Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results of Administrative Review, Notice of Re-conduct of Administrative Review of Grobest & I Mei Industrial (Vietnam) Co., Ltd., and Notice of Amended Final Results of Administrative Review, 63786-63787 [2012-25579]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
63786
Notices
Federal Register
Vol. 77, No. 201
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
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 COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–552–802]
Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp
From the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam: Notice of Court Decision Not
in Harmony With Final Results of
Administrative Review, Notice of Reconduct of Administrative Review of
Grobest & I Mei Industrial (Vietnam)
Co., Ltd., and Notice of Amended Final
Results of Administrative Review
On September 13, 2012, the
United States Court of International
Trade (‘‘CIT’’ or ‘‘Court’’) entered final
judgment following its decision in
Grobest II, 1 regarding the final results of
the antidumping duty administrative
review of certain frozen warmwater
shrimp (‘‘shrimp’’) from the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam (‘‘Vietnam’’) for the
period covering February 1, 2008,
through January 31, 2009.2 Consistent
with the decision of the United States
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
(‘‘Federal Circuit’’) in Timken,3 as
clarified by Diamond Sawblades,4 the
Department is notifying the public that
the final judgment in this case is not in
harmony with the Department’s Final
Results and is amending the Final
Results. The Department is also
notifying the public that it is re-
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
1 See Grobest & I-Mei Industrial (Vietnam) Co. v.
United States, Slip Op. 2012–100 (July 31, 2012)
(‘‘Grobest II’’).
2 See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results and
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 75 FR 47771 (August 9,
2010), and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum, as amended by Certain Frozen
Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam: Amended Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 61122 (October
4,2010) (‘‘Final Results’’).
3 See Timken Co., v. United States, 893 F.2d 337
(Fed. Cir. 1990) (‘‘Timken’’).
4 Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United
States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (‘‘Diamond
Sawblades’’).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:49 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
conducting the 2008/2009 antidumping
duty administrative review of Grobest &
I-Mei Industrial (Vietnam) Co., Ltd.
(‘‘Grobest’’) pursuant to the CIT’s order.
DATES: Effective Date: September 23,
2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Susan Pulongbarit, Office 9, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–4031.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August
9, 2010, the Department issued its Final
Results. In the Final Results, the
Department determined not to examine
Grobest as a voluntary respondent and
rejected Amanda Foods (Vietnam) Ltd.’s
(‘‘Amanda Foods’’) untimely separate
rate certification (‘‘SRC’’).5
In Grobest I, the CIT remanded the
Final Results to the Department to, inter
alia, reconsider its denial of Grobest’s
voluntary respondent request and to
accept Amanda Foods’ SRC.6 On April
30, 2012, the Department filed its
remand results, in which it determined
that individually reviewing Grobest as a
voluntary respondent would have been
unduly burdensome and would have
inhibited the timely completion of the
administrative review. The Department
also accepted Amanda Foods’ SRC, per
the Court’s instruction.
On July 31, 2012, the Court sustained
the Department’s remand results
regarding Amanda Foods’ SRC, but
remanded the Department’s rejection of
Grobest’s request for voluntary
respondent status and ordered the
Department to conduct an individual
review of Grobest as a voluntary
respondent and to reconsider Grobest’s
revocation request in light of the results
of that review.7
Following the Court’s remand order in
Grobest II, the Government moved the
Court to enter final judgment so that the
Department could re-conduct the
administrative review of Grobest under
section 751(a)(3) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended. The Court granted
this motion and ordered the Department
to re-conduct the administrative review
of Grobest by individually investigating
Grobest as a voluntary respondent and
5 See
Final Results.
Grobest & I-Mei Industrial (Vietnam) Co. v.
United States, 36 CIT, 2d 1342 (2012) (‘‘Grobest I’’).
7 See Grobest II.
6 See
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
reconsidering Grobest’s request for
revocation in light of the results of that
review. The Court also ordered the
Department to treat the review of
Grobest as being conducted pursuant to
the deadlines listed in section 751(a)(3)
of the Act, calculating the deadlines
beginning from the date of the entry of
final judgment.
Timken Notice
In its decision in Timken, 8 as
clarified by Diamond Sawblades, the
CAFC held that, pursuant to section
516A(e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (‘‘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
September 13, 2012, judgment
sustaining the Department’s remand
redetermination to accept Amanda
Foods’ SRC and remand to individually
review Grobest constitutes a final
decision of that court that is not in
harmony with the Department’ 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.
Notice of Re-Conduct of Review of
Grobest
Pursuant to the Court’s final
judgment, the Department will reconduct the 2008/2009 administrative
review of the antidumping duty order
on shrimp from Vietnam on Grobest.
The Department will conduct the
administrative review according to the
deadlines listed in Section 751(a)(3) of
the Act, calculating the deadlines
beginning from the date the final
judgment was entered, i.e., September
13, 2012. The Department will also
reconsider Grobest’s request for
revocation within the context of that
review.
Amended Final Results
Because there is now a final court
decision with respect to the Final
Results, the Department amends its
8 See
E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM
Timken, 893 F.2d at 341.
17OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Notices
Final Results. The Department finds the
following revised margin to exist:
initiated the second sunset review of the
AD order on pure magnesium in
granular form from the PRC, pursuant to
section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930,
CERTAIN FROZEN WARMWATER
as amended (‘‘the Act’’).1
SHRIMP FROM VIETNAM
The Department conducted an
expedited sunset review of the order. As
Margin
Exporter
(percent)
a result of its review, the Department
determined that revocation of the AD
Amanda Foods (Vietnam)
order on pure magnesium in granular
Ltd. ....................................
3.92
form from the PRC would be likely to
lead to continuation or recurrence of
The Department also amends the
dumping and notified the ITC of the
Final Results by announcing that it is re- magnitude of the margins likely to
conducting the administrative review of prevail were the order to be revoked.2
Grobest, pursuant to the Court’s
On October 1, 2012, the ITC
September 13, 2012, order.
published its determination, pursuant to
This notice is issued and published in section 751(c) of the Act, that revocation
accordance with sections 516A(e)(1),
of the AD order on pure magnesium in
751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
granular form from the PRC would
likely lead to a continuation or
Dated: October 10, 2012.
recurrence of material injury to an
Paul Piquado,
industry in the United States within a
Assistant Secretary for Import
reasonably foreseeable time.3
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012–25579 Filed 10–16–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–864]
Pure Magnesium in Granular Form
from the People’s Republic of China:
Continuation of Antidumping Duty
Order
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: As a result of determinations
by the Department of Commerce (the
‘‘Department’’) and the International
Trade Commission (the ‘‘ITC’’) that
revocation of the antidumping duty
(‘‘AD’’) order on pure magnesium in
granular form from the People’s
Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) would likely
lead to a continuation or recurrence of
dumping, or to a continuation or
recurrence of material injury within a
reasonably foreseeable time to an
industry in the United States, the
Department is publishing this notice of
continuation of the AD order.
DATES: Effective Date: October 17, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Laurel LaCivita or Eugene Degnan, AD/
CVD Operations, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–4243 and (202)
482–0414, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
February 1, 2012, the Department
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
AGENCY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:49 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
Scope of the Order
There is an existing AD order on pure
magnesium from the PRC.4 The scope of
this order excludes pure magnesium
that is already covered by the existing
order on pure magnesium in ingot form,
and currently classifiable under item
numbers 8104.11.00 and 8104.19.00 of
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (‘‘HTSUS’’).
The scope of this order includes
imports of pure magnesium products,
regardless of chemistry, including,
without limitation, raspings, granules,
turnings, chips, powder, and briquettes,
except as noted above.
Pure magnesium includes: (1)
Products that contain at least 99.95
percent primary magnesium, by weight
(generally referred to as ‘‘ultra pure’’
magnesium); (2) products that contain
less than 99.95 percent but not less than
99.8 percent primary magnesium, by
weight (generally referred to as ‘‘pure’’
magnesium); (3) chemical combinations
of pure magnesium and other material(s)
in which the pure magnesium content is
50 percent or greater, but less than 99.8
percent, by weight, that do not conform
to an ‘‘ASTM Specification for
1 See Initiation of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) Review, 77
FR 4995 (February 1, 2012) (‘‘Initiation Notice’’).
2 See Pure Magnesium in Granular Form from the
People’s Republic of China: Final Results of
Expedited Second Sunset Review of Antidumping
Duty Order, 77 FR 33165 (June 5, 2012).
3 See Pure Magnesium (Granular) from China
(Inv. No. 731–TA–895 (Second Review)), 77 FR
59979 (October 1, 2012).
4 See Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: Pure
Magnesium From the People’s Republic of China,
the Russian Federation and Ukraine; Notice of
Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Antidumping Duty Investigation
of Pure Magnesium From the Russian Federation,
60 FR 25691 (May 12, 1995).
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
63787
Magnesium Alloy’’ 5 (generally referred
to as ‘‘off specification pure’’
magnesium); and (4) physical mixtures
of pure magnesium and other material(s)
in which the pure magnesium content is
50 percent or greater, but less than 99.8
percent, by weight. Excluded from this
order are mixtures containing 90
percent or less pure magnesium by
weight and one or more of certain nonmagnesium granular materials to make
magnesium-based reagent mixtures. The
non-magnesium granular materials of
which the Department is aware used to
make such excluded reagents are: Lime,
calcium metal, calcium silicon, calcium
carbide, calcium carbonate, carbon, slag
coagulants, fluorspar, nephaline syenite,
feldspar, aluminum, alumina (Al2O3),
calcium aluminate, soda ash,
hydrocarbons, graphite, coke, silicon,
rare earth metals/mischmetal, cryolite,
silica/fly ash, magnesium oxide,
periclase, ferroalloys, dolomitic lime,
and colemanite. A party importing a
magnesium-based reagent which
includes one or more materials not on
this list is required to seek a scope
clarification from the Department before
such a mixture may be imported free of
antidumping duties.
The merchandise subject to this order
is currently classifiable under item
8104.30.00 of the HTSUS. Although the
HTSUS subheading is provided for
convenience and customs purposes, our
written description of the scope of this
order is dispositive.6
Continuation of the Order
As a result of these determinations by
the Department and the ITC that
revocation of the AD order on pure
magnesium in granular form would
likely lead to a continuation or
recurrence of dumping, and material
injury to an industry in the United
States, pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of
the Act, the Department hereby orders
the continuation of the AD order on
pure magnesium in granular form from
the PRC.
5 The meaning of this term is the same as that
used by the American Society for Testing and
Materials in its Annual Book of ASTM Standards:
Volume 01.02 Aluminum and Magnesium Alloys.
6 The Department has issued four scope rulings
with respect to pure magnesium in granular form.
See Notice of Scope Rulings and Anticircumvention
Inquiries, 68 FR 7772, 7774 (February 18, 2003);
Memorandum to the File ‘‘Pure Magnesium in
Granular Form from the People’s Republic of China:
Final Scope Ruling: ESM Group Inc.,’’ dated
September 18, 2006; Memorandum to Christian
Marsh, ‘‘Pure Magnesium in Granular Form from
the People’s Republic of China: Final Scope Ruling
on Granular Magnesium Ground in Mexico,’’ dated
October 27, 2011; Memorandum to Christian Marsh,
‘‘Pure Magnesium in Granular Form from the
People’s Republic of China: Final Scope Ruling for
ESM Group Inc. (Atomized Magnesium),’’ dated
October 28, 2011.
E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM
17OCN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 201 (Wednesday, October 17, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63786-63787]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-25579]
========================================================================
Notices
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
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.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 /
Notices
[[Page 63786]]
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-552-802]
Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results of
Administrative Review, Notice of Re-conduct of Administrative Review of
Grobest & I Mei Industrial (Vietnam) Co., Ltd., and Notice of Amended
Final Results of Administrative Review
SUMMARY: On September 13, 2012, the United States Court of
International Trade (``CIT'' or ``Court'') entered final judgment
following its decision in Grobest II, \1\ regarding the final results
of the antidumping duty administrative review of certain frozen
warmwater shrimp (``shrimp'') from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam
(``Vietnam'') for the period covering February 1, 2008, through January
31, 2009.\2\ Consistent with the decision of the United States Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit (``Federal Circuit'') in Timken,\3\ as
clarified by Diamond Sawblades,\4\ the Department is notifying the
public that the final judgment in this case is not in harmony with the
Department's Final Results and is amending the Final Results. The
Department is also notifying the public that it is re-conducting the
2008/2009 antidumping duty administrative review of Grobest & I-Mei
Industrial (Vietnam) Co., Ltd. (``Grobest'') pursuant to the CIT's
order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Grobest & I-Mei Industrial (Vietnam) Co. v. United
States, Slip Op. 2012-100 (July 31, 2012) (``Grobest II'').
\2\ See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam: Final Results and Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 47771 (August 9,
2010), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, as amended
by Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam: Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 75 FR 61122 (October 4,2010) (``Final Results'').
\3\ See Timken Co., v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir.
1990) (``Timken'').
\4\ Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 626 F.3d
1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (``Diamond Sawblades'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Effective Date: September 23, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Pulongbarit, Office 9, Import
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC
20230; telephone: (202) 482-4031.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 9, 2010, the Department issued its
Final Results. In the Final Results, the Department determined not to
examine Grobest as a voluntary respondent and rejected Amanda Foods
(Vietnam) Ltd.'s (``Amanda Foods'') untimely separate rate
certification (``SRC'').\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Final Results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Grobest I, the CIT remanded the Final Results to the Department
to, inter alia, reconsider its denial of Grobest's voluntary respondent
request and to accept Amanda Foods' SRC.\6\ On April 30, 2012, the
Department filed its remand results, in which it determined that
individually reviewing Grobest as a voluntary respondent would have
been unduly burdensome and would have inhibited the timely completion
of the administrative review. The Department also accepted Amanda
Foods' SRC, per the Court's instruction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Grobest & I-Mei Industrial (Vietnam) Co. v. United
States, 36 CIT, 2d 1342 (2012) (``Grobest I'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 31, 2012, the Court sustained the Department's remand
results regarding Amanda Foods' SRC, but remanded the Department's
rejection of Grobest's request for voluntary respondent status and
ordered the Department to conduct an individual review of Grobest as a
voluntary respondent and to reconsider Grobest's revocation request in
light of the results of that review.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Grobest II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following the Court's remand order in Grobest II, the Government
moved the Court to enter final judgment so that the Department could
re-conduct the administrative review of Grobest under section 751(a)(3)
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. The Court granted this motion
and ordered the Department to re-conduct the administrative review of
Grobest by individually investigating Grobest as a voluntary respondent
and reconsidering Grobest's request for revocation in light of the
results of that review. The Court also ordered the Department to treat
the review of Grobest as being conducted pursuant to the deadlines
listed in section 751(a)(3) of the Act, calculating the deadlines
beginning from the date of the entry of final judgment.
Timken Notice
In its decision in Timken, \8\ as clarified by Diamond Sawblades,
the CAFC held that, pursuant to section 516A(e) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (``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 September 13, 2012, judgment
sustaining the Department's remand redetermination to accept Amanda
Foods' SRC and remand to individually review Grobest constitutes a
final decision of that court that is not in harmony with the
Department' 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Timken, 893 F.2d at 341.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice of Re-Conduct of Review of Grobest
Pursuant to the Court's final judgment, the Department will re-
conduct the 2008/2009 administrative review of the antidumping duty
order on shrimp from Vietnam on Grobest. The Department will conduct
the administrative review according to the deadlines listed in Section
751(a)(3) of the Act, calculating the deadlines beginning from the date
the final judgment was entered, i.e., September 13, 2012. The
Department will also reconsider Grobest's request for revocation within
the context of that review.
Amended Final Results
Because there is now a final court decision with respect to the
Final Results, the Department amends its
[[Page 63787]]
Final Results. The Department finds the following revised margin to
exist:
Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Vietnam
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Foods (Vietnam) Ltd.............................. 3.92
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department also amends the Final Results by announcing that it
is re-conducting the administrative review of Grobest, pursuant to the
Court's September 13, 2012, order.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections
516A(e)(1), 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: October 10, 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012-25579 Filed 10-16-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
