Department of Commerce November 7, 2007 – Federal Register Recent Federal Regulation Documents

On May 10, 2007, the United States Court of International Trade (``Court'') sustained the Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, Fuyao Glass Industry Group Co., Ltd. et al., v. United States (February 15, 2006) (``Third Remand Redetermination'') made by the Department of Commerce (``the Department'') pursuant to the Court's third remand of the final determination of the less-than-fair- value investigation of Certain Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields from the People's Republic of China (``PRC''). See Fuyao Glass Industry Group Co. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 02-00282, Slip Op. 06-21 (CIT February 15, 2006) (``Fuyao Glass III''). As there is now a final and conclusive court decision in this case, the Department is amending the final determination and antidumping duty order of this investigation.

On August 3, 2007, the United States Court of International Trade (``Court'') entered a final judgment sustaining the fourth remand results made by the Department of Commerce (``the Department'') pursuant to the Court's remand of the antidumping duty order on Certain Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields from the People's Republic of China (``PRC'') in Changchun Pilkington Safety Glass Co., Ltd., et al. v. United States, consol. Ct. No. 02-00312, Slip Op 07-118 (August 3, 2007) (``Pilkington''). This case arises out of the Department's Antidumping Duty Order: Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields from the People's Republic of China, 67 FR 16087 (April 4, 2002) (``Order''). The final judgment in this case was not in harmony with the Department's Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields From the People's Republic of China, 67 FR 6482 (February 12, 2002) (``Final Determination''), and accompanying Issues and Decisions Memorandum (``Decision Memo''), as amended at 67 FR 11670 (March 15, 2002), covering the period of investigation (``POI''), July 1, 2000 through December 31, 2000.

We preliminarily determine that imports of glycine from India are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value, as provided in section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination. We will make our final determination within 75 days after the date of this preliminary determination.

On July 6, 2007, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the antidumping duty (AD) administrative review on carbon and alloy steel wire rod (wire rod) from Trinidad and Tobago. This review covers one producer of subject merchandise. The period of review (POR) is October 1, 2005, through September 30, 2006. See Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Trinidad and Tobago; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 36955 (July 6, 2007) (Preliminary Results). Based on our analysis of comments received, these final results do not differ from the preliminary results. The final results are listed below in the Final Results of Review section.

The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod from Canada for the period October 1, 2005, to September 30, 2006 (the POR). We preliminarily determine that sales of subject merchandise by Ivaco Rolling Mills 2004 L.P. and Sivaco Ontario (a division of Sivaco Wire Group 2004 L.P.) (collectively referred to as ``Ivaco'') have been made below normal value (NV). If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on appropriate entries. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. We will issue the final results no later than 120 days from the publication of this notice. The Department recently concluded a changed circumstance review in which it determined that, as of the publication of that final changed circumstance review, ``(1) Ivaco Rolling Mills 2004 L.P. is the successor-in-interest to Ivaco Rolling Mills L.P.; and (2) Sivaco Ontario, a division of Sivaco Wire Group 2004 L.P., is the successor- in-interest to Ivaco Inc. for antidumping duty cash deposit purposes.'' See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Canada, 72 FR 15102 (March 30, 2007) (Ivaco Changed Circumstances Review). Sivaco Ontario (a Division of Sivaco Wire Group 2004 L.P.) was also identified as the successor-in-interest to Sivaco Ontario. See CBP Message Number 7116210, April 26, 2007. The results of this administrative review, for cash deposit purposes, will apply to Ivaco Rolling Mills 2004 L.P. and to Sivaco Ontario (a division of Sivaco Wire Group 2004 L.P). Assessment instructions issued subsequent to the final results would apply to unliquidated entries of not only Ivaco Rolling Mills 2004 L.P. and Sivaco Ontario (a division of Sivaco Wire Group 2004 L.P.), but also those of Ivaco Rolling Mills L.P., Ivaco Inc., and Sivaco Ontario. Note that Ivaco Rolling Mills 2004 L.P. is referred to below as IRM, and Sivaco Ontario (a division of Sivaco Wire Group 2004 L.P.) is referred to below as Sivaco Ontario (even though ``Sivaco Ontario'' was the name of the predecessor company to Sivaco Ontario (a division of Sivaco Wire Group 2004 L.P.)).