Notices. Notice of Initiation of Antidumping New Shipper Review in Certain Pasta from Italy
3,433 words·~16 min read·
/register/2004/09/01/04-20029·A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-475-818] Certain Pasta From Italy: Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review for the Period July 1, 2003, Through June 30, 2004 AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of Initiation of Antidumping New Shipper Review in Certain Pasta from Italy. EFFECTIVE DATE: September 1, 2004. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) has received a request to conduct a new shipper review of the antidumping duty
(AD)order on certain pasta from Italy. In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.214(d) (2003), we are initiating an AD new shipper review for Atar S.r.L. (Atar). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dennis McClure or James Terpstra at
(202)482-5973 and
(202)482-3965, respectively; AD/CVD Operations 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On July 30, 2004, the Department received a timely request from Atar, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(b), for a new shipper review of the AD order on certain pasta from Italy, which has a July anniversary month. 1 1 *See Certain Pasta from Italy* , 61 FR 38547 (July 24, 1996). As required by 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(i) and (iii)(A), Atar certified that it did not export subject merchandise to the United States during the period of investigation (POI), and that it has never been affiliated with any exporter or producer which exported subject merchandise during the POI. 2 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iv), the company submitted documentation establishing the date on which it first shipped the subject merchandise to the United States, the date of entry of that first shipment, the volume of that and subsequent shipments, and the date of the first sale to an unaffiliated customer in the United States. 3 2 *See* submission from Grunfeld, Desiderio, Lebowitz, Silverman & Klestadt LLP on behalf of Atar S.r.L. to the Department regarding Request for New Shipper Review, Case A-475-818, dated July 30, 2004. 3 *Id.* Initiation of Reviews In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(d), and based on information on the record, we are initiating an AD new shipper review for Atar. We intend to issue the preliminary results of this new shipper review not later than 180 days after initiation of this review. We intend to issue final results of this review no later than 90 days after the date on which the preliminary results are issued. *See* 19 CFR 351.214(i). New shipper review proceeding Period to be reviewed Atar S.r.L. 07/01/03-06/30/04
(AD)We will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to allow, at the option of the importer, the posting, until the completion of the reviews, of a bond or security in lieu of a cash deposit for each entry of the subject merchandise from the above-listed company in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(e). Because Atar certified that it both produces and exports the subject merchandise, the sale of which is the basis for these new shipper review requests, we will permit the bonding privilege only with respect to entries of subject merchandise for which Atar is both the producer and exporter. Interested parties that need access to proprietary information in this new shipper review should submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective orders in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 and 351.306. This initiation and notice are in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(d). Dated: August 24, 2004. Jeffrey A. May, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E4-1983 Filed 8-31-04; 8:45 a.m.] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-894, A-570-895] Certain Tissue Paper Products and Certain Crepe Paper Products From the People's Republic of China: Postponement of the Preliminary Determinations of the Antidumping Investigations AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) is postponing the preliminary determinations in the antidumping investigations of certain tissue paper products and certain crepe paper products from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) until no later than September 14, 2004. This postponement is made pursuant to section 733(c)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). EFFECTIVE DATE: September 1, 2004. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Conniff or Alex Villanueva, at
(202)482-1009 or
(202)482-3208, respectively, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On March 8, 2004, the Department initiated antidumping investigations of imports of certain tissue paper products and certain crepe paper products from the PRC. *See Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Certain Tissue Paper Products and Certain Crepe Paper Products from the People's Republic of China,* 69 FR 12128 (March 15, 2004) (“ *Initiation Notice* ”). Section 733(b) of the Act requires the Department to make a preliminary determination no later than 140 days after the date of initiation. On July 12, 2004, the Department extended the preliminary determinations of the certain tissue paper and certain crepe paper products from PRC investigations in accordance with Section 733(c)(1)(B) of the Act. *See Postponement of Preliminary Determinations of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Certain Tissue Paper Products and Certain Crepe Paper Products from PRC* 69 FR 41785 (July 12, 2004). The preliminary determinations in the investigation of certain tissue paper and certain crepe paper products from PRC are now due not later than August 25, 2004. Postponement of Preliminary Determinations As discussed below, we have determined that these investigations are extraordinarily complicated within the meaning of section 733(c)(1)(B)(i) of the Act. Furthermore, we have determined that the parties concerned are cooperating, as required by section 733(c)(1)(B) of the Act, and that additional time is necessary to make these preliminary determinations in accordance with section 733(c)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act. In the investigation of certain tissue paper products, one of the respondents has submitted complex reporting methodologies for its factors of production (“FOPs”), which require detailed analysis by the Department. In addition, the Department may require additional information from the mandatory respondents for this preliminary determination. The Department can only complete its analysis and gather all of the necessary information by postponing the preliminary determination. In the investigation of certain crepe paper products, the Department requires additional time to evaluate the section A responses and relevant information on the record so as to determine the appropriate margin for the section A respondents. Therefore, it is the Department's decision to postpone the current preliminary determinations so that all of the issues currently under investigation at this time can be addressed in the most complete manner possible. For the reasons identified above, we are postponing the preliminary determinations under section 733(c)(1)(B) of the Act, to no later than September 14, 2004, the 190th day after the date on which the investigation was initiated. The deadline for the final determinations will continue to be 75 days after the date of the preliminary determinations. This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 733(c)(2), 733(f) and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: August 25, 2004. Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E4-2004 Filed 8-31-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-549-818] Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From Thailand: Notice of Court Decision and Suspension of Liquidation AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce SUMMARY: On July 27, 2004, the United States Court of International Trade issued an order to the Department to find that no countervailable subsidies are being provided for the production or exportation of certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from Thailand. Specifically, the Court reversed the Department's finding of a countervailable subsidy relating to a duty drawback program. The effect of removing this countervailable subsidy finding is the reduction of the overall countervailable subsidy rate to 1.80 percent *ad valorem* , which is *de minimis* for Thailand. *Royal Thai Government, et. al.,* v. *United States* , Consol. Court No. 02-00026, Slip. Op. 04-91 (CIT 2004) (“ *Royal Thai* ”). Consistent with the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in *Timken Co.* v. *United States* , 893 F.2nd 337 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“ *Timken* ”), the Department is notifying the public that the *Royal Thai* decision was “not in harmony” with the Department's final determination. EFFECTIVE DATE: August 6, 2004. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dana Mermelstein or Dara Iserson, AD/CVD Enforcement Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-1391 or
(202)482-4052, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On October 3, 2001, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) issued a countervailing duty determination covering hot-rolled steel from Thailand. *Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From Thailand,* 66 FR 50410 (October 3, 2001). On December 3, 2001, the countervailing duty order was published. *Notice of Countervailing Duty Order: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From Thailand* 66 FR 60197 (December 3, 2001). On February 1, 2002, respondents, the Royal Thai Government
(RTG)and Sahaviriya Steel Industries (SSI), filed their complaint, appealing the final determination and countervailing duty order. *Royal Thai Government, et al.,* v. *United States* , Court. No. 02-00027. Petitioners, National Steel Corporation, Bethlehem Steel Corporation, and United States Steel Corporation, also appealed the final determination. *National Steel Corp, et al.,* v. *United States* , Court No. 02-00026, consolidated into *Royal Thai Government, et al.,* v. *United States* , Consol. No. 02-00026. On May 19, 2004, the RTG and SSI obtained an injunction, applicable during the pendency of this litigation in the Court of International Trade, enjoining the United States from liquidating or causing or permitting liquidation of any entries of certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from Thailand that:
(1)Were affected by the Department's investigative proceeding;
(2)were produced and exported by SSI;
(3)were entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, from January 1, 2002 through December 31, 2002; and,
(4)remain unliquidated as of 5 p.m. on May 20, 2004. On July 27, 2004, the CIT found that the Department's determination to countervail the duty drawback program in its entirety was not supported by substantial evidence and is not in accordance with law. Because the Court found that the drawback program is not countervailable, and the revised subsidy rate is *de minimis* (1.80 percent), it ordered the Department to find that no countervailable subsidies are being provided to the production or exportation of certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from Thailand. *See Royal Thai* . Timken Notice In its decision in *Timken* , the Federal Circuit held that, pursuant to 516a(c)(1) and
(e)of the Act, the Department must publish notice of a decision of the CIT which is not in harmony with the Department's determination. The CIT's decision in *Royal Thai* was not in harmony with the Department's *Final Determination* . Therefore, publication of this notice fulfills the statutory obligation. Suspension of Liquidation This notice will serve to continue the suspension of liquidation pending the expiration of the period to appeal the CIT's July 27, 2004, decision, or, if that decision is appealed, pending a final decision by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Because the CIT issued an injunction on May 19, 2004, the Department will continue to suspend entries of hot-rolled steel from Thailand as specified in the injunction. The Department will revoke the Order and issue instructions covering these entries if the CIT's decision is not appealed, or if it is affirmed on appeal. Dated: August 26, 2004. James J. Jochum, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E4-2012 Filed 8-31-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-427-815] Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From France: Notice of Amended Final Determination Pursuant to Final Court Decision and Revocation of Order AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of Amended Final Determination Pursuant to Final Court Decision and Revocation of Order. SUMMARY: On September 24, 2002, the United States Court of International Trade (“CIT”) sustained the Department of Commerce's (“the Department”) second remand determination of the *Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from France,* 64 FR 30774 (June 8, 1999) (“ *French Stainless* ”). *See Allegheny Ludlum Corp.* v. *United States,* 182 F. Supp. 2d 1357
(2002)(“ *Allegheny II* ”). The Department appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”). On May 13, 2004, the Federal Circuit affirmed the CIT's decision in *Allegheny II* . *See allegheny Ludlum Corp.* v. *United States,* 367 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“ *Appellate Decision* ”). Because all litigation in this matter has concluded, the Department is issuing this amended final determination in *French Stainless* in accordance with the CIT's decision and revoking the countervailing duty order. EFFECTIVE DATE: September 1, 2004. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jesse Cortes at
(202)482-3986, AD/CVD Operations 1, Office I, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On June 8, 1999, the Department published the final affirmative countervailing duty determination in *French Stainless.* The Department published the related countervailing duty order on August 6, 1999. *See Amended Final Determination: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From the Republic of Korea; and Notice of Countervailing Duty Orders: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From France, Italy, and the Republic of Korea,* 64 FR 42923 (August 6, 1999) (“ *CVD Order* ”). In its final determination, the Department found that a portion of the countervailable subsidy benefits bestowed on French steel producer Usinor Sacilor prior to a stock sale privatization passed through to Usinor, the privatized company and the respondent in the investigation. Usinor and one of the petitioners, Allegheny Ludlum Corporation (“Allegheny” or “the petitioner”), challenged this determination before the CIT. *See Usinor* v. * United States,* Court No. 99-09-00573 and *Allegheny Ludlum* v. *United States,* Court No. 99-09-00566. The cases were subsequently consolidated as *Allegheny Ludlum* v. *United States,* Court No. 99-09-00566 (also referred to as “ *French Stainless* ”). On December 22, 1999, the CIT issued an injunction enjoining the Department from liquidating Usinor's, Ugine S.A.'s and Uginox's entries of subject merchandise that were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption
(1)on or after November 17, 1998, and before March 17, 1999; and
(2)on or after August 6, 1999. On February 2, 2000, while *French Stainless* was pending before the CIT, the Federal Circuit issued a ruling in *Delverde SRL* v. *United States* , 202 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2000), *reh'g granted in part* , (June 20, 2000) (“ *Delverde III* ”), which had a direct impact on the change-in-ownership methodology at issue in *French Stainless* . Specifically, the Federal Circuit ruled that the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act effective January 1, 1995 (“the Act”), did not allow the Department to presume, pursuant to a *per se* ruling, that subsidies granted to the former owner of a company's assets automatically “passed through” to the new owner following a sale; rather, the statute required the Department to examine the particular facts and circumstances of the sale, and determine whether the new owner directly or indirectly received both a financial contribution and a benefit. *Id.* at 1364. In light of *Delverde III* , the Department asked the CIT to remand *French Stainless* for reconsideration of the change-in-ownership issues. On August 15, 2000, with the parties' consent, the CIT remanded *French Stainless* to the Department to issue a determination consistent with U.S. law and *Delverde III* . *See Allegheny Ludlum Corp.* v. *United States* , Court No. 99-09-00566, Remand Order (August 15, 2000). On December 13, 2000, having taken *Delverde III* into consideration, the Department issued the *Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, Allegheny Ludlum Corp., et al.,* v. *United States* , Consol. Court No. 99-09-00566, Remand Order (CIT August 15, 2000) (December 13, 2000) (“ *Remand Determination I* ”). In that redetermination, having found (based on an analysis of certain factors) that Usinor was the same legal person before and after privatization, the Department determined that pre-privatization subsidy benefits remained attributable to Usinor following privatization. *See Remand Determination I* at 20. On January 4, 2002, rejecting the Department's same-person analysis as contrary to the requirements of *Delverde III* , the CIT again remanded *French Stainless* to the Department. *See Allegheny Ludlum Corp.* v. *United States* , 182 F. Supp. 2d 1357
(2002)(“ *Allegheny I* ”). Despite disagreement with the CIT's interpretation of *Delverde III* , the Department proceeded with a further redetermination as remanded and, on June 3, 2002, issued the *Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, Allegheny Ludlum Corp. et al.,* v. *United States* , Court No. 99-09-00566, Remand Order (CIT January 4, 2002) (June 3, 2002) (“ *Remand Determination II* ”). In that redetermination, applying a fair-market-value analysis, the Department concluded that the purchasers/new owners of Usinor did not receive new countervailable subsidies as a result of the privatization transaction. On September 24, 2002, upon consideration of *Remand Determination II* , the CIT issued *Allegheny Ludlum Corp.* v. *United States* , 246 F. Supp. 2d 1304
(2202)(“ *Allegheny II* ”) sustaining the results of *Remand Determination II* . The Department subsequently appealed the case to the Federal Circuit. On May 13, 2004, the Federal Circuit issued the *Appellate Decision* , which affirmed the CIT's *Allegheny II* decision sustaining the results of *Remand Determination II* . Because there is now a final and conclusive decision in the court proceeding, effective as of the publication date of this notice, we are amending the final determination and establishing the revised countervailing duty rates set forth below. In a contemporaneous but separate proceeding, on November 17, 2003, the Department published a *Notice of Implementation Under Section 129 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act; Countervailing Measures Concerning Certain Steel Products from the European Communities,* 68 FR 64858 (Nov. 17, 2003). The Department implemented, among other determinations, its Section 129 determination with respect to the *CVD Order.* The result was a revocation of the *CVD Order* effective November 7, 2003. The Department instructed U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to discontinue suspension of liquidation of shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after November 7, 2003. Finally, the Department conducted two administrative reviews of the *CVD Order. See Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from France: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review,* 67 FR 62098 (Oct. 3, 2002) and *Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from France: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review,* 68 FR 53963 (Sept. 15, 2003). As a consequence of the injunction issued by the CIT on December 22, 1999, the Department did not order the liquidation of any entries covered by the administrative reviews. Those entries shall be liquidation as set forth below. Amended Final Determination and Revocation of Order Because there is now a final and conclusive decision in the court proceeding, effective as of the publication date of this notice, we are amending the final determination to reflect the results of *Remand Determination II, i.e.,* that the countervailable subsidy rate for Usinor during the period of investigation is 0.00 percent *ad valorem.* Because Usinor was the only known producer/exporter of the subject merchandise, we are also revoking the *CVD Order* for all entries after November 17, 1998 (the date on which the Department published the preliminary countervailing duty determination in *French Stainless* ) through November 7, 2003 (the date on which the Department implemented its Section 129 determination on *French Stainless* ). Accordingly, pursuant to section 705(c)(2)(A)-(B) of the Act and effective as of the publication of this notice, the Department will instruct CBP to terminate the suspension of liquidation of, and liquidation without regard to countervailing duties, all entries entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after November 17, 1998, and before March 17, 1999 (the date the Department instructed CBP to discontinue the suspensions of liquidation), and all entries entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after August 6, 1999 (the date on which the Department published the *CVD Order* ), and before November 7, 2003. This determination is published pursuant to sections 705(d) and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: August 26, 2004. James J. Jochum, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. 04-20029 Filed 8-31-04; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 2
4 references not yet in our index
- 182 F. Supp. 2d 1357
- 367 F.3d 1339
- 202 F.3d 1360
- 246 F. Supp. 2d 1304
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice of Initiation of Antidumping New Shipper Review in Certain Pasta from Italy
Cites 6Cited by 0 across 0 sources