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 · 2005-04-11 · Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce · Notices

Notices. Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce

13,325 words·~61 min read·/register/2005/04/11/05-7266·

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

BILLING CODE 3510-JT-M DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-122-804, C-122-805] Final Results of Sunset Reviews and Revocation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders on New Steel Rail From Canada AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On January 3, 2005, the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) initiated sunset reviews of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on new steel rail from Canada. *See Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Reviews* , 70 FR 75 (January 3, 2005).
Because no interested domestic party responded to the sunset review notice of initiation by the applicable deadline, the Department is revoking the antidumping and countervailing duty order on new steel rail from Canada. DATES: *Effective Date:* February 9, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martha V. Douthit, Office of Policy, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-5050. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Scope of the Orders The merchandise subject to these orders is new steel rail, whether of carbon, high carbon, alloy or other quality steel from Canada. Subject merchandise includes, but is not limited to, standard rails, all main line sections (at least 30 kilograms per meter or 60 pounds per yard), heat-treated or head-hardened (premium) rails, transit rails, contact rails (or “third rail”) and crane rails. Rails are used by the railroad industry, by rapid transit lines, by subways, in mines, and in industrial applications. Specifically excluded from the orders are light rails (less than 30 kilograms per meter or 60 pounds per yard). Also excluded from the orders are relay rails, which are used rails taken up from primary railroad track and relaid in a railroad yard or on a secondary track. As a result of a changed circumstances review in 1996, the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on new steel rail was partially revoked with regard to 100ARA-A new steel rail, except light rail, from Canada. *See* New Steel Rail, Except Light Rail, From Canada; Final Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, and Revocation in Part of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, 61 FR 11607 (March 21, 1996). Also, nominal 60 pounds per yard steel rail is outside the scope of these orders. *See* New Steel Rail, Except Light Rail, From Canada; Notice of Termination of Changed Circumstances Administrative Reviews and Clarification of Scope Language, 63 FR 43137 (August 12, 1998). This merchandise is currently classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule
(HTS)items 7302.10.1010, 7302.10.1015, 7302.10.1035, 7302.10.1045, 7302.10.5020, 8548.90.0000. The HTS item numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive. Background On September 15, 1989, and September 22, 1989, the Department published in the **Federal Register** the antidumping duty order and countervailing duty order on new steel rail from Canada. *See* Antidumping Duty Order in New Steel Rail, Except Light Rail, from Canada, 54 FR 38263 (September 15, 1989), Except Light Rail, from Canada, 54 FR 39032 (September 22, 1989). On February 9, 2000, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4), the Department published in the **Federal Register** its notice of continuation of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on new steel rail from Canada following the first sunset review. *See* Continuation of Antidumping Duty Order and Countervailing Duty Order: New Steel Rail from Canada, 65 FR 6358 (February 9, 2000). On January 3, 2005, the Department initiated a second sunset review of these orders pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, (the “Act”), and 19 CFR part 351, in general. *See* Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Review, 70 FR 75 (January 3, 2005). As a courtesy to interested parties, the Department sent letters, via certified and registered mail, to each party listed on the Department's most current service list for this proceeding to inform them of the automatic initiation of a sunset review of these orders. We received no response from the domestic industry by the deadline date. *See* 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i). As a result, the Department determined that no domestic party intends to participate in the sunset review. On January 27, 2005, the Department notified the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) in writing that we intended to issue a final determination revoking the antidumping and countervailing duty orders. *See* 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(iii)(B). Determination To Revoke Pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(iii)(B)(3), if no domestic interested parties respond to the notice of initiation, the Department shall issue a final determination, within 90 days after the initiation of the review, revoking the order. Because no domestic interested party filed a notice of intent to participate or a substantive response, the Department finds that no domestic interested party is participating in this review. Therefore, we are revoking the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on new steel rail from Canada, effective February 9, 2005, the fifth anniversary of the date of the determination to continue the orders, consistent with 19 CFR 351.222(i)(2)(i) and section 751(c)(6)(A)(iii) of the Act. Effective Date of Revocation Pursuant to sections 751(c)(3)(A) and 751(c)(6)(A)(iii) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.222(i)(2)(i), the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to terminate the suspension of liquidation of the merchandise subject to these orders entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, on or after February 9, 2005. Entries of subject merchandise prior to the effective date of revocation will continue to be subject to suspension of liquidation and antidumping and countervailing duty deposit requirements. The Department will complete any pending administrative reviews of these orders and will conduct administrative reviews of subject merchandise entered prior to the effective date of revocation in response to appropriately filed requests for review. These five-year (“sunset”) reviews and this notice are in accordance with sections 751(c) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: April 4, 2005. Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-1652 Filed 4-8-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-538-802, A-570-003, C-535-001] Final Results of Sunset Reviews and Revocation of Antidumping Duty Orders and Countervailing Duty Order on Cotton Shop Towels From Bangladesh, the People's Republic of China, and Pakistan AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On January 3, 2005, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) initiated sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders on cotton shop towels from Bangladesh and the People's Republic of China (“PRC”), and the countervailing duty order on cotton shop towels from Pakistan. *See* Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Reviews, 70 FR 75 (January 3, 2005). Because no domestic interested party responded to the sunset review notice of initiation by the applicable deadline, the Department is revoking the antidumping duty orders on cotton shop towels from Bangladesh and the PRC, and the countervailing duty order on cotton shop towels from Pakistan. DATES: *Effective Date:* February 17, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martha V. Douthit, Office of Policy, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-5050. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Scope of the Orders The merchandise subject to these orders is shop towels. Shop towels are absorbent industrial wiping cloths made from a loosely woven fabric. The fabric may be either 100-percent cotton or a blend of materials. Shop towels are currently classifiable under item numbers 6307.10.2005 and 6307.10.2015 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS). Although HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of these proceeding remains dispositive. Background The Department published in the **Federal Register** the antidumping duty orders on cotton shop towels from Bangladesh and the PRC, and the countervailing duty order on cotton shop towels from Pakistan. *See* Antidumping Duty Order; Cotton Shop Towels From Bangladesh, 57 FR 9688 (March 20, 1992); Shop Towels of Cotton From the People's Republic of China Antidumping Duty Order; 48 FR 45277 (October 4, 1983); and Countervailing Duty Order; Shop Towels of Cotton From Pakistan, 49 FR 8974 (March 9, 1984). On February 17, 2000, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4), the Department published in the **Federal Register** its notice of continuation of the antidumping duty orders on cotton shop towels from Bangladesh and the PRC, and countervailing duty order on cotton shop towels from Pakistan, following the first sunset review. *See* Continuation of Antidumping Duty Orders and Countervailing Duty Order: Cotton Shop Towels from Bangladesh, the People's Republic of China, and Pakistan, 65 FR 8119 (February 17, 2000). On January 3, 2005, the Department initiated a second sunset review of these orders pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, (the “Act”), and 19 CFR part 351, in general. *See* Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Review, 70 FR 75 (January 3, 2005). As a courtesy to interested parties, the Department sent letters, via certified and registered mail, to each party listed on the Department's most current service list for this proceeding to inform them of the automatic initiation of a sunset review of these orders. We received no response from the domestic industry by the deadline date. *See* 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i). As a result, the Department determined that no domestic party intends to participate in the sunset review. On January 27, 2005, the Department notified the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) in writing that we intended to issue a final determination revoking the antidumping and countervailing duty order. *See* 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(iii)(B). Determination To Revoke Pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(iii)(B)( *3* ), if no domestic interested parties respond to the notice of initiation, the Department shall issue a final determination, within 90 days after the initiation of the review, revoking the order. Because no domestic interested party filed a notice of intent to participate or a substantive response, the Department finds that no domestic interested party is participating in these reviews. Therefore, we are revoking the antidumping duty orders and countervailing duty order cotton shop towels from Bangladesh, the PRC, and Pakistan, effective February 17, 2005, the fifth anniversary of the date of the determination to continue the orders, consistent with 19 CFR 351.222(i)(2)(i) and section 751(c)(6)(A)(iii) of the Act. Effective Date of Revocation Pursuant to sections 751(c)(3)(A) and 751(c)(6)(A)(iii) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.222(i)(2)(i), the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to terminate the suspension of liquidation of the merchandise subject to these orders entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, on or after February 17, 2005. Entries of subject merchandise prior to the effective date of revocation will continue to be subject to suspension of liquidation and antidumping and countervailing duty deposit requirements. The Department will complete any pending administrative reviews of these orders and will conduct administrative reviews of subject merchandise entered prior to the effective date of revocation in response to appropriately filed requests for review. These five-year (“sunset”) reviews and this notice are in accordance with sections 751(c) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: April 4, 2005. Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-1653 Filed 4-8-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-570-898 Partial Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances: Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People's Republic of China AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: April 11, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cindy Lai Robinson or Brian C. Smith, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-3797 or
(202)482-1766, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION OF CRITICAL CIRCUMSTANCES Based on allegations contained in the Petitioners' 1 March 4, 2005, amendment to the May 14, 2004 petition, we preliminarily find, pursuant to section 733(e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), and section 351.206 of the Department of Commerce (“Department”) regulations, that critical circumstances exist with regard to imports of chlorinated isocyanurates from the PRC for the PRC-wide entity and Shanghai Tian Yuan International Trading Co., Ltd. (“Tian Yuan”), one of the Section A Respondents. 2 Critical circumstances do not exist with regard to imports of chlorinated isocyanurates from the PRC for the following entities: Hebei Jiheng Chemical Co., Ltd. (“Jiheng”), Nanning Chemical Industry Co., Ltd. (“Nanning”), and the remaining four Section A Respondents. 1 The petitioners in this antidumping duty investigation are Clearon Corporation and Occidental Chemical Corporation (“the Petitioners”). 2 The five Section A respondents include: Liaocheng Huaao Chemical Industry Co., Ltd. (“Huaao”); Shanghai Tian Yuan International Trading Co., Ltd., (“Tian Yuan”); Changzhou Clean Chemical Co., Ltd. (“Clean Chemical”); Sinochem Hebei Import & Export Corporation (“Sinochem Hebei”); and Sinochem Shanghai Import & Export Corporation (“Sinochem Shanghai”) (collectively “Section A Respondents”). Background The Petitioners filed a timely allegation of critical circumstances on March 4, 2005 (“critical circumstances petition”), in accordance with section 733(e)(1) of the Act and section 351.206(c)(1) of the Department's regulations. On March 8 and 14, 2005, the Department requested that Jiheng and Nanning report their monthly shipment data of subject merchandise to the United States for 2002 through 2005. Nanning and Jiheng provided the requested information. In its March 14, 2005, response, pursuant to section 351.301(c) of the Department's regulations, Jiheng argued that the evidence on the record does not support an affirmative finding of critical circumstances with respect to Jiheng. Period of Investigation The period of investigation (“POI”) is October 1, 2003, through March 31, 2004. This period corresponds to the two most recent fiscal quarters prior to the month of the filing of the Petition (May 14, 2004). *See* 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1). Scope of Investigation The products covered by this investigation are chlorinated isocyanurates. Chlorinated isocyanurates are derivatives of cyanuric acid, described as chlorinated s-triazine triones. There are three primary chemical compositions of chlorinated isocyanurates:
(1)trichloroisocyanuric acid (“TCCA”) (Cl3 (NCO)3),
(2)sodium dichloroisocyanurate (dihydrate) (NaCl2(NCO)3) • 2H2O), and
(3)sodium dichloroisocyanurate (anhydrous) (NaCl2(NCO)3). Chlorinated isocyanurates are available in powder, granular, and tableted forms. This investigation covers all chlorinated isocyanurates. Chlorinated isocyanurates are currently classifiable under subheadings 2933.69.6015, 2933.69.6021, and 2933.69.6050 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). The tariff classification 2933.69.6015 covers sodium dichloroisocyanurates (anhydrous and dihydrate forms) and trichloroisocyanuric acid. The tariff classifications 2933.69.6021 and 2933.69.6050 represent basket categories that include chlorinated isocyanurates and other compounds including an unfused triazine ring. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive. Arch's patented chlorinated isocyanurates tablet is also included in the scope of this investigation. *See Preliminary Determination* 3 and *Amended Preliminary Determination* . 4 3 *Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People's Republic of China* , 69 FR 75293 (December 16, 2004) (“ *Preliminary Determination* ”). 4 *Notice of Amended Preliminary Antidumping Duty Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People's Republic of China* , 70 FR 9035 (February 24, 2005) (“””). Critical Circumstances On March 4, 2005, the Petitioners alleged that there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect critical circumstances exist with respect to the antidumping investigation of chlorinated isocyanurates from the PRC. Because the Petitioners submitted critical circumstances allegations more than 30 days before the scheduled date of the final determination but later than 20 days before the preliminary determination, the Department must issue a preliminary determination of critical circumstances within 30 days after the Petitioners submitted the allegation. *See* Section 351.206(c)(2)(ii) of the Department's regulations. Section 733(e)(1) of the Act provides that, upon receipt of a timely allegation of critical circumstances, the Department will determine whether there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that: (A)(i) there is a history of dumping and material injury by reason of dumped imports in the United States or elsewhere of the subject merchandise or
(ii)the person by whom, or for whose account, the merchandise was imported knew or should have known that the exporter was selling the subject merchandise at less than its fair value and that there was likely to be material injury by reason of such sales, and
(B)there have been massive imports of the subject merchandise over a relatively short period. Section 351.206(h)(1) of the Department's regulations provides that, in determining whether imports of the subject merchandise have been “massive,” the Department normally will examine
(i)the volume and value of the imports,
(ii)seasonal trends, and
(iii)the share of domestic consumption accounted for by the imports. In addition, section 351.206(h)(2) of the Department's regulations provides that, “In general, unless the imports during the 'relatively short period' . . . have increased by at least 15 percent over the imports during an immediately preceding period of comparable duration, the Secretary will not consider the imports massive.” Section 351.206(i) of the Department's regulations defines “relatively short period” as generally the period beginning on the date the proceeding begins ( *i.e.* , the date the petition is filed) and ending at least three months later. This section provides further that, if the Department “finds that importers, or exporters or producers, had reason to believe, at some time prior to the beginning of the proceeding, that a proceeding was likely,” then the Department may consider a period of not less than three months from that earlier time. In determining whether the above statutory criteria have been satisfied, we examined the following information:
(1)the evidence presented in the Petitioners' March 4, 2005, submission;
(2)evidence obtained since the initiation of the less-than-fair-value (“LTFV”) investigation ( *i.e.* , import statistics released by the U.S. Census Bureau); and
(3)the International Trade Commission's (“ITC”) preliminary material injury determination. * See Chlorinated Isocyanurates from China and Spain * , 69 FR 40417 (July 2, 2004) (“ *ITC Preliminary Determination* ”).In determining whether a history of dumping and material injury exists, the Department generally considers current or previous antidumping duty orders on subject merchandise from the country in question in the United States and current orders in any other country with regard to imports of chlorinated isocyanurates from the PRC. In their March 4, 2005, submission, the Petitioners made no statement concerning a history of dumping chlorinated isocyanurates from the PRC. However, we are aware of an antidumping order in Mexico on trichloroisocyanuric acid from the PRC dated December 20, 2002. *See* WTO Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices, *Semi-Annual Report Under Article 16.4 of the Agreement* , G/ADP/N/126/MEX at 7 (Feb. 25, 2005). 5 As discussed in the “scope of investigation” section of the accompanying **Federal Register** notice, TCCA ( *i.e.* , one of three primary chemical compositions of chlorinated isocyanurates) is included in the scope of this investigation. Therefore, the Department finds that there is a history of injurious dumping of chlorinated isocyanurates from the PRC pursuant to section 733(e)(1)(A)(i) of the Act. *See, e.g., Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar From Turkey* , 61 FR 15039, 15040 (April 4, 1996). 5 We also note that the European Communities reported to the WTO that an investigation on trichloroisocyanuric acid
(TCCA)was initiated in July 2004. See WTO Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices, *Semi-Annual Report Under Article 16.4 of the Agreement* , G/ADP/N/126/EEC at 39 (Mar. 8, 2005). The existence of this investigation is not a factor in our conclusion that there is a history of injurious dumping of chlorinated isocyanurates from the PRC pursuant to section 733(e)(1)(A)(i) of the Act. Having satisfied Section 733(e)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, the first prong of the test is met. However, for these preliminary findings, we have also examined the applicability of Sections 733(e)(1)(A)(ii) and 733(e)(1)(B) as discussed below. In determining whether an importer knew or should have known that the exporter was selling subject merchandise at LTFV, the Department must rely on the facts before it at the time the determination is made. The Department generally bases its decision with respect to knowledge on the margins calculated in the preliminary antidumping duty determination. The Department normally considers margins of 25 percent or more for export price (“EP”) sales and 15 percent or more for constructed export price (“CEP”) sales sufficient to impute importer knowledge of sales at LTFV. *See e.g., Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Germany, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine: Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances* , 67 FR 6224, 6225 (February 11, 2002). *See also Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances: Magnesium Metal from the People's Republic of China* , 70 FR 5606 (February 3, 2005). Our *Amended Preliminary Determination* found margins of 86.79 percent and 179.48 percent for the two mandatory respondents, Jiheng and Nanning, respectively. The five Section A Respondents received a separate rate margin of 111.03 percent based on the weighted-average margins of Jiheng and Nanning, the mandatory respondents in this investigation. *See Amended Preliminary Determination* . The PRC-wide entity received a margin of 179.48 percent. *See Amended Preliminary Determination; see also Antidumping Duty Investigation of Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People's Republic of China (the “PRC”) - Partial Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances* (“ *Preliminary Critical Circumstances Memorandum* ”) at Attachment II, dated April 4, 2005, from James C. Doyle, Office Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, to Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import Administration. In determining whether an importer knew or should have known that there was likely to be material injury caused by reason of such imports, the Department normally will look to the preliminary injury determination of the ITC. If the ITC finds a reasonable indication of present material injury to the relevant U.S. industry, the Department will determine that a reasonable basis exists to impute importer knowledge that material injury is likely by reason of such imports. *See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-To-Length Carbon Steel Plate from the People's Republic of China* , 62 FR 61964 (November 20, 1997). In the present case, the ITC preliminarily found a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured by imports of chlorinated isocyanurates from the PRC. *See ITC Preliminary Determination* . Based on the ITC's preliminary determination of material injury and the preliminary dumping margins for Jiheng, Nanning, the Section A Respondents, and the PRC-wide entity, the Department preliminarily finds that there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that the importers knew or should have known that there was likely to be material injury by reason of sales at LTFV of subject merchandise from the PRC from these exporters. Pursuant to section 351.206(h) of the Department's regulations, we will not consider imports to be massive unless imports in the comparison period have increased by at least 15 percent during a relatively “short period” over imports in the base period. The Department normally considers a “relatively short period” as the period beginning on the date the proceeding begins and ending at least three months later. *See* 19 C.F.R. 351.206(I). According to section 351.206(i) of the Department's regulations, “if the Secretary finds that importers, or exporters or producers, had reason to believe, at some time prior to the beginning of the proceeding, that a proceeding was likely, then the Secretary may consider a time period of not less than three months from that earlier time.” The Department normally compares the import volumes of the subject merchandise for at least three months immediately preceding the filing of the petition ( *i.e.* , the “base period”) to a comparable period of at least three months following the filing of the petition ( *i.e.* , the “comparison period”). Imports normally will be considered massive when imports during the comparison period have increased by 15 percent or more compared to imports during the base period. *See* 19 C.F.R. 351.206(c)(2). Based on information contained in an e-mail dated March 2004, the Petitioners maintain that there was an awareness in both the United States and China of an impending antidumping proceeding prior to the May 14, 2004, filing of the petition. Accordingly, the Petitioners requested that the Department use an eight-month base period and eight-month comparison period, and use March 2004 as the knowledge month. Our analysis shows that we obtain the same conclusion regarding whether there are massive imports for Jiheng, Nanning, the Section A Respondents, and the China-wide entity, regardless of whether we use March 2004 as the knowledge month, as suggested by the Petitioners, or use May 2004 as the knowledge month, in which this proceeding was filed. According to section 351.206(i) of the Department's regulations, the comparison period normally should be at least three months. In this case, we determine that a seven-month period is appropriate to be used as the “relatively short period.” The Department requested that the respondents in this investigation provide monthly shipment data for 2002 through 2005. *See* Letters to Jiheng and Nanning dated March 8 and 14, 2005, respectively. In addition, the Department obtained U.S. import data for subject merchandise for 2002, 2003, and 2004 as reported at the ITC's website, http://dataweb.usitc.gov. On March 14, 15, and 17, 2005, the Department received company-specific data from Jiheng and Nanning. When we compared these companies' import data during the base period with the comparison period, we found that the volumes of imports of chlorinated isocyanurates from Jiheng and Nanning decreased over the base period, regardless of whether we used March or May 2004 as the knowledge month. *See Preliminary Critical Circumstances Memorandum* at Attachment I. Therefore, we find no massive imports from Jiheng and Nanning. Because the PRC NME entity did not respond to the Department's antidumping questionnaire, we were unable to obtain shipment data from the PRC NME entity for purposes of our critical circumstances analysis and there is therefore no verifiable information on the record with respect to its export volumes. Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party or any other person
(A)withholds information that has been requested by the administering authority or the Commission under this title,
(B)fails to provide such information by the deadlines for submission of the information or in the form and manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and
(e)of section 782,
(C)significantly impedes a proceeding under this title, or
(D)provides such information but the information cannot be verified as provided in section 782(i), the administering authority and the Commission shall, subject to section 782(d), use the facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination under this title. Furthermore, Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, if a party has failed to act to the best of its ability, the Department may apply an adverse inference. The PRC NME entity did not respond to the Department's request for information. Thus, we are using facts available, in accordance with section 776(a) of the Act, in preliminarily determining whether there were massive imports of merchandise from the PRC NME entity. In accordance with section 776(b) of the Act, we also find that an adverse facts available is warranted. In this case, the only source of available data from which to measure whether imports from the PRC entity were massive are the aggregate import statistics from the PRC, as reported on the ITC DataWeb site (http://dataweb.usitc.gov). Therefore, we have used these statistics to determine whether imports from the PRC entity were massive during the comparison period. We made adjustments for shipments reported by the mandatory respondents. Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department selects from among the facts otherwise available and relies on “secondary information,” the Department shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources reasonably at the Department's disposal. The Statement of Administrative Action (“SAA”), accompanying the URAA, H.R. Doc. No. 316, 103d Cong., 2d Sess. (1994), states that “corroborate” means to determine that the information used has probative value. *See* SAA at 870. The aggregate import statistics from the ITC DataWeb are publicly available data by which the Department can determine import volumes of chlorinated isocyanurates into the United States on a month-by-month basis. Furthermore, this data is reported on a U.S. government website, enhancing its reliability. Our analysis of the import statistics, adjusted for shipments by the mandatory respondents, indicates that shipments in the comparison period increased over those for the base period. In comparing import statistics from the base period to the comparison period, imports of chlorinated isocyanurates have increased by more than 15 percent, 6 regardless of whether we used March or May 2004 as the knowledge month. *See Preliminary Critical Circumstances Memorandum* at Attachment IV. This comparison is based on the HTSUS number identified in the scope of the *Preliminary Determination* , HTSUS 2933.69.6050. 7 As a result of our analysis, we determine that there were massive imports from the PRC-wide entity during the applicable relatively short period of time. 6 *See Prelimniary Critical Circumstances Memorandum* at Attachment III. 7 There were no shipments under the two additional HTSUS numbers identified in the scope of the *Amended Preliminary Determination* investigation, HTSUS 2933.69.6015 and 2933.69.6021. For the five Section A Respondents that voluntarily submitted information (Section A questionnaire responses) and received a separate rate, we did not request the monthly shipment information necessary to determine if there were massive imports. Tian Yuan, one of the Section A Respondents in this investigation, refused to participate in the Department's verification. Therefore, for the reasons expressed above with respect to the PRC-wide entity, we determine that imports from Tian Yuan were “massive” within the meaning of the Act during the applicable relatively short period of time and, as such, justify a preliminary determination of critical circumstances. As the basis for determining whether massive imports existed for the remaining four Section A Respondents, we calculated a weighted-average increase/decrease in import volume based on the mandatory respondents' import volumes. When we compared these companies' import data during the base period with the comparison period, we found that the volume of imports of chlorinated isocyanurates decreased over the base period. Therefore, for all Section A respondents except for Tian Yuan, we find no massive imports during the applicable relatively short period of time. We will issue a final determination concerning critical circumstances for all producers/ exporters of subject merchandise from the PRC when we issue our final determination in this investigation, which will be no later than May 2, 2005. Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration no later than three days after the publication of the preliminary determination of critical circumstances in this proceeding. Rebuttal briefs limited to issues raised in the aforementioned case briefs will be due no later than two days after the deadline date for case briefs. Suspension of Liquidation With respect to Tian Yuan and the PRC-wide entity for chlorinated isocyanurates, we will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to suspend liquidation of all unliquidated entries of chlorinated isocyanurates from the PRC that were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after 90 days prior to the date of publication in the **Federal Register** of our preliminary determination in these investigation. In accordance with section 733(d) of the Act, with respect to Jiheng, Nanning, and all Section A Respondents other than Tian Yuan for chlorinated isocyanurates, we will make no changes to our instructions to the CBP with respect to the suspension of liquidation of all entries of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of our preliminary determination in the **Federal Register** . This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: April 4, 2005. Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-1664 Filed 4-8-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-852] Creatine Monohydrate From the People's Republic of China: Revocation of Antidumping Duty Order AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On January 3, 2005, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) initiated the sunset review of the antidumping duty order on creatine monohydrate from the People's Republic of China (70 FR 75). Because the domestic interested parties did not participate in this sunset review, the Department is revoking this antidumping duty order. DATES: *Effective Date:* February 4, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hilary E. Sadler, Esq., Office of Policy, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-4340. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Scope of the Order The product covered by this order is creatine monohydrate, which is commonly referred to as “creatine.” The chemical name for creatine monohydrate is N (aminoiminomethyl)-N-methylglycine monohydrate. The Chemical Abstracts Service (“CAS”) registry number for this product is 6020-87-7. Creatine monohydrate in its pure form is a white, tasteless, odorless powder, that is a naturally occurring metabolite found in muscle tissue. Creatine monohydrate is provided for in subheading 2925.20.90 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS subheading and the CAS registry number are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. Background On February 4, 2000, the Department issued an antidumping duty order on creatine monohydrate from People's Republic of China (65 FR 5583). Pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, (“the Act”) and 19 CFR 351, the Department initiated the sunset review of this order by publishing the notice of the initiation in the **Federal Register** at 70 FR 75 (January 3, 2005). As a courtesy to interested parties, the Department sent letters, via certified and registered mail, to each party listed on the Department's most current service list for this proceeding to inform them of the automatic initiation of a sunset review of this order. We received no response from the domestic industry by the deadline dates ( *see* 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i)). As a result, the Department determined that no domestic party intends to participate in this sunset review, and on January 27, 2005, we notified the International Trade Commission, in writing, that we intended to issue a final determination revoking this antidumping duty order. *See* 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(iii)(B). Determination To Revoke Pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(iii)(B)(3), if no domestic interested party responds to the notice of initiation, the Department shall issue a final determination, within 90 days after the initiation of the review, revoking the order. Because no domestic interested party filed a notice of intent or substantive response, the Department finds that no domestic interested party is participating in this review of this antidumping duty order, and we are revoking this antidumping duty order effective February 4, 2005, the fifth anniversary of the date the order was issued, consistent with 19 CFR 351.222(i)(2)(i) and section 751(d)(2) of the Act. Effective Date of Revocation Pursuant to sections 751(c)(3)(A) and 751(d)(2) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.222(i)(2)(i), the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to terminate the suspension of liquidation of the merchandise subject to this order entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, on or after February 4, 2005. Entries of subject merchandise prior to the effective date of revocation will continue to be subject to suspension of liquidation and antidumping duty deposit requirements. The Department will complete any pending administrative reviews of this order and will conduct administrative reviews of subject merchandise entered prior to the effective date of revocation in response to appropriately filed requests for review. This five-year (“sunset”) review and notice are in accordance with sections 751(c) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: April 4, 2005. Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-1654 Filed 4-8-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A-421-807) Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Netherlands; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On December 3, 2004, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from the Netherlands. *See Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Netherlands; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 69 FR 70226 (December 3, 2004) ( *Preliminary Results* ). This review covers imports of subject merchandise from Corus Staal BV (Corus Staal) to the United States during the period November 1, 2002, to October 31, 2003. Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made changes to the margin calculation. Therefore, the final results differ from the preliminary results. The final weighted-average dumping margin for the reviewed firm is listed below in the section entitled “Final Results of Review.” EFFECTIVE DATE: April 11, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Cordell or Robert James, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone:
(202)482-0409 or
(202)482-0649, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On December 3, 2004, the Department published in the **Federal Register** the *Preliminary Results* of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from the Netherlands for the period November 1, 2002 to October 31, 2003. In response to the Department's invitation to comment on the preliminary results of this review, Corus (respondent) and United States Steel Corporation
(USSC)(petitioner) filed their case briefs on January 19, 2005. 1 USSC submitted a rebuttal brief on January 28, 2005. The deadline for the final results of the review is April 2, 2005. Because this date falls on a Saturday, *i.e.* , a non-business day, the signature date for these final results is April 4, 2005. 1 Corus and USSC were unable to deliver the case briefs on January 18, 2005, when they were originally due, because of an unforseen external event that prevented access to the Department. As a result, the Department granted a one-day extension to both companies. Period of Review The period of review
(POR)is November 1, 2002, to October 31, 2003. Scope of the Order For purposes of this order, the products covered are certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products of a rectangular shape, of a width of 0.5 inch or greater, neither clad, plated, nor coated with metal and whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances, in coils (whether or not in successively superimposed layers), regardless of thickness, and in straight lengths, of a thickness of less than 4.75 mm and of a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness. Universal mill plate ( *i.e.* , flat-rolled products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 mm, but not exceeding 1250 mm, and of a thickness of not less than 4.0 mm, not in coils and without patterns in relief) of a thickness not less than 4.0 mm is not included within the scope of the order. Specifically included within the scope of this order are vacuum degassed, fully stabilized (commonly referred to as interstitial-free (IF)) steels, high strength low alloy
(HSLA)steels, and the substrate for motor lamination steels. IF steels are recognized as low carbon steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as titanium or niobium (also commonly referred to as columbium), or both, added to stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, vanadium, and molybdenum. The substrate for motor lamination steels contains micro-alloying levels of elements such silicon and aluminum. Steel products to be included in the scope of this order, regardless of definitions in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS), are products in which:
(i)Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements;
(ii)the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and
(iii)none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated: 1.80 percent of manganese, or 2.25 percent of silicon, or 1.00 percent of copper, or 0.50 percent of aluminum, or 1.25 percent of chromium, or 0.30 percent of cobalt, or 0.40 percent of lead, or 1.25 percent of nickel, or 0.30 percent of tungsten, or 0.10 percent of molybdenum, or 0.10 percent of niobium, or 0.15 percent of vanadium, or 0.15 percent of zirconium. All products that meet the physical and chemical description provided above are within the scope of this order unless otherwise excluded. The following products, by way of example, are outside or specifically excluded from the scope of this order: • Alloy hot-rolled steel products in which at least one of the chemical elements exceeds those listed above (including, *e.g.* , ASTM specifications A543, A387, A514, A517, A506). • Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE)/American Iron and Steel Institute
(AISI)grades of series 2300 and higher. • Ball bearings steels, as defined in the HTS. • Tool steels, as defined in the HTS. • Silico-manganese (as defined in the HTS) or silicon electrical steel with a silicon level exceeding 2.25 percent. • ASTM specifications A710 and A736. • USS Abrasion-resistant steels (USS AR 400, USS AR 500). • All products (proprietary or otherwise) based on an alloy ASTM specification (sample specifications: ASTM A506, A507). • Non-rectangular shapes, not in coils, which are the result of having been processed by cutting or stamping and which have assumed the character of articles or products classified outside chapter 72 of the HTS. The merchandise subject to this order is classified in the HTS at subheadings: 7208.10.15.00, 7208.10.30.00, 7208.10.60.00, 7208.25.30.00, 7208.25.60.00, 7208.26.00.30, 7208.26.00.60, 7208.27.00.30, 7208.27.00.60, 7208.36.00.30, 7208.36.00.60, 7208.37.00.30, 7208.37.00.60, 7208.38.00.15, 7208.38.00.30, 7208.38.00.90, 7208.39.00.15, 7208.39.00.30, 7208.39.00.90, 7208.40.60.30, 7208.40.60.60, 7208.53.00.00, 7208.54.00.00, 7208.90.00.00, 7211.14.00.90, 7211.19.15.00, 7211.19.20.00, 7211.19.30.00, 7211.19.45.00, 7211.19.60.00, 7211.19.75.30, 7211.19.75.60, and 7211.19.75.90. Certain hot-rolled flat-rolled carbon steel flat products covered by this order, including: vacuum degassed fully stabilized; high strength low alloy; and the substrate for motor lamination steel may also enter under the following tariff numbers: 7225.11.00.00, 7225.19.00.00, 7225.30.30.50, 7225.30.70.00, 7225.40.70.00, 7225.99.00.90, 7226.11.10.00, 7226.11.90.30, 7226.11.90.60, 7226.19.10.00, 7226.19.90.00, 7226.91.50.00, 7226.91.70.00, 7226.91.80.00, and 7226.99.00.00. Subject merchandise may also enter under 7210.70.30.00, 7210.90.90.00, 7211.14.00.30, 7212.40.10.00, 7212.40.50.00, and 7212.50.00.00. Although the HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and U.S. Customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this administrative review are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum” (Decision Memorandum) from Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary Operations, to Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated April 4, 2004, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues which parties have raised and to which we have responded, all of which are in the Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice as an appendix. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in the Central Records Unit, room B-099 of the main Department building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly via the Internet at *www.ia.ita.doc.gov.* The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Changes Since the Preliminary Results Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made the following changes to the margin calculation: • We revised the U.S. warehousing expenses and inventory carrying costs reported by Corus for its JIT sales. We based the calculation on the transaction-specific number of inventory carrying days rather than the reported order-wide average number of inventory carrying days . • We corrected a clerical error involving adjustments to U.S. expenses incurred in euros. • We have amended our draft liquidation instructions to correct a clerical error concerning shipments produced by Corus, and imported by other importers. These changes are discussed in the relevant sections of the Decision Memorandum. Final Results of Review We determine that the following weighted-average percentage margin exists for the period November 1, 2002, to October 31, 2003: Manufacturer / Exporter Weighted Average Margin (percentage) Corus Staal BV 4.42 Assessment The Department shall determine and U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)shall assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Thus, in accordance with 19 C.F.R. § 351.212(b)(1), we will calculate an importer-specific *ad valorem* assessment rate for merchandise based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales made during the POR to the total customs value of the sales used to calculate those duties. Where the importer-specific assessment rate is above *de minimis* , we will instruct CBP to assess duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise by that importer. This rate will be assessed uniformly on all entries of that particular importer made during the period of review. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of the final results of review. Cash Deposit Requirements The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of these final results for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of these final results of administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act:
(1)the cash deposit rate for the reviewed company will be the rate listed above;
(2)for previously-reviewed producers and exporters, the cash deposit rate will be the company-specific rate established for the most recent period for which they were reviewed;
(3)if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original less than fair value
(LTFV)investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and
(4)the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be the “all others” rate of 2.59 percent, which is the “All Others” rate established in the LTFV investigation. *See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From The Netherlands* , 66 FR 55637 (November 2, 2001). These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. Notification to Interested Parties This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 C.F.R. § 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 the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders
(APOs)of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 C.F.R. § 351.305, that continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or 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 determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: April 4, 2005. Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix Issues in Decision Memorandum 1. Treatment of non-dumped sales 2. Classification of JIT sales as CEP 3. Inventory period of JIT sales 4. Clerical error related to invoice currency field 5. Liquidation instructions [FR Doc. E5-1657 Filed 4-8-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-588-605, A-580-507] Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings From Japan and the Republic of Korea: Revocation of Antidumping Duty Orders AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On January 3, 2005, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) initiated the second sunset review of the antidumping duty orders on malleable cast iron pipe fittings from Japan and the Republic of Korea (70 FR 75). Because the domestic interested parties did not participate in this sunset review, the Department is revoking these antidumping duty orders. EFFECTIVE DATE: February 28, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hilary E. Sadler, Esq., Office of Policy, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-4340. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The merchandise subject to these orders is certain malleable cast iron pipe fittings, other than grooved and alloy cast iron, from Japan and the Republic of Korea. In the original orders, the merchandise was classified in the Tariff Schedules of the United States, Annotated, under item numbers 610.7000 and 610.7400. The merchandise is currently classified under item numbers 7307.19.90.30, 7307.19.90.60 and 7307.19.90.80 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTS”). The HTS number is provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive. Background On May 23, 1986, the Department issued an antidumping duty order on malleable cast iron pipe fittings from the Republic of Korea (51 FR 18917). On July 6, 1987, the Department issued an antidumping duty order on malleable cast iron pipe fittings from Japan (52 FR 25281). On February 28, 2000, the Department published its notice of continuation of the antidumping duty orders, following a sunset review. *See Continuation of Antidumping Duty Orders: Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings from Japan and Korea,* 65 FR 10469 (February 28, 2000). Pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR part 351, the Department initiated the second sunset review of this order by publishing the notice of the initiation in the **Federal Register** *Initiation of Five Year (“Sunset”) Reviews* , 70 FR 75 (January 3, 2005). In addition, as a courtesy to interested parties, the Department sent letters, via certified and registered mail, to each party listed on the Department's most current service list for these proceedings to inform them of the automatic initiation of a sunset review of these orders. We received no response from the domestic industry by the deadline dates ( *see* 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i)). As a result, the Department determined that no domestic party intends to participate in these sunset reviews, and on January 27, 2005, we notified the International Trade Commission, in writing, that we intended to issue a final determination revoking these antidumping duty orders. *See* 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(iii)(B). Determination To Revoke Pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(iii)(B)(3), if no domestic interested party responds to the notice of initiation, the Department shall issue a final determination, within 90 days after the initiation of the review, revoking the order. Because no domestic interested party filed a notice of intent or substantive response, the Department finds that no domestic interested party is participating in this review of these antidumping duty orders, and we are revoking these antidumping duty orders effective February 28, 2005, the fifth anniversary of the date of the determination to continue the order, consistent with 19 CFR 351.222(i)(2)(i) and section 751(c)(6)(A)(iii) of the Act. Effective Date of Revocation Pursuant to sections 751(c)(3)(A) and 751(c)(6)(A)(iii) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.222(i)(2)(i), the Department will instruct the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to terminate the suspension of liquidation of the merchandise subject to this order entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, on or after February 28, 2005. Entries of subject merchandise prior to the effective date of revocation will continue to be subject to suspension of liquidation and antidumping duty deposit requirements. The Department will complete any pending administrative reviews of these orders and will conduct administrative reviews of subject merchandise entered prior to the effective date of revocation in response to appropriately filed requests for review. This five-year (“sunset”) review and notice are in accordance with sections 751(c) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: April 4, 2005. Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-1660 Filed 4-8-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-588-845] Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Japan: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce . SUMMARY: In response to timely requests by the petitioners, 1 the Department of Commerce is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel sheet and strip in coils from Japan with respect to one company. The period of review is July 1, 2003, through June 30, 2004. We preliminarily determine that, because the respondent did not participate in this review, it is appropriate to base its rate on adverse facts available. 1 The petitioners are Allegheny Ludlum, North American Stainless, Local 3303 United Auto Worker, United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO/CLC, and Zanesville Armco Independent Organization. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. If these preliminary results are adapted in our final results of administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. DATES: *Effective Date:* April 11, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sophie Castro or P. Lee Smith, AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import Administration, Room B-099, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-0588 or
(202)482-1655, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On June 8, 1999, the Department published in the **Federal Register** an amended final determination and antidumping duty order on stainless steel sheet and strip in coils from Japan (64 FR 30573). In response to a timely request by the petitioners, the Department published a notice of initiation of an administrative review with respect to the following company: Kawasaki Steel Corporation
(KSC)and its alleged successor-in-interest JFE Steel Corporation
(JFE)(69 FR 52857, August 30, 2004). The period of review
(POR)is July 1, 2003, through June 30, 2004. On September 8, 2004, the Department issued an antidumping duty questionnaire to KSC, which included questions addressing whether JFE is KSC's successor-in-interest. The response to the questionnaire was due on October 15, 2004, and subsequently extended to October 20, 2004. On September 16, 2004, counsel filed a notice of appearance indicating that it was representing JFE, and noting that KSC had changed its name to JFE prior to the POR. Moreover, in that letter, counsel pointed out that if the Department required notification of appearance on behalf of KSC based on the Department's initiation of the review with respect to both JFE and KSC, then the Department should consider the notice of appearance on behalf of JFE to serve as such notification for KSC ( *see,* Letter to the Secretary of Commerce from KSC/JFE, dated September 16, 2004). On October 20, 2004, KSC/JFE's counsel contacted the Department to state that KSC/JFE would not be submitting a response to the Department's antidumping questionnaire. KSC/JFE's counsel did not give any indication as to why KSC/JFE would not be submitting a response. *See* Memorandum from P. Lee Smith to the File, dated October 15, 2004, and Memorandum from Sophie Castro and P. Lee Smith to the File, dated October 20, 2004, regarding phone conversations with counsel for KSC/JFE. Scope of the Order The products covered by this order are certain stainless steel sheet and strip in coils. Stainless steel is an alloy steel containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more of chromium, with or without other elements. The subject sheet and strip is a flat-rolled product in coils that is greater than 9.5 mm in width and less than 4.75 mm in thickness, and that is annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise descaled. The subject sheet and strip may also be further processed ( *e.g.* , cold-rolled, polished, aluminized, coated, etc.) provided that it maintains the specific dimensions of sheet and strip following such processing. The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(HTS)at subheadings: 7219.13.00.31, 7219.13.00.51, 7219.13.00.71, 7219.13.00.81, 7219.14.00.30, 7219.14.00.65, 7219.14.00.90, 7219.32.00.05, 7219.32.00.20, 7219.32.00.25, 7219.32.00.35, 7219.32.00.36, 7219.32.00.38, 7219.32.00.42, 7219.32.00.44, 7219.33.00.05, 7219.33.00.20, 7219.33.00.25, 7219.33.00.35, 7219.33.00.36, 7219.33.00.38, 7219.33.00.42, 7219.33.00.44, 7219.34.00.05, 7219.34.00.20, 7219.34.00.25, 7219.34.00.30, 7219.34.00.35, 7219.35.00.05, 7219.35.00.15, 7219.35.00.30, 7219.35.00.35, 7219.90.00.10, 7219.90.00.20, 7219.90.00.25, 7219.90.00.60, 7219.90.00.80, 7220.12.10.00, 7220.12.50.00, 7220.20.10.10, 7220.20.10.15, 7220.20.10.60, 7220.20.10.80, 7220.20.60.05, 7220.20.60.10, 7220.20.60.15, 7220.20.60.60, 7220.20.60.80, 7220.20.70.05, 7220.20.70.10, 7220.20.70.15, 7220.20.70.60, 7220.20.70.80, 7220.20.80.00, 7220.20.90.30, 7220.20.90.60, 7220.90.00.10, 7220.90.00.15, 7220.90.00.60, and 7220.90.00.80. Although the HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the Department's written description of the merchandise under review is dispositive. Excluded from the scope of this order are the following:
(1)Sheet and strip that is not annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise descaled,
(2)sheet and strip that is cut to length,
(3)plate ( *i.e.* , flat-rolled stainless steel products of a thickness of 4.75 mm or more),
(4)flat wire ( *i.e.* , cold-rolled sections, with a prepared edge, rectangular in shape, of a width of not more than 9.5 mm), and
(5)razor blade steel. Razor blade steel is a flat-rolled product of stainless steel, not further worked than cold-rolled (cold-reduced), in coils, of a width of not more than 23 mm and a thickness of 0.266 mm or less, containing, by weight, 12.5 to 14.5 percent chromium, and certified at the time of entry to be used in the manufacture of razor blades. *See* Chapter 72 of the HTS, “Additional U.S. Note” 1(d). Flapper valve steel is also excluded from the scope of the order. This product is defined as stainless steel strip in coils containing, by weight, between 0.37 and 0.43 percent carbon, between 1.15 and 1.35 percent molybdenum, and between 0.20 and 0.80 percent manganese. This steel also contains, by weight, phosphorus of 0.025 percent or less, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of 0.020 percent or less. The product is manufactured by means of vacuum arc remelting, with inclusion controls for sulphide of no more than 0.04 percent and for oxide of no more than 0.05 percent. Flapper valve steel has a tensile strength of between 210 and 300 ksi, yield strength of between 170 and 270 ksi, plus or minus 8 ksi, and a hardness of between 460 and 590. Flapper valve steel is most commonly used to produce specialty flapper valves in compressors. Also excluded is a product referred to as suspension foil, a specialty steel product used in the manufacture of suspension assemblies for computer disk drives. Suspension foil is described as 302/304 grade or 202 grade stainless steel of a thickness between 14 and 127 microns, with a thickness tolerance of plus-or-minus 2.01 microns, and surface glossiness of 200 to 700 percent Gs. Suspension foil must be supplied in coil widths of not more than 407 mm, and with a mass of 225 kg or less. Roll marks may only be visible on one side, with no scratches of measurable depth. The material must exhibit residual stresses of 2 mm maximum deflection, and flatness of 1.6 mm over 685 mm length. Certain stainless steel foil for automotive catalytic converters is also excluded from the scope of this order. This stainless steel strip in coils is a specialty foil with a thickness of between 20 and 110 microns used to produce a metallic substrate with a honeycomb structure for use in automotive catalytic converters. The steel contains, by weight, carbon of no more than 0.030 percent, silicon of no more than 1.0 percent, manganese of no more than 1.0 percent, chromium of between 19 and 22 percent, aluminum of no less than 5.0 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.045 percent, sulfur of no more than 0.03 percent, lanthanum of less than 0.002 or greater than 0.05 percent, and total rare earth elements of more than 0.06 percent, with the balance iron. Permanent magnet iron-chromium-cobalt alloy stainless strip is also excluded from the scope of this order. This ductile stainless steel strip contains, by weight, 26 to 30 percent chromium, and 7 to 10 percent cobalt, with the remainder of iron, in widths 228.6 mm or less, and a thickness between 0.127 and 1.270 mm. It exhibits magnetic remanence between 9,000 and 12,000 gauss, and a coercivity of between 50 and 300 oersteds. This product is most commonly used in electronic sensors and is currently available under proprietary trade names such as “Arnokrome III.” 2 2 “Arnokrome III” is a trademark of the Arnold Engineering Company. Certain electrical resistance alloy steel is also excluded from the scope of this order. This product is defined as a non-magnetic stainless steel manufactured to American Society of Testing and Materials
(ASTM)specification B344 and containing, by weight, 36 percent nickel, 18 percent chromium, and 46 percent iron, and is most notable for its resistance to high temperature corrosion. It has a melting point of 1390 degrees Celsius and displays a creep rupture limit of 4 kilograms per square millimeter at 1000 degrees Celsius. This steel is most commonly used in the production of heating ribbons for circuit breakers and industrial furnaces, and in rheostats for railway locomotives. The product is currently available under proprietary trade names such as “Gilphy 36.” 3 3 “Gilphy 36” is a trademark of Imphy, S.A. Certain martensitic precipitation-hardenable stainless steel is also excluded from the scope of this order. This high-strength, ductile stainless steel product is designated under the Unified Numbering System
(UNS)as S45500-grade steel, and contains, by weight, 11 to 13 percent chromium, and 7 to 10 percent nickel. Carbon, manganese, silicon and molybdenum each comprise, by weight, 0.05 percent or less, with phosphorus and sulfur each comprising, by weight, 0.03 percent or less. This steel has copper, niobium, and titanium added to achieve aging, and will exhibit yield strengths as high as 1700 Mpa and ultimate tensile strengths as high as 1750 Mpa after aging, with elongation percentages of 3 percent or less in 50 mm. It is generally provided in thicknesses between 0.635 and 0.787 mm, and in widths of 25.4 mm. This product is most commonly used in the manufacture of television tubes and is currently available under proprietary trade names such as “Durphynox 17.” 4 4 “Durphynox 17” is a trademark of Imphy, S.A. Finally, three specialty stainless steels typically used in certain industrial blades and surgical and medical instruments are also excluded from the scope of this order. These include stainless steel strip in coils used in the production of textile cutting tools ( *e.g.* , carpet knives). 5 This steel is similar to AISI grade 420 but containing, by weight, 0.5 to 0.7 percent of molybdenum. The steel also contains, by weight, carbon of between 1.0 and 1.1 percent, sulfur of 0.020 percent or less, and includes between 0.20 and 0.30 percent copper and between 0.20 and 0.50 percent cobalt. This steel is sold under proprietary names such as “GIN4 Mo.” The second excluded stainless steel strip in coils is similar to AISI 420-J2 and contains, by weight, carbon of between 0.62 and 0.70 percent, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, manganese of between 0.45 and 0.80 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.025 percent and sulfur of no more than 0.020 percent. This steel has a carbide density on average of 100 carbide particles per 100 square microns. An example of this product is “GIN5” steel. The third specialty steel has a chemical composition similar to AISI 420 F, with carbon of between 0.37 and 0.43 percent, molybdenum of between 1.15 and 1.35 percent, but lower manganese of between 0.20 and 0.80 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.025 percent, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of no more than 0.020 percent. This product is supplied with a hardness of more than Hv 500 guaranteed after customer processing, and is supplied as, for example, “GIN6.” 6 5 This list of uses is illustrative and provided for descriptive purposes only. 6 “GIN4 Mo,” “GIN5” and “ GIN6” are the proprietary grades of Hitachi Metals America, Ltd. Use of Facts Available As noted above in the “Background” section, KSC/JFE did not submit a response to the Department's antidumping questionnaire. Because of KSC/JFE's refusal to cooperate in this review, we determine that the application of facts available is appropriate, pursuant to section 776(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act). Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that “if an interested party or any other person
(A)withholds information that has been requested by the administering authority;
(B)fails to provide such information by the deadlines for the submission of the information or in the form and manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and
(e)of section 782;
(C)significantly impedes a proceeding under this title; or
(D)provides such information but the information cannot be verified as provided in section 782(i), the administering authority shall, subject to section 782(d), use the facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination under this title.” Because this company refused to participate in this administrative review, we find that, in accordance with sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), and
(C)of the Act, the use of total facts available is appropriate ( *see, e.g., Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Taiwan: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,* 69 FR 5960, 5963 (February 9, 2004) (for a more detailed discussion, *see Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Taiwan: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,* 68 FR 46582 (August 6, 2003)). Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, if the Department finds that an interested party “has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information,” the Department may use information that is adverse to the interests of the party as facts otherwise available. Adverse inferences are appropriate “to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.” *See* Statement of Administrative Action
(SAA)accompanying the URAA, H.R. Doc. No. 103-316, at 870 (1994). Furthermore, “an affirmative finding of bad faith on the part of the respondent is not required before the Department may make an adverse inference.” *See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties: Final Rule,* 62 FR 27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997). Section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use as adverse facts available information derived from the petition, the final determination from the less-than-fair-value
(LTFV)investigation, a previous administrative review, or any other information placed on the record. Under section 782(c) of the Act, a respondent has a responsibility not only to notify the Department if it is unable to provide requested information, but also to provide a “full explanation and suggested alternative forms.” KSC/JFE did not respond to the Department's request for information, nor did it provide any explanation for this action, thereby failing to comply with this provision of the statute. Therefore, we determine that KSC/JFE failed to cooperate to the best of its ability, making the use of an adverse inference appropriate. The Department's practice when selecting an adverse rate from among the possible sources of information is to ensure that the margin is sufficiently adverse “as to effectuate the purpose of the facts available rule to induce respondents to provide the Department with complete and accurate information in a timely manner.” *See Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors from Taiwan,* 63 FR 8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998). In this proceeding, consistent with Department practice ( *see, e.g., Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review Stainless Steel Bar from the United Kingdom,* 69 FR 905, 905-06 (January 7, 2004)), we have preliminarily assigned to exports of the subject merchandise produced by KSC/JFE the rate of 57.87 percent, which is based on the highest margin alleged in the petition for any Japanese producer. Section 776(c) of the Act provides that where the Department selects from among the facts otherwise available and relies on “secondary information,” the Department shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources reasonably at the Department's disposal. Secondary information is described in the SAA as “[i]nformation derived from the petition that gave rise to the investigation or review, the final determination concerning the subject merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 concerning the subject merchandise.” *See* SAA at 870 and 19 CFR 351.308(c)(1). The SAA states that “corroborate” means to determine that the information used has probative value. *Id.* To corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information to be used. *See* 19 CFR 351.308(d). As explained below, the Department has, to the extent practicable, corroborated the information used as adverse facts available because information from a petition is considered secondary information. *See* 19 CFR 351.308(c)-(d). We reviewed the adequacy and accuracy of the information in the petition during our pre-initiation analysis of the petition, to the extent appropriate information was available for this purpose ( *e.g.* , import statistics, call reports, and data from business contacts). Further, during the investigation segment of the proceeding, the Department determined that the adverse facts available petition rate has probative value by comparing this rate to actual sales made by KSC during the period of investigation, the only respondent whose information the Department was able to verify and use for margin calculation purposes. In the investigation segment, after comparing the information in the petition to KSC's verified sales data, we found that the petition data was reliable for use as adverse facts available. *See* Corroboration Memorandum Detailing Application of Total Adverse Facts Available from James Doyle, Program Manager, to Roland MacDonald, Director Office VII, dated May 19, 1999, placed on the record of this review on January 4, 2005. We preliminarily determine that the margin of 57.87 percent, selected as adverse facts available, is relevant, reliable, and therefore has probative value based on the corroborative procedures conducted in the investigation segment. Furthermore, no record evidence or argument has been submitted since that time that would cause the Department to call into question the accuracy of the data in the petition. Moreover, since KSC/JFE failed to cooperate, no additional information has been presented in the current review that would call into question the reliability or relevance of the margin, or the calculation on which it was based. Accordingly, we determine that this rate is an appropriate rate to be applied in this review to exports of the subject merchandise produced by KSC/JFE as facts otherwise available. Preliminary Results of Review As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the weighted-average dumping margin for the period July 1, 2003, through June 30, 2004, is as follows: Manufacturer/exporter: Percent margin Kawasaki Steel Corporation/JFE Steel Corporation. 7 57.87 7 *See* “Assessment Rates and Cash Deposit Requirements” below. Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication. *See* 19 CFR 351.310(c). Interested parties who wish to request a hearing or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, Room B-099, within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain:
(1)The party's name, address and telephone number;
(2)the number of participants; and
(3)a list of issues to be discussed. *See* 19 CFR 351.310(c). Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case briefs. Case briefs from interested parties must be submitted within 30 days of the issuance of this notice and rebuttal briefs, limited to the issues raised in the respective case briefs, must be submitted within 35 days of the issuance of this notice. Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are requested to submit with each argument
(1)a statement of the issue and
(2)a brief summary of the argument. Parties are also encouraged to provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five pages and a table of statutes, regulations, and cases cited. The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. Assessment Rates and Cash Deposit Requirements 8 8 While the Department initiated this administrative review with respect to merchandise manufactured or exported by KSC as well as its alleged successor-in-interest, JFE, due to KSC/JFE's non-response to the Department's questionnaire, the Department did not have the opportunity to conduct a successor-in-interest analysis in order to confirm whether, for antidumping purposes, JFE is the successor-in-interest to KSC with respect to the subject merchandise. Therefore, consistent with our decision to apply adverse facts available to KSC/JFE for its failure to respond to the Department's request for information and, because both the petitioners and respondents have consistently referred to KSC as JFE ( *see* Respondent counsel's Notice of Appearance, dated September 16, 2004, and Petitioner's Request for Review, dated July 30, 2004), the Department will issue instructions to CBP to collect cash deposits and assess antidumping duties on merchandise manufactured by KSC or by its alleged successor-in-interest JFE at the same rate in order to capture all entries of the subject merchandise by either KSC or JFE. Should an administrative review of KSC or JFE be requested and initiated in the future, we intend to conduct a successor-in-interest analysis at that time. The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212. The Department will issue appropriate appraisement instructions for the company subject to this review directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of the final results of this review. The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable. The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:
(1)The cash deposit rate for the reviewed company 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 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), in which case the cash deposit rate will be zero;
(2)for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period;
(3)if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and
(4)the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 40.18 percent, the “All Others” rate made effective by the LTFV investigation. *See Notice of Amendment of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Japan,* 64 FR 40565 (July 27, 1999). These requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. Notification to Importers This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. This administrative review and notice are published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221. Dated: April 4, 2005. Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-1655 Filed 4-8-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Quarterly Update to Annual Listing of Foreign Government Subsidies on Articles of Cheese Subject to an In-Quota Rate of Duty AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, has prepared its quarterly update to the annual list of foreign government subsidies on articles of cheese subject to an in-quota rate of duty during the period October 1, 2004, through December 31, 2004. We are publishing the current listing of those subsidies that we have determined exist. DATES: *Effective Date:* April 11, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maura Jeffords or Eric Greynolds, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone:
(202)482-3146 or 6071, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 702 of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (as amended) (“the Act”) requires the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) to determine, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, whether any foreign government is providing a subsidy with respect to any article of cheese subject to an in-quota rate of duty, as defined in section 702(h) of the Act, and to publish an annual list and quarterly updates of the type and amount of those subsidies. We hereby provide the Department's quarterly update of subsidies on articles of cheese that were imported during the period October 1, 2004, through December 31, 2004. The Department has developed, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, information on subsidies (as defined in section 702(h) of the Act) being provided either directly or indirectly by foreign governments on articles of cheese subject to an in-quota rate of duty. The appendix to this notice lists the country, the subsidy program or programs, and the gross and net amounts of each subsidy for which information is currently available. The Department will incorporate additional programs which are found to constitute subsidies and additional information on the subsidy programs listed, as the information is developed. The Department encourages any person having information on foreign government subsidy programs which benefit articles of cheese subject to an in-quota rate of duty to submit such information in writing to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. This determination and notice are in accordance with section 702(a) of the Act. Dated: April 1, 2005. Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix.—Subsidy Programs on Cheese Subject to an In-Quota Rate of Duty 1 Country Program(s) Gross 2 subsidy ($/lb) Net 3 subsidy ($/lb) Austria European Union Restitution Payments 0.00 0.00 Belgium EU Restitution Payments 0.00 0.00 Canada Export Assistance on Certain Types of Cheese 0.43 0.43 Cyprus * EU Restitution Payments 0.00 0.00 Denmark EU Restitution Payments 0.00 0.00 Finland EU Restitution Payments 0.00 0.00 France EU Restitution Payments 0.00 0.00 Germany EU Restitution Payments 0.00 0.00 Greece EU Restitution Payments 0.00 0.00 Hungary * EU Restitution Payments 0.00 0.00 Ireland EU Restitution Payments 0.00 0.00 Italy EU Restitution Payments 0.00 0.00 Lithuania * EU Restitution Payments 0.00 0.00 Luxembourg EU Restitution Payments 0.00 0.00 Netherlands EU Restitution Payments 0.00 0.00 Norway Indirect
(Milk)Subsidy 0.00 0.00 *Consumer Subsidy* 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 Poland * EU Restitution Payments 0.00 0.00 Portugal EU Restitution Payments 0.00 0.00 Slovenia * EU Restitution Payments 0.00 0.00 Spain EU Restitution Payments 0.00 0.00 Switzerland Deficiency Payments 0.00 0.00 U.K EU Restitution Payments 0.00 0.00 1 This chart includes only those countries which exported articles of cheese to the United States during 4th Quarter, 2004. 2 Defined in 19 U.S.C. 1677(5). 3 Defined in 19 U.S.C. 1677(6). * This notice has been modified to reflect the enlargement of the European Union
(UE)to 25 countries on May 1, 2004. *See Modification of the Tariff-Rate Import Quota for Certain Cheeses,* 69 FR 77308 (December 27, 2004). [FR Doc. 05-7266 Filed 4-8-05; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 12
Traces to 12 documents
CFR
1 reference not yet in our index
  • 19 CFR 351
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce
C.F.R.§ 351.218
C.F.R.§ 351.222
C.F.R.§ 351.204
C.F.R.§ 351.206
C.F.R.§ 351.212
C.F.R.§ 351.402
C.F.R.§ 351.305
C.F.R.§ 351.308
C.F.R.§ 351.310
Cite19 CFR 351
Cites 13 · showing 10Cited 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.