Tap any paragraph to write a margin note. Your notes collect in the Desk below the text and file under cases with @. The side-by-side margin rail opens on a larger screen.

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2005-04-07 · Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce · Notices

Notices. Notice of intent; request for comments

12,741 words·~58 min read·/register/2005/04/07/05-6939·

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

BILLING CODE 3510-OT-M DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-351-504, A-351-503, A-122-503, A-570-502, A-821-801, A-823-801, A-570-001] Iron Construction Castings From Brazil, Canada, and China; Solid Urea From Russia and Ukraine, and Potassium Permanganate From China: Extension of Time Limit for the Final Results of Sunset Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
DATES: *Effective Date:* April 7, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martha Douthit at 202-482-5050, or Hilary Sadler, Esq. at 202-482-4340, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. Background On October 1, 2004, the Department initiated sunset reviews of the antidumping orders on Iron Construction Castings from Brazil, Canada, and China; Solid Urea from Russia and Ukraine, and Potassium Permanganate from China, and the countervailing duty order on Iron Construction Casting from Brazil.
Based on adequate responses from the domestic interested parties and inadequate responses from respondent interested parties, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) is conducting expedited sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders on Iron Construction Castings from Brazil, Canada, and China, Solid Urea from Russia and Ukraine, and Potassium Permanganate from China, and the countervailing duty on Iron Construction Castings from Brazil. The Department's final results of these sunset reviews were originally scheduled for January 31, 2005.
On December 17, 2004, the Department extended the final results of these reviews until March 31, 2005. Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of Reviews In accordance with section 751(c)(5)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), the U.S. Department of Commerce (“the Department”) may extend the period of time for making its final determination in a sunset review by not more than 90 days if it determines that the review is extraordinarily complicated. As set forth in 751(c)(5)(C)(v) of the Act, the Department may treat a sunset review as extraordinarily complicated if it is a review of a transition order, as is the case in these proceedings.
The Department has determined, pursuant to section 751(c)(5)(C)(v) of the Act, that the sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders on Iron Construction Casting from Brazil, Canada, and China, Solid Urea from Russia and Ukraine, Potassium Permanganate from China, and the countervailing duty order on Iron Construction Castings from Brazil, are extraordinarily complicated and require additional time for the Department to complete its analysis. Therefore, the Department will extend the deadlines in these proceedings and, as a result, intends to issue the final results of the sunset reviews on Iron Constructions Casting from Brazil, Canada, and China, Solid Urea from Russia, and Ukraine, and Potassium Permanganate from China, on or about Monday, May 2, 2005, 90 days from the original scheduled date of final results of review.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(c)(5)(B) and 751(c)(5)(C)(v) of the Act. Dated: March 31, 2005. Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-1610 Filed 4-6-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-351-602, A-588-602, A-570-814, A-583-605, A-549-807, A-475-703, A-588-707] Carbon Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings From Brazil, Japan, the People's Republic of China, Taiwan, and Thailand, and Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin From Italy and Japan:
Extension of Time Limit for the Final Results of Sunset Reviews of Antidumping Duty Orders AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. DATES: *Effective Date:* April 7, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martha Douthit at 202-482-5050, or Hilary Sadler, Esq. at 202-482-4340, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.
Background On December 1, 2004, the Department initiated sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders on Carbon Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from Brazil, Japan, the People's Republic of China, Taiwan, and Thailand, and Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from Italy and Japan. Based on adequate responses from the domestic interested parties and inadequate responses from respondent interested parties, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) is conducting expedited sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders on Carbon Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from Brazil, Japan, the People's Republic of China, Taiwan, and Thailand, and Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from Italy and Japan.
The Department's final results of these sunset reviews are currently scheduled for March 31, 2005. Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of Reviews In accordance with section 751(c)(5)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), the U.S. Department of Commerce (“the Department”) may extend the period of time for making its final determination in a sunset review by not more than 90 days, if it determined that the review is extraordinarily complicated. As set forth in 751(c)(5)(C)(v) of the Act, the Department may treat a sunset review as extraordinarily complicated if it is a review of a transition order, as is the case in these proceedings.
The Department has determined, pursuant to section 751(c)(5)(C)(v) of the Act, that the sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders on Carbon Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from Brazil, Japan, the People's Republic of China, Taiwan, Thailand, and Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from Italy and Japan, are extraordinarily complicated and require additional time for the Department to complete its analysis. Therefore, the Department will extend the deadlines in these proceedings and, as a result, intends to issue the final results of the sunset reviews on Carbon Steel Weld-Pipe Fittings from Brazil, Japan, the People's Republic of China, Taiwan, and Thailand, and Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from Italy and Japan, on or about June 29, 2005, 90 days from the original scheduled date of final results of review.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(c)(5)(B) and 751(c)(5)(C)(v) of the Act. Dated: March 31, 2005. Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-1609 Filed 4-6-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-122-822] Notice of Rescission, in Part, of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Canada AGENCY:
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: April 7, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Candice Kenney Weck or Sean Carey at
(202)482-0938 and
(202)482-3964, respectively; AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Department received timely requests for an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products from Canada, with respect to Dofasco Inc. (Dofasco), Impact Steel Canada, Ltd. (Impact Steel), and Stelco Inc. (Stelco). On September 22, 2004, the Department published the initiation of an administrative review of Dofasco, Impact Steel, and Stelco, covering the period August 1, 2003, through July 31, 2004. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part* (69 FR 56745). On November 12, 2004, Impact Steel timely withdrew its request for an administrative review. The request was the only request for an administrative review of Impact Steel. Rescission, in Part, of the Administrative Review Pursuant to the Department's regulations, the Department will rescind an administrative review “if a party that requested the review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of notice of initiation of the requested review.” *See* 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). Since Impact Steel submitted a timely withdrawal of its request for review, and since this was the only request for a review of Impact Steel, the Department is rescinding its antidumping administrative review of Impact Steel in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). Based on this rescission, the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products from Canada covering the period August 1, 2003, through July 31, 2004, now covers the following companies: Dofasco and Stelco. We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with section 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4). Dated: April 1, 2005. Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-1615 Filed 4-6-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-580-816] Corrosion Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Korea: Extension of Time Limits for the Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lyman Armstrong or Victoria Cho at
(202)482-3601 or
(202)482-5075 respectively, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Ave, NW., Washington, DC 20230. Background On September 22, 2004, the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Department”) published a notice of initiation of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on corrosion resistant carbon steel flat products from Korea, covering the period August 1, 2003 to July 31, 2004 (69 FR 56745). The preliminary results of this review are currently due no later than May 3, 2005. Extension of Time Limit of Preliminary Results Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), requires the Department to make a preliminary determination within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of an order or finding for which a review is requested. Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act further states that if it is not practicable to complete the review within the time period specified, the administering authority may extend the 245-day period to issue its preliminary results by up to 120 days. We determine that completion of the preliminary results of this review within the 245-day period is not practicable for the following reasons. This review covers six companies, and to conduct the sales and cost analyses for each requires the Department to gather and analyze a significant amount of information pertaining to each company's sales practices, manufacturing costs and corporate relationships. In addition, the Department is analyzing issues related to scope exclusions of certain products. Given the number and complexity of issues in this case, and in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, we are extending the time period for issuing the preliminary results of review to 365 days. Therefore, the preliminary results are now due no later than August 31, 2005. The final results continued to be due 120 days after publication of the preliminary results. Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-1608 Filed 4-6-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-836] Glycine From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to a request from Baoding Mantong Fine Chemistry Co., Ltd. (“Baoding Mantong”), the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on glycine from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). This review covers Baoding Mantong. The period of review (“POR”) is March 1, 2003 through February 29, 2004. We preliminarily find that sales have been made below normal value (“NV”). The preliminary results are listed below in the section titled “Preliminary Results of Review.” If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to assess the *ad valorem* margins against the entered value of each entry of the subject merchandise during the POR. We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results. Parties that submit comments are requested to submit with each argument
(1)a statement of the issue and
(2)a brief summary of the argument(s). Effective Date: April 7, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew Renkey, Catherine Bertrand, or Shannon Fraser, at
(202)482-2313,
(202)482-3207, or
(202)482-0165, respectively; AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On March 29, 1995, the Department published in the **Federal Register** an antidumping duty order on glycine from the PRC. *See Antidumping Duty Order: Glycine from the People's Republic of China,* 60 FR 16116, (March 29, 1995). On March 1, 2004, the Department published a *Notice of Opportunity to Request an Administrative Review of Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation,* 69 FR 9584 (March 1, 2004). On March 16, 2004, Baoding Mantong requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of its company's sales of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR, in accordance with section 351.213(b) of the Department's regulations. On April 28, 2004, the Department initiated the review for Baoding Mantong. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews in Part,* 69 FR 23170 (April 28, 2004). On May 26, 2004, the Department issued an antidumping duty questionnaire to Baoding Mantong. On November 9, 2004, we invited interested parties to comment on the Department's surrogate country selection and/or significant production in the other potential surrogate countries and to submit publicly available information to value the factors of production. On February 14, 2005, the Department received comments from Baoding Mantong on surrogate information with which to value the factors of production in this proceeding. With regard to Baoding Mantong, the Department received timely filed original and supplemental questionnaire responses. Scope of the Order The product covered by the order is glycine, which is a free-flowing crystalline material, like salt or sugar. Glycine is produced at varying levels of purity and is used as a sweetener/taste enhancer, a buffering agent, reabsorbable amino acid, chemical intermediate, and a metal complexing agent. This review covers glycine of all purity levels. Glycine is currently classified under subheading 2922.49.4020 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and Customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under the order is dispositive. Verification As provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”) and 19 CFR 351.307, we conducted verification of the questionnaire responses of Baoding Mantong. We used standard verification procedures, including on-site inspection of the production and sales facilities, and an examination of relevant sales and financial records. Our verification results are outlined in the *Administrative Review of Glycine from the People's Republic of China: Sales and Factors Verification Report for Baoding Mantong Fine Chemistry Co., Ltd.,* dated March 31, 2005 (“ *Baoding Mantong Verification Report* ”). A public version of this report is on file in the Central Records Unit located in room B-099 of the Main Commerce Building. Separate Rates In proceedings involving non-market economy (“NME”) countries, the Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and, thus, should be assigned a single antidumping duty rate unless an exporter can affirmatively demonstrate an absence of government control, both in law ( *de jure* ) and in fact ( *de facto* ), with respect to its export activities. *See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China,* 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (“ *Sparklers* ”). In this review, Baoding Mantong requested a separate company-specific rate. Accordingly, we have considered whether the company is independent from government control, and therefore eligible for a separate rate. The Department's separate rate test to determine whether the exporter is independent from government control does not consider, in general, macroeconomic/border-type controls, *e.g.* , export licenses, quotas, and minimum export prices, particularly if these controls are imposed to prevent dumping. The test focuses, rather, on controls over the investment, pricing, and output decision-making process at the individual firm level. *See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from the Ukraine: Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value,* 62 FR 61754, 61757 (November 19, 1997), and *Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,* 62 FR 61276, 61279 (November 17, 1997). To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from government control of its export activities to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department analyzes each entity exporting the subject merchandise under a test arising from *Sparklers,* as amplified by *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China,* 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (“ *Silicon Carbide* ”). In accordance with the separate rates criteria, the Department assigns separate rates in NME cases only if respondents can demonstrate the absence of both *de jure* and *de facto* government control over export activities. Baoding Mantong provided complete separate-rate information in its responses to our original and supplemental questionnaires. Accordingly, we performed a separate rates analysis to determine whether it is independent of government control. Absence of De Jure Control The Department considers the following *de jure* criteria in determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate rate:
(1)An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an individual exporter's business and export licenses;
(2)any legislative enactments decentralizing control of companies; and
(3)any other formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. *See Sparklers,* 56 FR at 20589. Our analysis shows that the evidence on the record supports a preliminary finding of *de jure* absence of government control for Baoding Mantong based on each of these factors. Baoding Mantong has placed on the record a number of documents to demonstrate absence of *de jure* control, including the “Foreign Trade Law of the People's Republic of China.” *See* Attachment A-1 of Baoding Mantong's July 14, 2004 submission. The Foreign Trade Law allows the company full autonomy from the central authority in governing its business operations. We have reviewed Article 11 of Chapter II of the Foreign Trade Law, which states “foreign trade dealers shall enjoy full autonomy in their business operation and be responsible for their own profits and losses in accordance with the law.” During verification, Baoding Mantong also provided its “Articles of Association,” “Certificate of Approval for Enterprises with Foreign Trade Rights in the People's Republic of China,” and “Foreign Trade Entity Registration Form.” *See Baoding Mantong Verification Report,* Exhibit 1. As in prior cases, we have analyzed such PRC laws and approvals and found that they establish an absence of *de jure* control. *See, e.g., Pure Magnesium from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of New Shipper Review,* 63 FR 3085, 3086 (January 21, 1998) and *Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review: Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China,* 66 FR 30695, 30696 (June 7, 2001). Baoding Mantong also submitted a copy of its business licence in Attachment A-2 of its July 14, 2004 submission. This license was issued by the Agency of Registration, Mancheng County, Industry and Commerce Administrative Bureau. Baoding Mantong indicates that its business operations are limited to the scope of the licence, and that the licence may be revoked if the company acts outside of its business scope, fails to pay taxes, or violates criminal laws. At verification, we reviewed Baoding Mantong's business license and found that it was granted in accordance with the relevant PRC laws. Moreover, the results of verification support the information provided regarding the PRC laws. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that there is an absence of *de jure* control over the export activities of Baoding Mantong. Absence of De Facto Control Typically, the Department considers four factors in evaluating whether a respondent is subject to *de facto* government control of its export functions:
(1)Whether the export prices are set by, or subject to, the approval of a government authority;
(2)whether the respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts, and other agreements;
(3)whether the respondent has autonomy from the government in making decisions regarding the selection of its management; and
(4)whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of losses. *See Silicon Carbide,* 59 FR at 22587. As stated in previous cases, there is some evidence that certain enactments of the PRC central government have not been implemented uniformly among different sectors and/or jurisdictions in the PRC. *See Silicon Carbide,* 59 FR at 22586-22587. Therefore, the Department has determined that an analysis of *de facto* control is critical in determining whether respondents are, in fact, subject to a degree of government control which would preclude the Department from assigning separate rates. Baoding Mantong has asserted the following:
(1)It is a privately owned limited liability company;
(2)there is no government participation in its setting of export prices;
(3)its general manager has the authority to bind sales contracts;
(4)it does not have to notify any government authorities of its management selection;
(5)there are no restrictions on the use of its export revenue; and
(6)its management is selected by its board of directors and it does not have to notify any government authorities of its management selection ( *See* July 14, 2004 submission). We have examined the documentation provided and note that it does not suggest that pricing is coordinated among exporters of glycine from the PRC. Furthermore, our analysis of the responses during verification reveals no other information indicating the existence of government control. *See Baoding Mantong Verification Report.* Consequently, because evidence on the record indicates an absence of government control, both in law and in fact, over Baoding Mantong's export activities, we preliminarily determine that the company has met the criteria for the application of a separate rate. Normal Value Comparisons To determine whether Baoding Mantong's sale of the subject merchandise to the United States was made at a price below NV, we compared its United States price to a normal value, as described in the “United States Price” and “Normal Value” section of this notice. United States Price For Baoding Mantong, we based United States price on export price (“EP”) in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because the first sale to an unaffiliated purchaser was made prior to importation, and constructed export price was not otherwise warranted by the facts on the record. We calculated EP based on the packed price from the exporter to the first unaffiliated customer in the United States. Although Baoding Mantong reported that its sale was made on an FOB basis, at verification the Department found that Baoding Mantong arranged and paid for the ocean freight from China to the U.S. port and then was reimbursed by the U.S. customer for the amount of freight expense. Accordingly, we have added the amount of freight revenue to the U.S. sales price and deducted the freight cost from the U.S. price. Because the Department verified that Baoding Mantong paid for the freight expense in renminbi, we valued the ocean freight using a surrogate value. Where foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling, or ocean freight were provided by PRC service providers or paid for in renminbi, we valued these services using Indian surrogate values or a U.S. surrogate value, as appropriate. ( *see* “Factors of Production” section below for further discussion). For those expenses that were provided by a market-economy supplier and paid for in market-economy currency, we used the reported expense. Normal Value Non-Market-Economy Status In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the PRC has been treated as an NME country. Pursuant to section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign country is an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the administering authority. *See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results 2001-2002 Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Review,* 68 FR 7500 (February 14, 2003). None of the parties to this review have contested such treatment. Accordingly, we calculated NV in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, which applies to NME countries. Surrogate Country Section 773(c)(4) of the Act requires the Department to value an NME producer's factors of production, to the extent possible, in one or more market-economy countries that
(1)are at a level of economic development comparable to that of the NME country, and
(2)are significant producers of comparable merchandise. India is among the countries comparable to the PRC in terms of overall economic development, as identified in the October 15, 2004, Memorandum from the Office of Policy to Alex Villaneuva. *See* Attachment 1, Memorandum to the File from Shannon Fraser through James Doyle, “ *Selection of a Surrogate Country,* ” dated March 31, 2005 (“ *Surrogate Country Selection Memorandum* ”). In addition, based on publicly available information placed on the record ( *e.g.* , U.S. import data), India is a significant producer of the subject merchandise. Specifically, the United States imported 600,206 kilograms of glycine from India during the POR, making India the largest exporter of glycine to the United States. Accordingly, we considered India the surrogate country for purposes of valuing the factors of production because it meets the Department's criteria for surrogate-country selection. *See Surrogate Country Selection Memorandum.* Factors of Production Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall determine NV using a factors-of-production methodology if
(1)the merchandise is exported from an NME country, and
(2)available information does not permit the calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-country prices, or constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act. Factors of production include the following elements:
(1)Hours of labor required,
(2)quantities of raw materials employed,
(3)amounts of energy and other utilities consumed, and
(4)representative capital costs. We valued all the input factors using publicly available information. In accordance with section 351.301(c)(3)(ii) of the Department's regulations, for the final results of an administrative review, interested parties may submit publicly available information to value the factors of production no later than twenty days following the date of publication of these preliminary results. Factor Valuations In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV based on the factors of production which included, but were not limited to:
(1)Hours of labor required;
(2)quantities of raw materials employed;
(3)amounts of energy and other utilities consumed; and
(4)representative capital costs, including depreciation. We used factors of production reported by the producer or exporter for materials, energy, labor, and packing. To calculate NV, we multiplied the reported unit factor quantities by publicly available Indian or U.S. values. In selecting the surrogate values, we considered the quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of the data, in accordance with our practice. When we used publicly available import data from the Ministry of Commerce of India (“ *Indian Import Statistics* ”) for March 2003 through February 2004 to value inputs sourced domestically by PRC suppliers, we added to the Indian surrogate values a surrogate freight cost calculated using the shorter of the reported distance from the domestic supplier to the factory or the distance from the nearest seaport to the factory. This adjustment is in accordance with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision in *Sigma Corp.* v. *United States,* 117 F. 3d 1401, 1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In instances where we relied on Indian import data to value inputs, in accordance with the Department's practice, we excluded imports from both NME countries and countries deemed to maintain broadly available, non-industry-specific subsidies which may benefit all exporters to all export markets ( *i.e.* , Indonesia, South Korea, and Thailand) from our surrogate value calculations. *See, e.g., 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) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. *See, also, Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Color Television Receivers From the People's Republic of China,* 68 FR 66800, 66808 (November 28, 2003), unchanged in the Department's final results at 69 FR 20594 (April 16, 2004). Where we could not obtain publicly available information contemporaneous with the POR to value factors, we adjusted the surrogate values using the Indian Wholesale Price Index (“WPI”) as published in the *International Financial Statistics* (“IFS”) of the International Monetary Fund (“IMF”), for those surrogate values in Indian rupees. We made currency conversions, where necessary, pursuant to section 351.415 of the Department's regulations, to U.S. dollars using the applicable average exchange rate for the POR. We based the average exchange rates on exchange rate data from the Import Administration Web site at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/index.html. See Surrogate Values Used for the Preliminary Results of the 3/1/03-2/29/04 Administrative Review of Glycine from the People's Republic of China “Factor Valuation Memo”.* We valued the factors of production as follows: Material and Packing Inputs To value the inputs of acetic acid, sulfur, liquid ammonia, formaldehyde, methyl alcohol, paper bags, and plastic liners, we used the weighted-average unit import value derived from Indian import statistics, as published in the *World Trade Atlas* for the period March 1, 2003 through February 29, 2004. To value the input of liquid chlorine, we relied upon the average of two liquid chlorine prices, as obtained from the April 1, 2002 through March 31, 2003 financial statements of two Indian chemical companies, Bihar Caustic & Chemicals Limited and Kanoria Chemicals & Industries Limited. Energy We valued electricity using the reported price for electricity in India in dollars per kilowatt hour for the year 2000 as reported by the International Energy Agency
(IEA)in *Key World Energy Statistics (2003),* and we inflated the value for the POR by using the WPI for India. To value water, we relied upon public information from the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai's Web site. *See http://www.mcgm.gov.inStat%20&%20Fig/Revenue.htm.* The Web site notes that the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai's data is for 2000 through 2001. Because this data is not contemporaneous with the POR, an adjustment has been made for inflation using the WPI for India. To value coal, we used the weighted-average unit import value derived from Indian import statistics in the *World Trade Atlas* for the period March 1, 2003 through February 29, 2004. By-Products Baoding Mantong reported that it produced two by-products in its production of subject merchandise: Hydrochloric acid and ammonium chloride. At verification, we confirmed that Baoding Mantong made sales of these by-products. Accordingly, we adjusted the material cost downward to reflect a by-product offset to the material cost included in the normal value. We valued ammonium chloride by using the weighted-average unit import values derived from Indian import statistics in the *World Trade Atlas* for the period March 1, 2003 through February 29, 2004. We valued hydrochloric acid by using price information obtained from *Chemical Weekly* from March 1, 2003 through February 29, 2004. Labor For labor, we used the PRC regression-based wage rate at the Import Administration's home page, *Import Library, Expected Wages of Selected NME Countries,* updated on November 15, 2004. *See http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages /02wages/ 02wages.html* . Because of the variability of wage rates in countries with similar per capita gross domestic products, section 351.408(c)(3) of the Department's regulations requires the use of a regression-based wage rate. The source of these wage rate data on the Import Administration's web site is the *Yearbook of Labour Statistics 2002,* International Labour Office (Geneva: 2002), Chapter 5B: Wages in Manufacturing. Factory Overhead, Selling, General, and Administrative (“SG&A”) Expenses, and Profit To value factory overhead, SG&A, and profit, we used the financial information obtained from the 2003-2004 financial statement of an Indian pharmaceutical producer, Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited (“Torrent”). The factory overhead ratio was calculated as a percentage of total manufacturing costs (which includes materials, labor, and energy). The SG&A ratio was calculated as a percentage of total factory overhead and total manufacturing costs. The profit ratio was calculated as a percentage of factory overhead, SG&A, and total manufacturing costs. Transportation Expenses To value inland truck freight costs, we used freight prices published in the April 26, 2002 edition of the *Iron & Steel Newsletter,* which cites *http://www.INFreight.com,* which is an Indian logistics Web site that tracks freight rates for all of India. The Department averaged the rates from three points of origin (Mumbai, Dehli, and Calcutta) to all destinations for which distances were published by *http://www.mapsofindia.com* . Since the rate was not contemporaneous with the POR, we adjusted the rate for inflation using the WPI for India. To value ocean freight cost, we used information obtained from a U.S. international shipping company for a delivery from Baoding Mantong's reported port of export to the reported U.S. port of importation. *See* Memorandum to the File, *“Selection of Ocean Freight Cost,”* dated March 31, 2005. Preliminary Results of Review We preliminary determine that the following dumping margin exists: Manufacturer/export Time period Margin Baoding Mantong Fine Chemistry Co., Ltd 3/1/03-2/29/04 76.72% Assessment Rates Upon completion of this administrative review, the Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), for assessment purposes, we will calculate importer-specific assessment rates for glycine from the PRC. We divide the total dumping margin for the reviewed sales by the total entered value of the reviewed sales for each importer during the POR. Upon completion of this review, we will direct CBP to assess antidumping duties based on a percentage of entered value equivalent to the company-specific dumping margin established in this review for each entry of subject merchandise made by Baoding Mantong during the POR. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of the final results of this administrative review. Cash-Deposit Requirements The following cash-deposit rates will be effective upon publication of the final results of this review for all shipments of glycine from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(c) of the Act:
(1)For subject merchandise exported by Baoding Mantong, the cash deposit rate will be that established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent and, therefore, de minimis within the meaning of the 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), in which case the cash deposit rate will be zero;
(2)for previously investigated or reviewed companies not listed above that have separate rates, the cash-deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period;
(3)the cash-deposit rate for all other PRC exporters will be the PRC-wide rate which is currently 155.89 percent; and
(4)the cash-deposit rate for all other non-PRC exporters will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied that exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. Schedule for Final Results of Review The Department will disclose calculations performed in connection with the preliminary results of this review within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with section 351.224(b) of the Department's regulations. Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice in accordance with section 351.310(c) of the Department's regulations. Any hearing would normally be held 37 days after the publication of this notice, or the first workday thereafter, at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. Individuals who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request within 30 days of the publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 1870, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. Requests for a public hearing should contain:
(1)The party's name, address, and telephone number;
(2)the number of participants; and
(3)to the extent practicable, an identification of the arguments to be raised at the hearing. Unless otherwise notified by the Department, interested parties may submit case briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with section 351.309(c)(ii) of the Department's regulations. As part of the case brief, parties are encouraged to provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five pages and a table of statutes, regulations, and cases cited. Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, must be filed within five days after the case brief is filed. If a hearing is held, an interested party may make an affirmative presentation only on arguments included in that party's case brief and may make a rebuttal presentation only on arguments included in that party's rebuttal brief. Parties should confirm by telephone the time, date, and place of the hearing no later than 48 hours before the scheduled time. The Department will issue the final results of this review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in the briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice. Notification to Importers This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under section 351.402(f) of the Department's regulations to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during these review periods. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. This administrative review and this notice are published in accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: March 31, 2005. Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-1612 Filed 4-6-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-507-501] Certain In-shell Pistachios From the Islamic Republic of Iran: Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the countervailing duty
(CVD)order on certain in-shell
(raw)pistachios from the Islamic Republic of Iran
(Iran)for the period January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2003. For information on the net subsidy rate for the reviewed company, please see the “Preliminary Results of Review” section of this notice. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. ( *See* the “Public Comment” section of this notice). DATES: *Effective Date:* April 7, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Darla Brown, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 4014, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone
(202)482-2786. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On March 11, 1986, the Department published in the **Federal Register** the countervailing duty order on certain in-shell
(raw)pistachios from Iran. *See Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Countervailing Duty Order: In-shell Pistachios from Iran,* 51 FR 8344 (March 11, 1986) ( *In-shell Pistachios* ). On March 1, 2004, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of this CVD order. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review,* 69 FR 9584 (March 1, 2004). On March 19, 2004, we received a timely request for an administrative review from Tehran Negah Nima Trading Company, Inc., trading as Nima Trading Company (Nima), the respondent company in this proceeding. On April 28, 2004, we initiated an administrative review of the CVD order on in-shell
(raw)pistachios from Iran covering the period of review
(POR)January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2003. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews,* 69 FR 23170 (April 28, 2004). On May 11, 2004, we issued our initial questionnaire to the Government of Iran
(GOI)and Nima. On June 14, 2004, petitioners 1 filed an entry of appearance, request for verification, and request for a duty absorption determination. On June 24, 2004, in a letter to petitioners, we declined to conduct a duty absorption determination in this CVD administrative review. 1 Petitioners are comprised of members of the California Pistachio Commission (CPC). On July 6, 2004, and July 8, 2004, the GOI and Nima, respectively, submitted questionnaire responses. On July 23, 2004, petitioners submitted a request for extension to file new subsidy allegations. On July 28, 2004, we granted petitioners a two-week extension to file new subsidy allegations in this administrative review. On August 11, 2004, petitioners submitted new subsidy allegations. On August 18, 2004, we issued supplemental questionnaires to the GOI and Nima. On September 1, 2004, and September 15, 2004, the GOI and Nima, respectively, submitted supplemental questionnaire responses. On October 18, 2004, we extended the period for the completion of the *Preliminary Results* pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). *See Certain In-shell Pistachios from the Islamic Republic of Iran: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary\ Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review,* 69 FR 61341 (October 18, 2004). On October 27, 2004, we initiated investigations of three of petitioners' new subsidy allegations. For additional information, *see* the October 27, 2004, New Subsidy Allegations memorandum to Melissa G. Skinner, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, from the Team (New Subsidies Memo), on file in the Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the Main Commerce Building (CRU). On November 4, 2004, we issued a second supplemental questionnaire to Nima, and on November 15, 2004, we issued a second supplemental questionnaire to the GOI. On November 29, 2004, we received a response from Nima to our second supplemental questionnaire. On December 13, 2004, we received a response from the GOI to our second supplemental questionnaire. On January 31, 2005, we issued a third supplemental questionnaire to the GOI. On February 28, 2005, we received a response from the GOI to our third supplemental questionnaire. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), this administrative review covers only those producers or exporters for which a review was specifically requested. Accordingly, this administrative review covers Nima and ten programs. Scope of Order The product covered by this order is in-shell
(raw)pistachio nuts from which the hulls have been removed, leaving the inner hard shells and edible meat, as currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedules of the United States (HTSUS) under item number 0802.50.20.00. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive. Analysis of Programs I. Programs Preliminarily Determined To Be Not Used Based on the information supplied by Nima on behalf of itself and its grower, Razi Domghan Agricultural and Animal Husbandry Company (Razi), we preliminarily determine that the programs listed below were not used during the POR. For further discussion of the Iranian Export Guarantee Fund, GOI Grants and Loans to Pistachio Farmers, and Crop Insurance for Pistachios programs, *see* the October 27, 2004, New Subsidies Memo. A. *Provision of Fertilizer and Machinery.* B. *Provision of Credit.* C. *Tax Exemptions.* D. *Provision of Water and Irrigation Equipment.* E. *Technical Support.* F. *Duty Refunds on Imported Raw or Intermediate Materials Used in the Production of Export Goods.* G. *Program to Improve Quality of Exports of Dried Fruit.* H. *Iranian Export Guarantee Fund.* I. *GOI Grants and Loans to Pistachio Farmers.* J. *Crop Insurance for Pistachios.* Preliminary Results of Review In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(i), we have calculated an individual subsidy rate for Nima, the only producer/exporter subject to this administrative review, for the POR, *i.e.* , calendar year 2003. We preliminarily determine that the total estimated net countervailable subsidy rate is 0.00 percent *ad valorem.* As Nima is the exporter but not the producer of subject merchandise, the Department's final results of review will apply to subject merchandise exported by Nima and produced by Nima's supplier of pistachios, Razi. *See* 19 CFR 351.107(b). Therefore, we intend to issue the following cash deposit requirements, effective upon publication of the notice of final results of review for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication:
(1)For merchandise exported by Nima and produced by Razi, the cash deposit rate will be the *ad valorem* rate calculated in the final results of the instant administrative review;
(2)for merchandise exported by Nima and produced by Maghsoudi Farms, the cash deposit rate will be 23.18 percent, the rate calculated for Nima and Maghsoudi Farms in the new shipper reviews ( *see Certain In-Shell Pistachios (C-507-501) and Certain Roasted In-Shell Pistachios (C-507-601) from the Islamic Republic of Iran: Final Results of New Shipper Countervailing Duty Reviews,* 68 FR 4997 (January 31, 2003) ( *New Shipper Reviews* );
(3)for merchandise exported by Nima but not produced by Razi or Maghsoudi Farms, the cash deposit rate will be the “all others” rate established in the original CVD investigation ( *see* 51 FR 8344 (March 11, 1986));
(4)if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original CVD investigation, but the producer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the producer of the merchandise; and
(5)if neither the exporter nor producer is a firm covered in this review or the original investigation, the cash deposit rate for all other producers or exporters of the subject merchandise will continue to be 99.52 percent *ad valorem.* This rate is the “all others” rate from the final determination in the original investigation. If the final results of this review remain the same as these preliminary results, the Department intends to instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), within 15 days of publication of the final results of this review, to liquidate without regard to countervailing duties all shipments of subject merchandise exported by Nima and produced by Razi, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the POR. Should the final results of this review remain the same as these preliminary results, the Department also will instruct CBP not to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties on all shipments of the subject merchandise exported by Nima and produced by Razi, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this review. Because the Uruguay Round Agreements Act
(URAA)replaced the general rule in favor of a country-wide rate with a general rule in favor of individual rates for investigated and reviewed companies, the procedures for establishing countervailing duty rates, including those for non-reviewed companies, are now essentially the same as those in antidumping cases, except as provided for in section 777A(e)(2)(B) of the Act. The requested review will normally cover only those companies specifically named. *See* 19 CFR 351.213(b). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(c), for all companies for which a review was not requested, duties must be assessed and cash deposits must continue to be collected, at the cash deposit rate previously ordered. As such, the countervailing duty cash deposit rate applicable to a company can no longer change, except pursuant to a request for a review of that company. *See Federal-Mogul Corporation and The Torrington Company* v. *United States,* 822 F. Supp. 782 (CIT 1993), and *Floral Trade Council* v. *United States,* 822 F. Supp. 766 (CIT 1993) (interpreting 19 CFR 353.22(e), the old antidumping regulation on automatic assessment, which is identical to the current regulation, 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(ii)). Therefore, the cash deposit rates for all companies except those covered by this review will be unchanged by the results of this review. We will instruct CBP to continue to collect cash deposits for non-reviewed companies at the most recent company-specific or country-wide rate applicable to the company. Accordingly, the cash deposit rates that will be applied to non-reviewed companies covered by this order will be the rate for that company established in the most recently completed administrative proceeding. *See Certain In-Shell Pistachios from the Islamic Republic of Iran: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review,* 68 FR 41310 (July 11, 2003). These cash deposit rates shall apply to all non-reviewed companies until a review of a company assigned these rates is requested. Verification In accordance with section 782(i)(3) of the Act, we intend to verify the information submitted by respondents prior to making our final determination. Public Comment Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose to parties to the proceeding any calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results within five days after the date of the public announcement of this notice. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309, interested parties may submit written comments in response to these preliminary results. Unless otherwise indicated by the Department, case briefs must be submitted within 30 days after the publication of these preliminary results. Rebuttal briefs, which are limited to arguments raised in case briefs, must be submitted no later than five days after the time limit for filing case briefs, unless otherwise specified by the Department. Parties who submit argument in this proceeding are requested to submit with the argument:
(1)A statement of the issue, and
(2)a brief summary of the argument. Parties submitting case and/or rebuttal briefs are requested to provide the Department copies of the public version on disk. Case and rebuttal briefs must be served on interested parties in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f). Also, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310, within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice, interested parties may request a public hearing on arguments to be raised in the case and rebuttal briefs. Unless the Secretary specifies otherwise, the hearing, if requested, will be held two days after the date for submission of rebuttal briefs. Representatives of parties to the proceeding may request disclosure of proprietary information under administrative protective order no later than 10 days after the representative's client or employer becomes a party to the proceeding, but in no event later than the date the case briefs, under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii), are due. The Department will publish the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any case or rebuttal brief or at a hearing. This administrative review and notice are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: March 31, 2005. Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-1614 Filed 4-6-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-507-502] Notice of Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain In-Shell Raw Pistachios From Iran AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to requests from Tehran Negah Nima Trading Company, Inc., trading as Nima Trading Company, Inc. (Nima), an exporter of subject merchandise, California Pistachio Commission (petitioner), and Cal Pure Pistachios, Inc. (Cal Pure), an interested party to this proceeding, the U.S. Department of Commerce (the Department) initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain in-shell raw pistachios (pistachios) from Iran. No other interested party requested a review of Nima. The period of review
(POR)is July 1, 2003, through June 30, 2004. For the reasons discussed below, the Department is rescinding this administrative review. EFFECTIVE DATE: April 7, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Angelica Mendoza at
(202)482-3019 or Abdelali Elouaradia at
(202)482-1374, respectively; AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On July 1, 2004, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on pistachios from Iran, 69 FR 39903. On July 9, 2004, and July 27, 2004, we received requests from petitioner and Cal Pure, respectively, to conduct an administrative review of Nima's sales of pistachios to the United States during the POR. On July 30, 2004, Nima, an exporter of subject merchandise during the POR, requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of its sales of pistachios to the United States. On August 30, 2004, the Department initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on pistachios from Iran for the period July 1, 2003, through June 30, 2004, in order to determine whether merchandise imported into the United States was sold at less than fair value by Nima. *See* Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Review and Requests for Revocations in Part, 69 FR 52857. On March 14, 2005, Nima filed a letter in which it requested that the Department rescind the instant administrative review. On March 15, 2005, Department officials contacted Nima's representative in order to clarify the intent of Nima's March 14, 2005, filing. During this conversation, Nima clarified that it had intended to withdraw its request for the current administrative review pursuant to section 351.213(d)(1) of the Department's regulations. *See* Memorandum to the File through Abdelali Elouaradia, Program Manager, Office 7, Telephone Conversation with Respondent's Representative, dated March 15, 2005. On March 24, 2005, both petitioner and Cal Pure also withdrew their requests for the instant review. Rescission of Review If a party that requested a review withdraws its request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review, the Secretary will rescind the review pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1) of the Department's regulations. However, the Secretary may extend this time limit if the Secretary decides that it is reasonable to do so. The Department finds that it is reasonable to extend the time limit by which a party may withdraw its request for review in the instant proceeding. Given that all parties have withdrawn from, and thereby are no longer participating in, the instant review, we find it reasonable to accept the parties' withdrawals of their requests for review. The Department has not yet devoted considerable time and resources to this review, and the Department concludes that the withdrawals do not constitute an abuse of our procedures by the involved parties. Therefore, the Department is rescinding this administrative review of the antidumping duty order on pistachios from Iran. Notification to Importers This notice 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 assumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order
(APO)of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3) of the Department's regulations. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. This notice is in accordance with section 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4) of the Department's regulations. Dated: April 1, 2005. Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-1613 Filed 4-6-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-475-829] Stainless Steel Bar From Italy: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Preliminary Rescission of Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar from Italy. The period of review is March 1, 2003, through February 29, 2004. This review covers imports of stainless steel bar from one producer/exporter. We have preliminarily found that the respondent in this review did not make shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the period of review and, therefore, we are preliminarily rescinding this administrative review. In addition, the Department of Commerce has received information sufficient to warrant a successor-in-interest analysis. Based on this information, we preliminarily find that UGITECH S.A. is the successor-in-interest to Ugine-Savoie Imphy S.A. for purposes of determining antidumping duty liability. We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results. We will issue the final results not later than 120 days from the date of publication of this notice. DATES: *Effective Date:* April 7, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Holland, 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)482-1279. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On March 7, 2002, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published an antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar (“SSB”) from Italy. *See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Stainless Steel Bar from Italy* , 67 FR 10384 (March 7, 2002). On October 10, 2003, the Department published an amended antidumping duty order on SSB from Italy. *See Notice of Amended Antidumping Duty Orders: Stainless Steel Bar from France, Germany, Italy, Korea, and the United Kingdom* , 68 FR 58660 (October 10, 2003). On March 1, 2004, the Department published in the **Federal Register** a notice of the opportunity for interested parties to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on SSB from Italy. *See Notice of Opportunity to Request Administrative Review of Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding or Suspended Investigation,* 69 FR 9584 (March 1, 2004). On March 31, 2004, Carpenter Technology Corp., Crucible Specialty Metals, Electralloy Corp., Empire Specialty Steel Inc., Slater Steels Corp., and the United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO/CLC (collectively, “the petitioners”), requested an administrative review of imports of the subject merchandise produced by UGITECH S.A. (“UGITECH”) (formerly known as Ugine Savoie-Imphy S.A.), an Italian exporter/producer of the subject merchandise. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(1), we published a notice of initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review on May 27, 2004. *See Notice of Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews* , 69 FR 30282 (May 27, 2004). The period of review (“POR”) is March 1, 2003, through February 29, 2004. On May 21, 2004, UGITECH informed the Department that it made no entries of subject merchandise during the POR and requested that the Department rescind the instant review with respect to UGITECH, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3). In June 2004, the petitioners submitted comments on UGITECH's May 21, 2004, submission and requested that the Department investigate further UGITECH's rescission request. In June 2004, UGITECH responded to the petitioner's comments. For our successor-in-interest analysis, on June 25, 2004, the Department requested additional information concerning the nature of the name change of Ugine Savoie-Imphy S.A. to UGITECH. We received UGITECH's response on July 23, 2004. On September 1, 2004, the petitioners submitted comments on UGITECH's July 23, 2004, response. We issued a supplemental questionnaire on October 12, 2004, requesting additional information with regard to UGITECH's no shipment claim and received UGITECH's response on October 28, 2004. In November 2004, the Department conducted a verification of UGITECH's questionnaire responses, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.307. The verification report was issued on January 13, 2005. *See* Memorandum to the File, “Verification of UGITECH's S.A.'s No-Shipment Claim,” (“UGITECH's VR”) dated January 13, 2005. On November 17, 2004, we extended the time limit for the preliminary results in this review until February 1, 2005. *See Stainless Steel Bar from Italy: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 69 FR 67309 (November 17, 2004). On January 14, 2005, we extended the time limit for the preliminary results in this review until March 31, 2005. * See Stainless Steel Bar from Italy: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review * , 70 FR 2612 (January 14, 2005). On February 10, 2005, and March 14, 2005, the petitioners submitted comments for purposes of the preliminary results. On March 18, 2005, UGITECH responded to the petitioner's comments. Scope of the Order For purposes of this order, the term “stainless steel bar” includes articles of stainless steel in straight lengths that have been either hot-rolled, forged, turned, cold-drawn, cold-rolled or otherwise cold-finished, or ground, having a uniform solid cross section along their whole length in the shape of circles, segments of circles, ovals, rectangles (including squares), triangles, hexagons, octagons, or other convex polygons. Stainless steel bar includes cold-finished stainless steel bars that are turned or ground in straight lengths, whether produced from hot-rolled bar or from straightened and cut rod or wire, and reinforcing bars that have indentations, ribs, grooves, or other deformations produced during the rolling process. Except as specified above, the term does not include stainless steel semi-finished products, cut length flat-rolled products ( *i.e.* , cut length rolled products which if less than 4.75 mm in thickness have a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness, or if 4.75 mm or more in thickness having a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at least twice the thickness), products that have been cut from stainless steel sheet, strip or plate, wire ( *i.e.* , cold-formed products in coils, of any uniform solid cross section along their whole length, which do not conform to the definition of flat-rolled products), and angles, shapes and sections. The stainless steel bar subject to this order is currently classifiable under subheadings 7222.11.00.05, 7222.11.00.50, 7222.19.00.05, 7222.19.00.50, 7222.20.00.05, 7222.20.00.45, 7222.20.00.75, and 7222.30.00.00 of the *Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States* (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. Successor-In-Interest Analysis In its July 23, 2004, response to the Department's request for additional information, UGITECH reported that on November 28, 2003, the shareholders of Ugine-Savoie Imphy S.A. voted to change the company's name to UGITECH S.A. UGITECH claimed that Ugine-Savoie Imphy S.A. and UGITECH remained the same legal entity and there was no change in ownership associated with the change in name. According to UGITECH, prior to the name change Ugine-Savoie Imphy S.A. dissolved one of its wholly-owned French subsidiaries ( *i.e.* , Ugine-Savoie France S.A.) and integrated that company's operations as an internal department within Ugine-Savoie Imphy S.A. Similarly, shortly after the name change, UGITECH dissolved another wholly-owned French subsidiary ( *i.e.* , Sprint Metal S.A.) and integrated its operations as a internal department within UGITECH. Also at that time, the former chief executive officer of Sprint Metal was made vice president of sales at UGITECH. Other than the name change and the incorporation of the two former subsidiaries into the company, UGITECH operations and facilities remain essentially unchanged. Thus, in accordance with section 751(b) of the Act, the Department is conducting a successor-in-interest analysis to determine whether UGITECH is the successor-in-interest to Ugine-Savoie Imphy S.A. for purposes of determining antidumping liability with respect to the subject merchandise. In making such a successor-in-interest determination, the Department examines several factors including, but not limited to, changes in:
(1)Management;
(2)production facilities;
(3)supplier relationships; and
(4)customer base. *See, e.g., Polychloroprene Rubber from Japan: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review,* 67 FR 58 (January 2, 2002) (“ *Polychloroprene Rubber from Japan* ”); and *Brass Sheet and Strip from Canada: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,* 57 FR 20460 (May 13, 1992) (“ *Canadian Brass* ”). While no single factor or combination of factors will necessarily provide a dispositive indication, the Department will generally consider the new company to be the successor to the previous company if its resulting operation is not materially dissimilar to that of its predecessor. *See, e.g., Polychloroprene Rubber from Japan; Industrial Phosphoric Acid from Israel: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review,* 59 FR 6944 (February 14, 1994); *Canadian Brass* ; and *Fresh and Chilled Atlantic Salmon from Norway: Initiation and Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,* 63 FR 50880 (September 23, 1998). Thus, if the evidence demonstrates that, with respect to the production and sale of the subject merchandise, the new company operates as the same business entity as the former company, the Department will accord the new company the same antidumping duty treatment as its predecessor. We preliminarily find that UGITECH is the successor-in-interest to Ugine-Savoie Imphy S.A. UGITECH submitted documentation supporting its claims that its name change resulted in no significant changes in either production facilities, supplier relationships, customer base, or management. This documentation consisted of:
(1)A copy of the board meeting minutes for the name change;
(2)a copy of the article of incorporation for UGITECH; and
(3)copies of the official registration of Ugine-Savoie Imphy S.A. (before the name change) and UGITECH (after the name change); and
(4)copies of the statements of dissolution for Ugine-Savoie France S.A. and Sprint Metal S.A. These documents, which the Department examined thoroughly at verification, demonstrate that UGITECH operates as the same business entity as Ugine-Savoie Imphy S.A. Because UGITECH has presented evidence to establish a *prima facie* case of its successorship status, we preliminarily find that UGITECH should receive the same antidumping duty treatment with respect to SSB as the former Ugine-Savoie Imphy S.A. Preliminary Rescission of Administrative Review In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), we are preliminarily rescinding this review with respect to UGITECH, which reported that it made no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR. We examined shipment data furnished by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) and analyzed UGITECH's quantity and value of sales at verification. *See UGITECH's VR.* Based on this, we are satisfied that there were no U.S. shipments of subject merchandise from UGITECH during the POR. Public Comment Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice. A hearing, if requested, will be held 37 days after the publication of this notice, or the first business day thereafter. Interested parties may submit case briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such comments, within 120 days of publication of the preliminary results. Notification to Importers This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) 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. This administrative review and notice are in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(I)(1) of the Act. Dated: March 31, 2005. Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-1607 Filed 4-7-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-583-831] Notice of Correction to the Amended Final Determination in Accordance With Court Decision in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Taiwan AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. DATES: *Effective Date* : April 7, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Bolling, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-3434. SUMMARY: On November 17, 2004, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) published an *Amended Final Determination in Accordance with Court Decision of the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Taiwan* , 69 FR 67311 (November 17, 2004) (“ *Amended Final Determination* ”). In the *Amended Final Determination* , the Department announced the incorrect effective date of the exclusion from the antidumping duty order on stainless steel sheet and strip in coils from Taiwan with respect to entries from Tung Mung Development Corporation (“Tung Mung”). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On June 8, 1999, the Department published the *Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Taiwan* , 64 FR 30592 (June 8, 1999) (“ *Final Determination* ”), covering the period of investigation (“POI”) of April 1, 1997, through March 31, 1998. This investigation involved three Taiwanese producers/exporters, Tung Mung, Yieh United Steel Corporation (“YUSCO”), Chang Mien Industries Co., Ltd. (“Chang Mien”), and a Taiwanese middleman, Ta Chen Stainless Pipe Company Ltd. (“Ta Chen”). Tung Mung and YUSCO contested various aspects of the *Final Determination* . On July 3, 2001, the Court of International Trade (“CIT”) issued slip opinion 01-83 in *Tung Mung Development Co., Ltd.* v. U *nited States* , Consol. Court No. 99-06-00457 (CIT July 3, 2001) (“ *Tung Mung I* ”) and remanded the *Final Determination* to the Department. In the March 21, 2001, remand determination, the Department found, among other issues, that the merchandise produced and exported by Tung Mung had not been sold at less than fair value during the POI. On August 22, 2002, the CIT found that the Department's remand determination was in accordance with the law. *See Tung Mung Development Co., Ltd.* v. *U.S.* , 219 F.Supp.2d 1333 (CIT August 22, 2002) (“ *Tung Mung II* ”). Domestic producers appealed this decision. On January 15, 2004, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that the Department's decision to calculate middleman antidumping rates using combination rates was not arbitrary and capricious and affirmed the CIT's affirmance of the Department's redetermination. *See Tung Mung Development Co., Ltd.* v. *U.S.* , 354 F.3d 1371 (Fed.Cir. January 15, 2004) (“ *Tung Mung III* ”), *Tung Mung II* , and the Department's *Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand* in response to *Tung Mung I* . On November 17, 2004, the Department published the *Amended Final Determination* in which it stated that it will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to liquidate entries from Tung Mung without regard to antidumping duties because Tung Mung is excluded from the antidumping duty order effective October 16, 2002, the date on which the Department published a notice of the Court decision (see *Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Taiwan: Notice of Court Decision* , 67 FR 63887 (October 16, 2002)). The above instructions should have read that the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate entries from Tung Mung without regard to antidumping duties effective June 8, 1999, the date on which the Department published its *Final Determination* , because liquidation of entries from Tung Mung was first suspended on that date and remained covered by an injunction during the pendency of the litigation. Thus, we will instruct CBP to liquidate entries from Tung Mung without any regard to antidumping duties effective June 8, 1999. This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 735(d) of Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. Dated: March 30, 2005. Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-1611 Filed 4-6-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 040105C] Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Extension of the Gulf of Mexico Charter Vessel/Headboat Permit Moratorium AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of intent; request for comments. SUMMARY: The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council) and NMFS intend to prepare a draft supplemental environmental impact statement (DSEIS) in support of a proposed Amendment to Extend the Charter Vessel/Headboat Permit Moratorium (Moratorium Amendment). The DSEIS will evaluate alternatives for allowing the permit moratorium to expire, extending the moratorium for a finite time period, or establishing a permanent limited access program. The purpose of this notice of intent is to solicit public comments on the range of alternatives and scope of issues to be addressed in the DSEIS. DATES: Written comments on the scope of the DSEIS must be received by 5 p.m. May 9, 2005. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on the scope of the DSEIS by any of the following methods: • E-mail: *0648-AS70.NOI@noaa.gov* . Include in the subject line of the e-mail comment the following document identifier: Charter Headboat Permit Moratorium. • Mail: Andy Strelcheck, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13 th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701. • Fax: 727-824-5308; Attention: Andy Strelcheck. Requests for the scoping document may be directed to the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, The Commons at Rivergate, 3018 U.S. Highway 301 North, Suite 1000, Tampa, FL 33619; telephone: 813-228-2815; fax: 813-225-7015. Scoping documents are also available to download at *http://www.gulfcouncil.org* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stu Kennedy (phone: 813-228-2815; fax: 813-225-7015; e-mail: Stu.Kennedy@gulfcouncil.org); or Andy Strelcheck (phone: 727-824-5305; fax: 727-824-5308; e-mail: *Andy.Strelcheck@noaa.gov* ). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Council and NMFS intend to prepare a DSEIS in support of the proposed Moratorium Amendment. For-hire vessel permits were initially required in the coastal migratory pelagic
(CMP)fishery starting in 1987 and in the reef fish fishery in 1997. Amendments establishing the charter vessel/headboat permit moratorium for the CMP fishery (Amendment 14) and the Reef Fish fishery (Amendment 20) were approved by NMFS on May 6, 2003, and implemented on June 16, 2003 (68 FR 26280). The intended effect of these amendments was to cap the number of for-hire vessels operating in these two fisheries at the current level (as of March 29, 2001) while the Council evaluated whether limited access programs were needed to constrain effort. In this proposed Moratorium Amendment, the Council is considering alternatives that would: allow the moratorium on for-hire reef fish and CMP permits to expire; extend the moratorium for a finite period of time (5 or 10 years); or establish a permanent limited access program. In any case, except for allowing the moratorium to expire, there would be no new permits issued. The DSEIS will evaluate the impacts of these alternatives. Alternatives which have been under consideration are described in detail in *The Scoping Document for Extending the Charter Vessel/Headboat Permit Moratorium by Amending the FMPs for: Reef Fish (Amendment 25) and Coastal Migratory Pelagics (Amendment 17)* , which is available from the Council (see ADDRESSES ). The Council is soliciting public comment on the range of alternatives and scope of issues that should be considered in this DSEIS. In accordance with NOAA's Administrative Order NAO 216-6, Section 502(c)4, the Council previously held nine scoping hearings during June 2004 to solicit input from interested parties on proposed actions and alternatives identified in the above-mentioned scoping document. These hearings were held in the following locations: Port Isabel, Port Aransas, and Galveston, TX; Kenner, LA; Biloxi, MS; Orange Beach, AL; Destin, Madeira Beach, and Naples, FL. Additionally, public comments may be accepted at the following Council meetings and during public hearings that will be announced in future **Federal Register** notices: July 11-14, 2005, Diamondhead All-Suite Beach Resort, 2000 Estero Boulevard, Ft. Myers Beach, FL 33931; and September 12-15, 2005, New Orleans, LA (Location TBA). The meetings will be physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the Gulf Council (see ADDRESSES ). The completed DSEIS associated with the draft Moratorium Amendment will be filed with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), announced in the **Federal Register** , and open to public comment for a 45-day period. This procedure is pursuant to regulations issued by the Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ)for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and to NOAA's Administrative Order 216-6 on complying with NEPA and the CEQ regulations. The Council will consider public comments received on the DSEIS in developing the final supplemental environmental impact statement (FSEIS), and before taking final action on the Moratorium Amendment. The Council will submit both the final amendment and the supporting FSEIS to NMFS for Secretarial review, approval, and implementation under the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. NMFS will announce, through a document published in the **Federal Register** , the availability of the final Moratorium Amendment for public review during the Secretarial review period. During Secretarial review, NMFS will also file the FSEIS with the EPA for a final 30-day public comment period. This comment period will be concurrent with the Secretarial review period and will end prior to final agency action to approve, disapprove, or partially approve the final Moratorium Amendment. NMFS will announce, through a notice published in the **Federal Register** , all public comment periods on the final Moratorium Amendment, any proposed implementing regulations, and its associated FSEIS. NMFS will consider all public comments received during the Secretarial review period, whether they are on the final amendment, any proposed regulations, or the FSEIS, prior to final agency action. Dated: April 1, 2005. Alan D. Risenhoover, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. 05-6939 Filed 4-6-05; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 12
Traces to 12 documents
CFR
6 references not yet in our index
  • 117 F.3d 1401
  • 822 F. Supp. 782
  • 822 F. Supp. 766
  • 19 CFR 353.22(e)
  • 219 F. Supp. 2d 1333
  • 354 F.3d 1371
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice of intent; request for comments
C.F.R.§ 351.213
C.F.R.§ 351.307
C.F.R.§ 351.212
C.F.R.§ 351.106
C.F.R.§ 351.221
C.F.R.§ 351.107
C.F.R.§ 351.224
C.F.R.§ 351.309
C.F.R.§ 351.303
F. App'x117 F.3d 1401
F. Supp.822 F. Supp. 782
F. Supp.822 F. Supp. 766
Cites 18 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

"If you don't know your rights, you don't have any."

Marginalia · a citizen's law index
A research desk, not legal advice. Always read the cited source before relying on a summary.
Questions or an issue? support@self-law.org
disclaimerMarginalia is a research index, not a law firm. Nothing on this site is legal, tax, or financial advice and no attorney–client relationship is formed by using it. Statutes, regulations, and case law change; summaries, search results, AI output, and member posts may be incomplete, out of date, or wrong. Any interpretation drawn from material on this site should be validated by a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before you act on it.