Fresh Garlic 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, 36255-36256 [2012-14735]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 117 / Monday, June 18, 2012 / Notices Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). Cash Deposit Requirements The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of these final results, consistent with section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) for the companies covered by this review, no cash deposit will be required; (2) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, but was covered in a previous review or the original less than fair value (LTFV) investigation, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous review conducted by the Department, the cash deposit rate will continue to be 30.24 percent, which is the all-others rate established in the LTFV investigation. See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order; Honey From Argentina, 66 FR 63672 (December 10, 2001). These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Reimbursement of Duties This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 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 Secretary’s presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties. Administrative Protective Order This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (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 VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:02 Jun 15, 2012 Jkt 226001 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 notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: June 8, 2012. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix I List of Comments in the Accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum Comment 1: Rates Assigned to Non-Selected Respondents [FR Doc. 2012–14827 Filed 6–15–12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–570–831] Fresh Garlic 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 Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On June 5, 2012,1 the United States Court of International Trade (‘‘CIT’’) or (‘‘Court’’) sustained the Department of Commerce’s (the ‘‘Department’’) results of redetermination 2 pursuant to the CIT’s remand order in Jinan Yipin Corporation, Ltd. and Shandong Heze International Trade and Developing Company, v. United States, 774 F. Supp. 2d 1238 (CIT April 12, 2011) (‘‘Jinan Yipin III 2011’’). 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 AGENCY: 1 Jinan Yipin Corporation, Ltd. and Shandong Heze International Trade and Developing Company, v. United States, Slip Op. 12–68 (CIT June 5, 2012) (judgment). 2 Final Results of Third Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand filed with the Court September 7, 2011 (signed September 2, 2011) (‘‘Jinan Yipin III Redetermination’’) available at: http:// www.ia.ita.doc.gov/remands/index.html. PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 36255 harmony with Garlic AR8 Final Results 3 and is amending the final results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on fresh garlic from the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) covering the period of review (‘‘POR’’) of November 1, 2001 through October 31, 2002, with respect to the margins assigned to Jinan Yipin Corporation Ltd. (‘‘Jinan Yipin’’) and Shandong Heze International Trade And Developing Company (‘‘Shandong Heze’’). DATES: Effective Date: (June 15, 2012). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lindsey Novom, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–5256. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Subsequent to completion of the eighth administrative review of the antidumping duty order on fresh garlic from the PRC,4 two respondents, Jinan Yipin and Shandong Heze, challenged certain aspects of the Department’s final results of review at the CIT. On November 15, 2007, the CIT affirmed in part the Garlic AR8 Final Results and remanded other aspects of the decision to the Department.5 On March 14, 2008, the Department issued its remand redetermination,6 wherein we: (1) Treated sales by Jinan Yipin to Houston Seafood negotiated after March 29, 2002 as unaffiliated party transactions; (2) recalculated Jinan Yipin’s weightedaverage dumping margin by including all of its reported POR sales information (rather than applying the 376.67 percent rate to certain transactions); (3) recalculated Jinan Yipin’s indirect selling expenses incurred in the United States; (4) continued to rely on data from the National Horticultural Research and Development Foundation (‘‘NHRDF’’) to value Jinan Yipin and 3 See Fresh Garlic From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper Reviews, 69 FR 33626 (June 16,2004) (‘‘Garlic AR8 Final Results’’), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum’’). 4 See Garlic AR8 Final Results. 5 See Jinan Yipin Corporation, Ltd. and Shandong Heze International Trade and Developing Company, v. United States 526 F. Supp. 2d 1347 (CIT Nov. 15, 2007) (‘‘Jinan Yipin I 2007’’). 6 See Jinan Yipin Corporation, Ltd. and Shandong Heze International Trade and Developing Company v. United States, Consol, Court No. 04–00240, Slip Op. 07–168 (November 15, 2007) Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, dated March 14, 2008 (’’ Jinan Yipin I Redetermination’’) available at: http://www.ia.ita.doc.gov/remands/ index.html. E:\FR\FM\18JNN1.SGM 18JNN1 36256 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 117 / Monday, June 18, 2012 / Notices mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Shangdong Heze’s garlic seed used in the production of fresh garlic; (5) continued to value water with municipal water rates to account for the respondents’ water consumption used in the production of fresh garlic; and (6) continued to value Jinan Yipin’s packing cartons with Indian Import Statistics. As a result, we calculated a revised weighted-average margin for Jinan Yipin, however Shandong Heze’s antidumping duty margin remained consistent with the margin issued in Garlic AR8 Final Results. On July 2, 2009, the CIT affirmed the Jinan Yipin I Redetermination, with regard to issues 1, 2, and 3, discussed above. However, the Court remanded the redetermination with regard to issues 4, 5, and 6, discussed above. Additionally, the Court directed the Department to examine an alleged ministerial error in the calculation of the surrogate financial ratios that Jinan Yipin raised for the first time in this proceeding in its comments on the draft redetermination pursuant to Jinan Yipin I 2007. The Department had declined to address this ministerial error allegation in the Jinan Yipin I Redetermination on the basis that the alleged ministerial error was not raised during the administrative proceeding pursuant to our regulations 7 or in Jinan Yipin’s complaint in this litigation, and the issue was not remanded by the Court, and, therefore, was not before the Department on remand.8 On February 25, 2010, the Department issued its second remand redetermination,9 wherein we: (1) Again continued to rely on data from the NHRDF to value Jinan Yipin and Shangdong Heze’s garlic seed used in the production of fresh garlic; (2) reevaluated both respondent’s water consumption and determined to value the irrigation pumping costs (i.e., the energy used to pump the water) rather than valuing the water consumed in production, because both respondents incur only the irrigation cost associated with pumping the water from wells; (3) continued to value Jinan Yipin’s packing cartons with Indian Import Statistics, however, in response to the Court’s directive we provided further explanation as to why the Department had determined to exclude imports from 7 19 CFR 351.224. Jinan Yipin I Redetermination at p. 36. 9 See Jinan Yipin Corporation, Ltd. and Shandong Heze International Trade and Developing Company v. United States, Consol, Court No. 04–00240, Slip Op. 09–70 (CIT July 2, 2009) Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, dated February 25, 2010 (’’ Jinan Yipin II Redetermination’’) available at: http:// www.ia.ita.doc.gov/remands/index.html. 8 See VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:02 Jun 15, 2012 Jkt 226001 Indonesia, South Korea, and Thailand in deriving this surrogate value; and (4) determined that we had made a ministerial error in the calculation of the surrogate financial ratios, as alleged by Jinan Yipin, and corrected this ministerial error as directed by the Court. As a result, we calculated revised weighted-average dumping margins of 6.58 percent for Jinan Yipin and 40.66 percent for Shandong Heze. In the Jinan Yipin II Redetermination, the Department declined to address an argument put forth by Jinan Yipin concerning the calculation of its surrogate labor wage rate, on the basis that the company raised the issue for the first time in its comments on the draft version of that redetermination.10 However, during the pendency of this litigation, the CAFC issued its decision in Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, 604 F.3d 1363, 1372–73 (Fed. Cir. 20 I0) (‘‘Dorbest’’), invalidating the Department’s regulation, 19 CFR 35 IA08(c)(3), which previously governed our calculation of a respondent’s surrogate labor wage rate. On June 30, 2010, with the Department’s consent, Jinan Yipin moved to amend its complaint to add a new count, ‘‘Count 8,’’ challenging our prior calculation of the company’s surrogate labor wage rate under 19 CFR 351A08(c)(3). The CIT granted Jinan Yipin leave to amend its complaint to add this new count on July 20, 2010. On April 12, 2011, the CIT issued its opinion in Jinan Yipin III and granted the Department’s request for a voluntary remand for the purpose of recalculating Jinan Yipin’s surrogate labor wage rate.11 In that opinion, the CIT upheld the Jinan Yipin II Redetermination with regard to all other issues. On September 7, 2012 the Department filed its third remand redetermination with the Court, wherein we recalculated the surrogate wage rate for Jinan Yipin.12 As a result, we calculated a revised weighted-average dumping margins of 1.77 percent for Jinan Yipin. sustaining the Jinan Yipin III Redetermination constitutes a final decision of that court that is not in harmony with the Garlic AR8 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 rates will remain the respective company-specific rates established for the subsequent and most recent period during which the respondents were reviewed. 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 June 5, 2012, judgment DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 10 See Jinan Yipin II Redetermination at Comment 11 See Jinan Yipin III at 18. Jinan Yipin III Redetermination. Amended Final Results Because there is now a final court decision with respect to these Plaintiffs, the revised dumping margins are as follows: Exporter Weightedaverage margin (percent) Jinan Yipin Corporation, Ltd.13 Shandong Heze International Trade and Developing Company 14 ................................... PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 40.66 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 the two companies named above based on the revised assessment rates 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: June 11, 2012. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. 2012–14735 Filed 6–15–12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P International Trade Administration [A–533–852] Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe From India: Postponement of Final Determination of Antidumping Duty Investigation Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce AGENCY: 4. 12 See 1.77 13 See 14 See E:\FR\FM\18JNN1.SGM Jinan Yipin III Redetermination. Jinan Yipin II Redetermination. 18JNN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 117 (Monday, June 18, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36255-36256]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-14735]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-831]


Fresh Garlic 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

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On June 5, 2012,\1\ the United States Court of International 
Trade (``CIT'') or (``Court'') sustained the Department of Commerce's 
(the ``Department'') results of redetermination \2\ pursuant to the 
CIT's remand order in Jinan Yipin Corporation, Ltd. and Shandong Heze 
International Trade and Developing Company, v. United States, 774 F. 
Supp. 2d 1238 (CIT April 12, 2011) (``Jinan Yipin III 2011'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Jinan Yipin Corporation, Ltd. and Shandong Heze 
International Trade and Developing Company, v. United States, Slip 
Op. 12-68 (CIT June 5, 2012) (judgment).
    \2\ Final Results of Third Redetermination Pursuant to Court 
Remand filed with the Court September 7, 2011 (signed September 2, 
2011) (``Jinan Yipin III Redetermination'') available at: http://www.ia.ita.doc.gov/remands/index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 Garlic AR8 
Final Results \3\ and is amending the final results of the 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on fresh garlic 
from the People's Republic of China (``PRC'') covering the period of 
review (``POR'') of November 1, 2001 through October 31, 2002, with 
respect to the margins assigned to Jinan Yipin Corporation Ltd. 
(``Jinan Yipin'') and Shandong Heze International Trade And Developing 
Company (``Shandong Heze'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Fresh Garlic From the People's Republic of China: Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper 
Reviews, 69 FR 33626 (June 16,2004) (``Garlic AR8 Final Results''), 
and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (``Issues and 
Decision Memorandum'').

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Effective Date: (June 15, 2012).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lindsey Novom, Office 8, Import 
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 
20230; telephone: (202) 482-5256.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Subsequent to completion of the eighth administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on fresh garlic from the PRC,\4\ two 
respondents, Jinan Yipin and Shandong Heze, challenged certain aspects 
of the Department's final results of review at the CIT. On November 15, 
2007, the CIT affirmed in part the Garlic AR8 Final Results and 
remanded other aspects of the decision to the Department.\5\ On March 
14, 2008, the Department issued its remand redetermination,\6\ wherein 
we: (1) Treated sales by Jinan Yipin to Houston Seafood negotiated 
after March 29, 2002 as unaffiliated party transactions; (2) 
recalculated Jinan Yipin's weighted-average dumping margin by including 
all of its reported POR sales information (rather than applying the 
376.67 percent rate to certain transactions); (3) recalculated Jinan 
Yipin's indirect selling expenses incurred in the United States; (4) 
continued to rely on data from the National Horticultural Research and 
Development Foundation (``NHRDF'') to value Jinan Yipin and

[[Page 36256]]

Shangdong Heze's garlic seed used in the production of fresh garlic; 
(5) continued to value water with municipal water rates to account for 
the respondents' water consumption used in the production of fresh 
garlic; and (6) continued to value Jinan Yipin's packing cartons with 
Indian Import Statistics. As a result, we calculated a revised 
weighted-average margin for Jinan Yipin, however Shandong Heze's 
antidumping duty margin remained consistent with the margin issued in 
Garlic AR8 Final Results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Garlic AR8 Final Results.
    \5\ See Jinan Yipin Corporation, Ltd. and Shandong Heze 
International Trade and Developing Company, v. United States 526 F. 
Supp. 2d 1347 (CIT Nov. 15, 2007) (``Jinan Yipin I 2007'').
    \6\ See Jinan Yipin Corporation, Ltd. and Shandong Heze 
International Trade and Developing Company v. United States, Consol, 
Court No. 04-00240, Slip Op. 07-168 (November 15, 2007) Final 
Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, dated March 14, 
2008 ('' Jinan Yipin I Redetermination'') available at: http://www.ia.ita.doc.gov/remands/index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 2, 2009, the CIT affirmed the Jinan Yipin I 
Redetermination, with regard to issues 1, 2, and 3, discussed above. 
However, the Court remanded the redetermination with regard to issues 
4, 5, and 6, discussed above. Additionally, the Court directed the 
Department to examine an alleged ministerial error in the calculation 
of the surrogate financial ratios that Jinan Yipin raised for the first 
time in this proceeding in its comments on the draft redetermination 
pursuant to Jinan Yipin I 2007. The Department had declined to address 
this ministerial error allegation in the Jinan Yipin I Redetermination 
on the basis that the alleged ministerial error was not raised during 
the administrative proceeding pursuant to our regulations \7\ or in 
Jinan Yipin's complaint in this litigation, and the issue was not 
remanded by the Court, and, therefore, was not before the Department on 
remand.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 19 CFR 351.224.
    \8\ See Jinan Yipin I Redetermination at p. 36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 25, 2010, the Department issued its second remand 
redetermination,\9\ wherein we: (1) Again continued to rely on data 
from the NHRDF to value Jinan Yipin and Shangdong Heze's garlic seed 
used in the production of fresh garlic; (2) re-evaluated both 
respondent's water consumption and determined to value the irrigation 
pumping costs (i.e., the energy used to pump the water) rather than 
valuing the water consumed in production, because both respondents 
incur only the irrigation cost associated with pumping the water from 
wells; (3) continued to value Jinan Yipin's packing cartons with Indian 
Import Statistics, however, in response to the Court's directive we 
provided further explanation as to why the Department had determined to 
exclude imports from Indonesia, South Korea, and Thailand in deriving 
this surrogate value; and (4) determined that we had made a ministerial 
error in the calculation of the surrogate financial ratios, as alleged 
by Jinan Yipin, and corrected this ministerial error as directed by the 
Court. As a result, we calculated revised weighted-average dumping 
margins of 6.58 percent for Jinan Yipin and 40.66 percent for Shandong 
Heze.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Jinan Yipin Corporation, Ltd. and Shandong Heze 
International Trade and Developing Company v. United States, Consol, 
Court No. 04-00240, Slip Op. 09-70 (CIT July 2, 2009) Final Results 
of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, dated February 25, 2010 
('' Jinan Yipin II Redetermination'') available at: http://www.ia.ita.doc.gov/remands/index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Jinan Yipin II Redetermination, the Department declined to 
address an argument put forth by Jinan Yipin concerning the calculation 
of its surrogate labor wage rate, on the basis that the company raised 
the issue for the first time in its comments on the draft version of 
that redetermination.\10\ However, during the pendency of this 
litigation, the CAFC issued its decision in Dorbest Ltd. v. United 
States, 604 F.3d 1363, 1372-73 (Fed. Cir. 20 I0) (``Dorbest''), 
invalidating the Department's regulation, 19 CFR 35 IA08(c)(3), which 
previously governed our calculation of a respondent's surrogate labor 
wage rate. On June 30, 2010, with the Department's consent, Jinan Yipin 
moved to amend its complaint to add a new count, ``Count 8,'' 
challenging our prior calculation of the company's surrogate labor wage 
rate under 19 CFR 351A08(c)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Jinan Yipin II Redetermination at Comment 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CIT granted Jinan Yipin leave to amend its complaint to add 
this new count on July 20, 2010. On April 12, 2011, the CIT issued its 
opinion in Jinan Yipin III and granted the Department's request for a 
voluntary remand for the purpose of recalculating Jinan Yipin's 
surrogate labor wage rate.\11\ In that opinion, the CIT upheld the 
Jinan Yipin II Redetermination with regard to all other issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Jinan Yipin III at 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 7, 2012 the Department filed its third remand 
redetermination with the Court, wherein we recalculated the surrogate 
wage rate for Jinan Yipin.\12\ As a result, we calculated a revised 
weighted-average dumping margins of 1.77 percent for Jinan Yipin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Jinan Yipin III Redetermination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 June 5, 2012, judgment sustaining the Jinan Yipin III 
Redetermination constitutes a final decision of that court that is not 
in harmony with the Garlic AR8 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 rates will remain the respective company-specific rates 
established for the subsequent and most recent period during which the 
respondents were reviewed.

Amended Final Results

    Because there is now a final court decision with respect to these 
Plaintiffs, the revised dumping margins are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Weighted-
                                                               average
                          Exporter                              margin
                                                              (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jinan Yipin Corporation, Ltd.\13\..........................         1.77
Shandong Heze International Trade and Developing Company           40.66
 \14\......................................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 the two companies named above 
based on the revised assessment rates calculated by the Department.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Jinan Yipin III Redetermination.
    \14\ See Jinan Yipin II Redetermination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 
516A(e)(1), 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: June 11, 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012-14735 Filed 6-15-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P