of data from
market economy countries that are both economically comparable to the
non-market economy country at issue and significant producers of the
subject merchandise, unless such data are unavailable. Because the
Department's regulation requires the Department to use data from
economically dissimilar countries and from countries that do not
produce comparable merchandise, the CAFC invalidated the Department's
labor regulation at 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3). Following Dorbest, the
Department requested a voluntary remand for its wage rate calculations
for Rongxin in the Final Results. The CIT granted that request and in
China First remanded the Final Results with instructions that the labor
wage value be recalculated in accordance with the decision in Dorbest.
See China First, 721 F. Supp. 2d at 1373.
On first remand, the Department adopted a wage calculation
methodology with respect to Rongxin that averaged wages across
countries that are both economically comparable and significant
producers of merchandise comparable to the subject merchandise. See
First Remand Results at 7-31. In Shandong Rongxin I, the CIT again
remanded to the Department to address two issues concerning the
surrogate value for labor applied with respect to Rongxin in the First
Remand Results: (1) The Department's decision to omit certain labor
data from its calculations because the data were reported under a
previous revision of ISIC; \1\ and (2) the Department's methodology for
determining whether a country is a significant producer of comparable
merchandise within the meaning of section 773(c)(4) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The International Standard Industrial Classification of all
Economic Activities (``ISIC'') is ``a uniform, periodically updated
system for the classification of economic activity, not unlike what
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule is for the classification of imported
merchandise.'' See Shangdong Rongxin I, Slip Op. 11-45 at 7, n.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On second remand, the Department revised its wage rate methodology
to rely upon labor cost data from a single surrogate country. See
Second Remand Results at 4-6 (citing Antidumping Methodologies in
Proceedings Involving Non-Market Economies: Valuing the Factor of
Production: Labor, 76 FR 36092 (June 21, 2011)). Through this revised
approach, the Department's redetermination resulted in a change to
Rongxin's margin from 11.48 percent in the Final Results to 0.72
percent. The CIT sustained the Department's Second Remand Results in
Shangdong Rongxin II.
Timken Notice
In its decision in Timken, 893 F.2d at 341, as clarified by Diamond
Sawblades, the CAFC has held that, pursuant to section 516A(e) of 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 August 30, 2011 judgment sustaining the Department's remand
redetermination with respect to Rongxin constitutes a final decision of
that court that is not in harmony with the Department's Final Results.
This notice is published in fulfillment of the publication requirements
of Timken. Accordingly, 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. The cash deposit rate will remain the company-specific rate
established for the subsequent and most recent period during which the
respondent was
[[Page 57019]]
reviewed. See Certain Cased Pencils From the People's Republic of
China: Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76
FR 27988 (May 13, 2011).
Amended Final Results
Because there is now a final court decision with respect to
Rongxin, the revised dumping margin is as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shandong Rongxin Import & Export Co., Ltd.................. 0.72
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Rongxin on the revised
assessment rate calculated by the Department.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections
516A(e)(1), 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: September 9, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-23681 Filed 9-14-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
