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 · 2005-07-11 · Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce · Notices

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

14,441 words·~66 min read·/register/2005/07/11/05-13502·

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-560-815] Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Indonesia; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to a request from P.T. Ispat Indo (Ispat Indo), the U.S. Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod from Indonesia (A-560-815).
This administrative review covers imports of subject merchandise from Ispat Indo. The period of review is October 1, 2003, through September 30, 2004. We preliminarily determine that sales of subject merchandise by Ispat Indo did not make sales of subject merchandise at less than normal value
(NV)during the period of review. If these preliminary results are adopted in the final results of this administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)to liquidate appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. Parties who submit argument in this proceeding are requested to submit with the argument: 1) a statement of the issues, 2) a brief summary of the argument, and 3) a table of authorities. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 11, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Angelica Mendoza or Judy Lao, 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)482-3019 or
(202)482-7924, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On October 29, 2002, the Department published in the **Federal Register** a notice of the antidumping duty orders on carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod (steel wire rod) from Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine. *See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine* , 67 FR 65945, (October 29, 2002). On October 27, 2004, Ispat Indo requested that we conduct an administrative review of its sales of the subject merchandise to the United States. On November 19, 2004, the Department initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on steel wire rod from Indonesia for the period October 1, 2003, through September 30, 2004. *See Notice of Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews* , 69 FR 67701 (November 19, 2004). On December 3, 2004, the Department issued an antidumping duty questionnaire to Ispat Indo. Ispat Indo submitted its response to Section A of the questionnaire (Section A Response) on January 18, 2005, and its response to Sections B and C (Sections B and C Response) on February 15, 2005. Ispat Indo submitted its response to Section D of the questionnaire on February 8, 2005. On February 15, 2005, the Department received comments from petitioners regarding the February 8, 2005, Section D response. On March 1, 2005, the Department issued a request to revise Ispat Indo's Section D submission to report control number specific weight-average cost of production and constructed value information for the full POR. In addition, the Department issued Ispat Indo a supplemental questionnaire for Sections A-C on March 1, 2005. The Department received Ispat Indo's first supplemental questionnaire response on March 22, 2005. On April 1, 2005, the Department received comments from petitioners, and issued a Section D supplemental questionnaire. On April 4, 2005, petitioners submitted comments regarding the March 22, 2005, Section A, B, and C supplemental questionnaire response, and the revised Section D response. On April 14, 2005, the Department issued a second supplemental questionnaire to Ispat Indo. We received Ispat Indo's Section D supplemental questionnaire response on April 15, 2005. Ispat Indo submitted its second supplemental questionnaire response on April 27, 2005. On April 29, 2005, Ispat Indo submitted its complete package of documents and reconciliation worksheets pursuant to the Department's Section A questionnaire and Ispat Indo's January 18, 2005 response to question 1.h. On May 25, 2005, the Department issued its second supplemental Section D questionnaire. We received Ispat Indo's response on June 1, 2005. On June 10, 2005, we issued a third supplemental Section D questionnaire, and received a partial response from Ispat Indo on June 17, 2005. On June 24, 2005, Ispat Indo completed its response to the June 10, 2005, third supplemental Section D questionnaire. In addition, Ispat Indo submitted a response to the Department's verbal request to clarify its home market database, *see* , “Request for Clarification of Ispat Indo's Relationship with Certain Home Market Customers”, (Department's Memorandum to the File through Abdelali Elouradia from Angelica Mendoza and Judy Lao), dated June 23, 2005. Period of Review The period of review
(POR)is October 1, 2003, through September 30, 2004. Scope of the Order The merchandise subject to this order is certain hot-rolled products of carbon steel and alloy steel, in coils, of approximately round cross section, 5.00 mm or more, but less than 19.00 mm, in solid cross-sectional diameter. Specifically excluded are steel products possessing the above-noted physical characteristics and meeting the HTSUS definitions for
(a)stainless steel;
(b)tool steel; c) high nickel steel;
(d)ball bearing steel; and
(e)concrete reinforcing bars and rods. Also excluded are
(f)free machining steel products ( *i.e.* , products that contain by weight one or more of the following elements: 0.03 percent or more of lead, 0.05 percent or more of bismuth, 0.08 percent or more of sulfur, more than 0.04 percent of phosphorus, more than 0.05 percent of selenium, or more than 0.01 percent of tellurium). Also excluded from the scope are 1080 grade tire cord quality wire rod and 1080 grade tire bead quality wire rod. This grade 1080 tire cord quality rod is defined as:
(i)grade 1080 tire cord quality wire rod measuring 5.0 mm or more but not more than 6.0 mm in cross-sectional diameter;
(ii)with an average partial decarburization of no more than 70 microns in depth (maximum individual 200 microns);
(iii)having no non-deformable inclusions greater than 20 microns and no deformable inclusions greater than 35 microns;
(iv)having a carbon segregation per heat average of 3.0 or better using European Method NFA 04-114;
(v)having a surface quality with no surface defects of a length greater than 0.15 mm;
(vi)capable of being drawn to a diameter of 0.30 mm or less with 3 or fewer breaks per ton, and
(vii)containing by weight the following elements in the proportions shown:
(1)0.78 percent or more of carbon,
(2)less than 0.01 percent of aluminum,
(3)0.040 percent or less, in the aggregate, of phosphorus and sulfur,
(4)0.006 percent or less of nitrogen, and
(5)not more than 0.15 percent, in the aggregate, of copper, nickel and chromium. This grade 1080 tire bead quality rod is defined as:
(i)grade 1080 tire bead quality wire rod measuring 5.5 mm or more but not more than 7.0 mm in cross-sectional diameter;
(ii)with an average partial decarburization of no more than 70 microns in depth (maximum individual 200 microns);
(iii)having no non-deformable inclusions greater than 20 microns and no deformable inclusions greater than 35 microns;
(iv)having a carbon segregation per heat average of 3.0 or better using European Method NFA 04-114;
(v)having a surface quality with no surface defects of a length greater than 0.2 mm;
(vi)capable of being drawn to a diameter of 0.78 mm or larger with 0.5 or fewer breaks per ton; and
(vii)containing by weight the following elements in the proportions shown:
(1)0.78 percent or more of carbon,
(2)less than 0.01 percent of soluble aluminum,
(3)0.040 percent or less, in the aggregate, of phosphorus and sulfur,
(4)0.008 percent or less of nitrogen, and
(5)either not more than 0.15 percent, in the aggregate, of copper, nickel and chromium (if chromium is not specified), or not more than 0.10 percent in the aggregate of copper and nickel and a chromium content of 0.24 to 0.30 percent (if chromium is specified). For purposes of the grade 1080 tire cord quality wire rod and the grade 1080 tire bead quality wire rod, an inclusion will be considered to be deformable if its ratio of length (measured along the axis - that is, the direction of rolling - of the rod) over thickness (measured on the same inclusion in a direction perpendicular to the axis of the rod) is equal to or greater than three. The size of an inclusion for purposes of the 20 microns and 35 microns limitations is the measurement of the largest dimension observed on a longitudinal section measured in a direction perpendicular to the axis of the rod. This measurement methodology applies only to inclusions on certain grade 1080 tire cord quality wire rod and certain grade 1080 tire bead quality wire rod that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after July 24, 2003. The designation of the products as “tire cord quality” or “tire bead quality” indicates the acceptability of the product for use in the production of tire cord, tire bead, or wire for use in other rubber reinforcement applications such as hose wire. These quality designations are presumed to indicate that these products are being used in tire cord, tire bead, and other rubber reinforcement applications, and such merchandise intended for the tire cord, tire bead, or other rubber reinforcement applications is not included in the scope. However, should petitioners or other interested parties provide a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that there exists a pattern of importation of such products for other than those applications, end-use certification for the importation of such products may be required. Under such circumstances, only the importers of record would normally be required to certify the end use of the imported merchandise. All products meeting the physical description of subject merchandise that are not specifically excluded are included in this scope. The products under the scope are currently classifiable under subheadings 7213.91.3010, 7213.91.3090, 7213.91.4510, 7213.91.4590, 7213.91.6010, 7213.91.6090, 7213.99.0031, 7213.99.0038, 7213.99.0090, 7227.20.0010, 7227.20.0020, 7227.20.0090, 7227.20.0095, 7227.90.6051, 7227.90.6053, 7227.90.6058, and 7227.90.6059 of the HTSUS. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the order is dispositive. 1 1 Effective January 1, 2004 and January 1, 2005, CBP reclassified certain HTSUS numbers related to the subject merchandise. *See* http://hotdocs.usitc.gov/tariff_chapters_current/toc.html.6 Product Comparisons In accordance with section 771(16) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), we considered all products covered by the “Scope of the Order” section above, which were produced and sold by Ispat Indo in the home market during the POR, to be foreign like product for the purpose of determining appropriate product comparisons to Ispat Indo's U.S. sales of steel wire rod. We relied on the following eight product characteristics to match U.S. sales of subject merchandise to sales in Indonesia of the foreign like product (listed in order of preference): grade, carbon content, surface quality, deoxidization, maximum total residual content, heat treatment, diameter, and coating. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the home market to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the next most similar foreign like product on the basis of the characteristics and reporting instructions listed in the Department's questionnaire. *See* Appendix V of the Department's antidumping duty questionnaire to Ispat Indo dated December 3, 2004. Fair Value Comparisons To determine whether Ispat Indo made sales of steel wire rod to the United States at less than fair value, we compared the EP to the NV, as described in the “Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice, below. In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared the EPs of individual U.S. transactions to monthly weighted-average NVs. Export Price Section 772(a) of the Act defines EP as the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) before the date of importation by the producer or exporter of the subject merchandise outside of the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United States, as adjusted under section 772(c) of the Act. In the instant review, Ispat Indo sold subject merchandise to the United States through an affiliated company in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, and this Dubai-based trading company sold the subject merchandise to the first unaffiliated U.S. customer. Ispat Indo reported all of its U.S. sales of subject merchandise as EP transactions. After reviewing the evidence on the record of this review, we have preliminarily determined that Ispat Indo's transactions are classified properly as EP sales because these sales were first sold before the date of importation by Ispat Indo's affiliated Dubai-based trading company to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. Such a determination is consistent with section 772(a) of the Act and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's (Court of Appeals') decision in *AK Steel Corp. et al. v. United States* , 226 F.3d 1361, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ( *AK Steel* ). In *AK Steel* , the Court of Appeals examined the definitions of EP and constructed export price (CEP), noting “the plain meaning of the language enacted by Congress in 1994, focuses on where the sale takes place and whether the foreign producer or exporter and the U.S. importer are affiliated, making these two factors dispositive of the choice between the two classifications.” *AK Steel* , at 226 F.3d at 1369. The Court of Appeals declared, “ the critical differences between EP and CEP sales are whether the sale or transaction takes place inside or outside the United States and whether it is made by an affiliate,” and noted that the phrase “outside the United States” had been added to the 1994 statutory definition of EP. *AK Steel* , at 226 F.3d at 1368-70. Thus, the classification of a sale as either EP or CEP depends upon where the contract for sale was concluded ( *i.e.* , in or outside the United States) and whether the foreign producer or exporter is affiliated with the U.S. importer. For these EP sales transactions, we calculated price in conformity with section 772(a) of the Act. We based EP on the packed, delivered duty-paid prices to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. We also made deductions from the EP starting price, where appropriate, for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; these included foreign inland freight from the plant/warehouse to the port of exportation, foreign brokerage and handling, international freight, marine insurance, U.S. inland freight, U.S. brokerage and handling and U.S. customs duties. Normal Value *A. Home Market Viability* In order to determine whether there is a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV ( *i.e.* , the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product is equal to or greater than five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales), we compared Ispat Indo's volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of its U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act. Pursuant to Section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act and Section 351.404(b) of the Department's regulations, because Ispat Indo's aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales for the subject merchandise, we determine that sales in the home market provide a viable basis for calculating NV. *See* Ispat Indo's Section A Response at Exhibit A-1. Moreover, there is no evidence on the record supporting a particular market situation in the exporting company's country that would not permit a proper comparison of home market and U.S. prices. Therefore, we based NV on home market sales in the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of trade. As such, we used as NV the prices at which the foreign like product was first sold for consumption in Indonesia, in the usual commercial quantities, in the ordinary course of trade and, to the extent possible, at the same level of trade
(LOT)as EP sales, as appropriate. *B. Arm's-Length Test* Ispat Indo reported that during the POR, it made sales in the home market to affiliated and unaffiliated original equipment manufacturers (OEMs). If any sales to affiliated customers in the home market were not made at arm's-length prices, we excluded them from our analysis as we consider such sales to be outside the ordinary course of trade. *See* 19 CFR 351.102(b). To test whether sales to affiliates were made at arm's-length prices, we compared, on a model-specific basis, the starting prices of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated customers net of all discounts and rebates, movement expenses, direct selling expenses, and home market packing. In accordance with the Department's current practice, if the prices charged to an affiliated party were, on average, between 98 and 102 percent of the prices charged to unaffiliated parties for merchandise identical or most similar to that sold to the affiliated party, we consider the sales to be at arm's-length prices. *See* 19 CFR 351.403(c). Conversely, where the affiliated party did not pass the arm's-length test, all sales to that affiliated party have been excluded from the NV calculation. *See Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in the Ordinary Course of Trade* , 67 FR 69186 (November 15, 2002) ( *Modification to Affiliated Party Sales* ). However, all of Ispat Indo's home market sales to affiliated customers passed the arm's-length test. *C. Cost of Production Analysis* In the most recently completed segment, the Department determined that Ispat Indo made sales in the home market at prices below its cost of production
(COP)and, therefore, excluded such sales from its calculation of NV. *See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Not Less Than Fair Value: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Indonesia* , 67 FR 17374, (April 10, 2002). The Department's affirmative findings of sales-below-cost in the preliminary determination of the less-than-fair-value
(LTFV)did not change in the final determination. 2 Therefore, the Department has reasonable grounds to believe or suspect, pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, that Ispat Indo made sales in the home market at prices below the COP for this POR. As a result, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we examined whether Ispat Indo's sales in the home market were made at prices below the COP. 2 We note that this is the second administrative review period. No parties requested a review during the first administrative review period. 1. Calculation of COP We compared sales of the foreign like product in the home market with POR model-specific COP. In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated COP based on the sum of the costs of materials and fabrication employed in producing the foreign like product, plus selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, interest expenses, and all costs and expenses incidental to placing the foreign like product in packed condition and ready for shipment. In our sales-below-cost analysis, we relied on home market sales and COP information provided by Ispat Indo in its questionnaire responses, except where noted below: a. Ispat Indo purchased a portion of its raw materials from an affiliated supplier. In accordance with Section 773(f)(2), we compared the transfer prices between the affiliated supplier and Ispat Indo to market prices and noted that the transfer prices were higher than the market prices. However, we noted that the total direct material costs reported by Ispat Indo to the Department was based on the transfer prices less the markup charged by its affiliate. Therefore, we increased the reported direct material costs to reflect the cost of raw materials as valued by the full transfer price between Ispat Indo and its affiliated supplier, including the affiliate's markup as recorded in Ispat's normal books and records. b. We revised the G&A expense ratio to exclude amounts reimbursed by Ispat Indo's insurance company related to losses due to a shipwreck and a fire. For further details regarding these adjustments, *see* the Department's “Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Results - Ispat Indo” (COP Memorandum), dated July 5, 2005. 2. Test of Home Market Prices We compared Ispat Indo's weighted-average COPs to its home market sales prices of the foreign like product, as required under section 773(b) of the Act, to determine whether these sales had been made at prices below COP. On a product-specific basis, we compared the COP to home market prices net of any applicable discounts or rebates and movement charges. In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at prices below the COP, we examined, in accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and
(B)of the Act, whether such sales were made in
(1)substantial quantities within an extended period of time, and
(2)at prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of trade. 3. Results of the COP Test Pursuant to section 773(b)(1), where less than 20 percent of the respondent's sales of a given product are at prices less than the COP, we do not disregard any below-cost sales of that product, because we determine that in such instances the below-cost sales were not made in “substantial quantities.” Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a given product are at prices less than the COP, we disregard those sales of that product, because we determine that in such instances the below-cost sales represent “substantial quantities” within an extended period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(1)(A) of the Act. In such cases, we also determine whether such sales were made at prices which would not permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(1)(B) of the Act. In the case of Ispat Indo, we did not find an instance where more than 20 percent of a given home market product's sales were at prices less than COP. Therefore, we did not exclude any sales in determining NV. *D. Price-to-Price Comparisons* We based NV on home market prices to unaffiliated and affiliated customers. Home market starting prices were based on packed prices, net of rebates, to affiliated or unaffiliated purchasers in the home market. In Ispat Indo's initial questionnaire response, it stated that home market customers received quantity discounts. After reviewing Ispat Indo's responses to supplemental questionnaires, we preliminary find that the adjustments previously classified as quantity discounts were in fact rebates, as defined in the Department's questionnaire. Therefore, we have preliminarily treated these adjustments as rebates rather than discounts. We made deductions, where appropriate, for inland freight and insurance pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. In addition, we made adjustments for differences in cost attributable to differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and section 351.411 of the Department's regulations. In accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and section 351.410 of our regulations, we adjusted home market starting prices for differences in circumstances of sale, *i.e.* , imputed credit expenses and direct bank charges. Finally, we deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and
(B)of the Act. Level of Trade In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, to the extent practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the home market at the same level of trade
(LOT)as the export transaction. *See also* section 351.412 of the Department's regulations. The NV LOT is the level of the starting-price sales in the comparison market or, when NV is based on CV, the level of the sales from which we derive SG&A expenses and profits. For EP sales, the U.S. LOT is also the level of the starting-price sale, which is usually from the exporter to the importer. *See* section 351.412(c)(1) of the Department's regulations. As noted in the “Export Price” section above, we preliminarily find that all of Ispat Indo's direct U.S. sales to unrelated customers are properly classified as EP sales. To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP sales, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated customer. If the comparison market sales are at a different LOT than EP sales, and the difference affects price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between sales on which NV is based and comparison market sales at the LOT of the export transaction, we make a LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. In analyzing differences in selling functions, we determine whether the LOTs identified by the respondent are meaningful. *See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, Final Rule* , 62 FR 27296, 27371 (May 19, 1997). If the claimed LOTs are the same, we expect that the functions and activities of the seller should be similar. Conversely, if a party claims that LOTs are different for different groups of sales, the functions and activities of the seller should be dissimilar. *See Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware from Mexico: Final Results of Administrative Review* , 65 FR 30068 (May 10, 2000). In determining whether separate LOTs existed in the home market for the respondent, we examine whether the respondent's sales involved different marketing stages (or their equivalent) based on the channel of distribution, customer categories, and selling functions (or services offered) to each customer or customer category, in both markets. In this review, Ispat Indo stated that it made sales in the home market directly to end users through one channel of distribution. The channel consists of Ispat Indo selling directly to both unaffiliated and affiliated end-users ( *i.e.* , OEMs) in the home market. For the home market channel of distribution, Ispat Indo stated that it provided a high degree of assistance for sales forecasting, strategic economic planning, order/input processing, direct sales personnel support, sales/marketing support, market research, and technical assistance. Also, Ispat Indo provided a medium degree of assistance for personnel training/exchange, packing, and inventory maintenance; and a low degree of assistance for rebates. We preliminarily find there to be one LOT for home market sales.In the U.S. market, Ispat Indo also stated that it had one channel of distribution where the respondent sold to end-users (via its foreign-based affiliate) in the U.S. Within the U.S. channel of distribution, Ispat Indo stated that it provided a high degree of assistance for packing, order input/processing, direct sales personnel, sales/marketing support, after-sales services, freight and delivery, and technical assistance. Also, Ispat Indo stated that it has a medium degree of assistance for market research. We preliminarily find there to be one LOT for U.S. sales. In analyzing Ispat Indo's selling activities for its home market and U.S. market, we determined that essentially the same level of services were provided for both markets. Specifically, for home market sales, the customer directly contacts Ispat Indo and negotiates the material terms of sale. Subsequently, Ispat Indo issues a sales contract to the Indonesian customer, and begins production. Upon shipment of the merchandise to the customer, Ispat Indo issues the invoice to the customer. *See* Ispat Indo's Section A Response at Exhibit A-5. The selling methods in the U.S. market are virtually the same, with the exception that all export sales, including the U.S. sales subject to this review, were made through its foreign-based affiliate. *See* Ispat Indo's Section A Response at A-20. Ispat Indo explained that its foreign-based affiliate handles processing of sales documentation and receipt of payment from the U.S. customer. However, Ispat Indo has direct contact with the U.S. customer, handles all sales negotiations, and direct ships the merchandise from the port of exportation in Indonesia to the U.S. customer. These negotiations are then confirmed by Ispat Indo's foreign-based affiliate via issuance of a sales contract to the U.S. customer. Once a sales contract has been issued to the U.S. customer, Ispat Indo will begin production of the ordered material. *See* Ispat Indo's Section A Response at A-16. Subsequent to shipment of the merchandise, Ispat Indo invoices its foreign-based affiliate, who then in turn issues an invoice to the U.S. customer. The U.S. customer remits payment to the foreign-based affiliate, who then in turn remits payment to Ispat Indo. In light of all the above, we do not consider the selling methods for both markets to represent different LOTs. Therefore, we have preliminarily determined that the LOT for all EP sales is the same as the LOT for all sales in the home market. Based on our analysis of selling functions and because we find home market and U.S. sales at the same LOT, no LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act is warranted for Ispat Indo. Currency Conversion We made currency conversions in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act, and section 351.415 of the Department's regulations, based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales, as certified by Dow Jones Reuter Business Interactive, LLC (trading as Factiva). Preliminary Results of Review As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine the weighted-average dumping margin for the period October 1, 2003, through September 30, 2004, to be as follows: Manufacturer/exporter Margin (percent) P.T. Ispat Indo 0.38 The Department will disclose to parties to this proceeding the calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results of review within 5 days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309, interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review. Rebuttal comments and briefs must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs and comments, and may be filed no later than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice. Parties who submit argument in these proceedings are requested to submit with the argument: 1) a statement of the issue, 2) a brief summary of the argument, and
(3)a table of authorities. An interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. *See* section 351.310(c) of the Department's regulations. Unless otherwise specified, the hearing, if requested, will be held 2 days after the date for submission of rebuttal briefs, or the first working day thereafter. The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any case and rebuttal briefs and comments, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results. Assessment Rates Upon completion of this administrative review, the Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have calculated an importer-specific *ad valorem* rate for merchandise subject to this review. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of the final results of review. If these preliminary results are adopted in the final results of review, we will direct CBP to assess the resulting assessment rates ( *ad valorem* ) against the entered customs values for the subject merchandise on each of the importer's entries during the review period. Cash Deposit Requirements The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review 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 company listed above will be the rate established in the final results of this review (except that no deposit will be required if the rate is zero or *de minims, i.e.* , less than 0.50 percent);
(2)for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate established 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 subject merchandise; and
(4)if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this review, any previous reviews, or the LTFV investigation, the cash deposit rate will continue to be 4.06 percent, the “all others” rate established in the LTFV investigation. *See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Indonesia* , 67 FR 55798 (August 30, 2002). These deposit rates, 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. These preliminary results are issued and in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: July 5, 2005. Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-3658 Filed 7-8-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-868] Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to multiple requests, the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on folding metal tables and chairs (FMTCs) from the People's Republic of China (PRC). The period of review
(POR)is June 1, 2003, through May 31, 2004. Upon completion of this review, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise that were exported by the companies under review and entered during the POR. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 11, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marin Weaver at
(202)482-2336 or Catherine Feig at
(202)482-3962, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On June 27, 2002, the Department published the antidumping duty order on certain FMTCs from the PRC (67 FR 43277). On June 1, 2004, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of this order (69 FR 30873). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), the following requests were made:
(1)on June 28, 2004, Cosco Home and Office Products (Cosco), a domestic interested party, requested that the Department conduct administrative reviews of Feili Furniture Development Ltd. Quanzhou City, Feili Furniture Development Co., Ltd., Feili Group (Fujian) Co., Ltd., and Feili (Fujian) Co., Ltd. (collectively Feili), and New-Tec Integration (Xiamen) Co. Ltd. (New-Tec);
(2)on June 28, 2004, Wok and Pan Industry Inc. (Wok and Pan), a Chinese producer and exporter of the merchandise under review, requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of Wok and Pan;
(3)on June 29, 2004, Feili requested an administrative review of itself;
(4)on June, 30, 2004, Meco Corporation (Meco), a domestic interested party, requested that the Department conduct administrative reviews of Feili, New-Tec, and Dongguan Shichang Metals Factory Ltd. (also known as Dongguang Shichang Metals Factory Co., Maxchief Investments Ltd.) (collectively Dongguan (Shichang));
(5)on June 30, 2004, Shichang and Lifetime, a Chinese exporter of the merchandise under review, requested that the Department conduct administrative reviews of Lifetime Hong Kong Ltd., and Lifetime (Xiamen) Plastic Producers Ltd. (collectively Lifetime), and Dongguan (Shichang). On July 28, 2004, the Department published a notice of initiation of this administrative review (69 FR 45010) for Feili, New-Tec, Wok and Pan, Dongguan (Shichang), and Lifetime. On September 2, 2004, Lifetime withdrew its request for an administrative review, on September 7, 2004, Meco withdrew its request for an administrative review of Dongguan (Shichang), and on September 8, 2004, Dongguan (Shichang) withdrew its request for an administrative review. On February 15, 2005, the Department extended the due date for the preliminary results of this review to June 30, 2005 (70 FR 7718). On March 22, 2005, the Department published a notice rescinding the review with regard to Lifetime and Dongguan (Shichang) (70 FR 14444) . While Feili submitted timely responses to all of the Department's requests for information in this review, Wok and Pan and New-Tec did not. *See* “Adverse Facts Available” section, below. Scope of the Order The products covered by this order consist of assembled and unassembled folding tables and folding chairs made primarily or exclusively from steel or other metal, as described below: 1) Assembled and unassembled folding tables made primarily or exclusively from steel or other metal (folding metal tables). Folding metal tables include square, round, rectangular, and any other shapes with legs affixed with rivets, welds, or any other type of fastener, and which are made most commonly, but not exclusively, with a hardboard top covered with vinyl or fabric. Folding metal tables have legs that mechanically fold independently of one another, and not as a set. The subject merchandise is commonly, but not exclusively, packed singly, in multiple packs of the same item, or in five piece sets consisting of four chairs and one table. Specifically excluded from the scope of the order regarding folding metal tables are the following: a. Lawn furniture; b. Trays commonly referred to as “TV trays”; c. Side tables; d. Child-sized tables; e. Portable counter sets consisting of rectangular tables 36'' high and matching stools; and f. Banquet tables. A banquet table is a rectangular table with a plastic or laminated wood table top approximately 28'' to 36'' wide by 48'' to 96'' long and with a set of folding legs at each end of the table. One set of legs is composed of two individual legs that are affixed together by one or more cross-braces using welds or fastening hardware. In contrast, folding metal tables have legs that mechanically fold independently of one another, and not as a set. 2) Assembled and unassembled folding chairs made primarily or exclusively from steel or other metal (folding metal chairs). Folding metal chairs include chairs with one or more cross-braces, regardless of shape or size, affixed to the front and/or rear legs with rivets, welds or any other type of fastener. Folding metal chairs include: those that are made solely of steel or other metal; those that have a back pad, a seat pad, or both a back pad and a seat pad; and those that have seats or backs made of plastic or other materials. The subject merchandise is commonly, but not exclusively, packed singly, in multiple packs of the same item, or in five piece sets consisting of four chairs and one table. Specifically excluded from the scope of the order regarding folding metal chairs are the following: a. Folding metal chairs with a wooden back or seat, or both; b. Lawn furniture; c. Stools; d. Chairs with arms; and e. Child-sized chairs. The subject merchandise is currently classifiable under subheadings 9401.71.0010, 9401.71.0030, 9401.79.0045, 9401.79.0050, 9403.20.0010, 9403.20.0030, 9403.70.8010, 9403.70.8020, and 9403.70.8030 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the Department's written description of the merchandise is dispositive. Separate Rates Determination for Feili The Department has treated the PRC as a non-market economy
(NME)country in all past antidumping duty investigations and administrative reviews. *See* , *e.g.* , *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol From the People's Republic of China* , 69 FR 34130 (June 18, 2004). A designation as an NME country remains in effect until it is revoked by the Department. See section 771(18)(C)(I) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). It is the Department's standard policy to assign all exporters of subject merchandise subject to review in an NME country a single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate an absence of government control, with respect to exports. To establish whether an exporter is sufficiently independent of government control to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department analyzes the exporter in light of the criteria established in the *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China* , 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) ( *Sparklers* ); and *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* ). Under this test, exporters in NME countries are entitled to separate, company-specific margins when they can demonstrate an absence of government control over exports, both in law ( *de jure* ) and in fact ( *de facto* ). Evidence supporting, though not requiring, a finding of *de jure* absence of government control over export activities includes: 1) an absence of restrictive stipulations associated with the 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. *De facto* absence of government control over exports is based on four factors: 1) whether each exporter sets its own export prices independently of the government and without the approval of a government authority; 2) whether each exporter retains the proceeds from its sales and makes independent decisions regarding the disposition of profits or the financing of losses; 3) whether each exporter has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; and 4) whether each exporter has autonomy from the government regarding the selection of management. *See Silicon Carbide* , 59 FR at 22587, and *Sparklers* , 56 FR at 20589. Based on a review of the responses, we have concluded that both Feili Group (Fujian) and Feili Furniture are owned by Hong Kong corporations and are registered and organized under the corporation and taxation laws of Hong Kong. Both companies operate freely in the PRC as foreign wholly-owned enterprises and, therefore, operate independently of control from central, provincial or local governments in the PRC. Therefore, based on the foregoing, we have preliminarily found an absence of *de jure* control for Feili. With regard to *de facto* control, Feili reported the following:
(1)it sets prices to the United States through negotiations with customers and these prices are not subject to review by any government organization;
(2)it does not coordinate with other exporters or producers to set the price or determine to which market companies sell subject merchandise;
(3)the PRC Chamber of Commerce does not coordinate the export activities of Feili;
(4)Feili's general manager has the authority to contractually bind the company to sell subject merchandise;
(5)the board of directors appoints the general manager;
(6)there is no restriction on its use of export revenues;
(7)Feili's shareholders ultimately determine the disposition of profits and Feili has not had a loss in the last two years; and
(8)none of the board members or managers is a government official. Additionally, Feili's questionnaire responses do not suggest that pricing is coordinated among exporters. Furthermore, our analysis of Feili's questionnaire responses reveals no other information indicating government control of export activities. Therefore, based on the information provided, we preliminarily determine that there is an absence of *de facto* government control over Feili's export functions and that Feili has met the criteria for the application of separate rates. Adverse Facts Available Section 776(a)(1) and
(2)of the Act provides that the Department shall apply “facts otherwise available” if, *inter alia* , necessary information is not on the record or an interested party or any other person
(A)withholds information that has been requested,
(B)fails to provide information within the deadlines established, or in the form and manner requested by the Department, subject to subsections (c)(1) and
(e)of section 782 of the Act,
(C)significantly impedes a proceeding, or
(D)provides information that cannot be verified as provided by section 782(I) of the Act. Where the Department determines that a response to a request for information does not comply with the request, section 782(d) of the Act provides that the Department will so inform the party submitting the response and will, to the extent practicable, provide that party the opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency. If the party fails to remedy the deficiency within the applicable time limits and subject to section 782(e) of the Act, the Department may disregard all or part of the original and subsequent responses, as appropriate. Section 782(e) of the Act provides that the Department “shall not decline to consider information that is submitted by an interested party and is necessary to the determination but does not meet all applicable requirements established by the administering authority” if the information is timely, can be verified, is not so incomplete that it cannot be used, and if the interested party acted to the best of its ability in providing the information. Where all of these conditions are met, the statute requires the Department to use the information if it can do so without undue difficulties. Section 776(b) of the Act further provides that the Department may use an adverse inference in applying the facts otherwise available when a party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information. Section 776(b) of the Act also authorizes the Department to use as adverse facts available
(AFA)information derived from the petition, the final determination, a previous administrative review, or other information placed on the record. Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies on secondary information rather than on information obtained in the course of an investigation or review, it shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources that are reasonably at its disposal. Secondary information is defined 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* Statement of Administrative Action (“SAA”) accompanying the URAA, H. Doc. No. 316, 103d Cong., 2d Session at 870 (1994). Corroborate means that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value. *See* SAA at 870. To corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information to be used. The SAA emphasizes, however, that the Department need not prove that the selected facts available are the best alternative information. *See* SAA at 869. For the reasons discussed below, we determine that, in accordance with sections 776(a)(2), 776(b) and 782(d) of the Act, the use of AFA is appropriate for the preliminary results for New-Tec, Wok and Pan, and the PRC-wide entity. *New-Tec* 1. Background The Department made several requests of New-Tec, asking for information on the samples that it gives to its customers. On August 9, 2004, the Department issued an NME questionnaire to New-Tec. In section C (II), New-Tec was instructed to “. . . prepare a separate computer data file containing each sale made during the POR of the subject merchandise, including sales of further manufactured merchandise.” On December 9, 2005, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire requesting (question 45) New-Tec to further explain what its product codes represent. In response New-Tec stated that “{n}ormally, New-Tec's customer designs a new product and sends the drawings to New-Tec for producing a sample. After making a sample, New-Tec delivers such sample to its customer for confirmation.” On May 19, 2005, the Department issued a fourth supplemental 1 questionnaire to New-Tec, instructing New-Tec, at question two, to describe how it had accounted for its sample sales ( *i.e.* , the samples of subject merchandise New-Tec sent to its customer) in both the U.S. sales and factors-of-production
(FOP)databases. The Department also asked New-Tec to “. . . please provide all documentation related to your POR sample sales and explain, in detail, how the documentation demonstrates that the sales were of samples.” 1 On March 11, 2005, and April 20, 2005, the Department issued a second and third supplemental questionnaire. Neither of these had questions pertaining to samples. In its June 7, 2005, response New-Tec stated that it did not report its samples in the U.S. sales file because it pays for all expenses related to the samples and the “delivery of samples is not recorded as sales as New-Tec does not invoice its customer” and that it recorded the expenses related to its samples as selling expenses. It also reported that the material, labor, and energy costs related to the samples were captured in the FOP database. However, New-Tec failed to provide any documentation on these samples, as explicitly requested by the Department. Despite New-Tec's claims that these samples were free and not recorded as “sales,” New-Tec provided no evidence to support this assertion. Therefore, on June 15, 2005, the Department issued a sixth supplemental. 2 Questions one and two again requested specific information about New-Tec's purported samples. The Department instructed New-Tec to provide the total quantity of its POR sample sales by product code and for New-Tec to: 2 On May 27, 2005, the Department issued a fifth supplemental questionnaire which did not have questions pertaining to samples. . . . please provide all documentation related to your POR sample sales and explain, in detail, how the documentation demonstrates that the sales were of samples. This would include, *but is not limited {to}* , general ledger entries, Chinese export forms, U.S. customs forms, and related invoices. Additionally, please state the disposition of the samples ( *e.g.* , whether they were returned, destroyed, resold, tested etc.) In response to the Department's first question, New-Tec refused to provide the total quantity of its POR sample sales. Instead it reiterated what it had stated in its previous response, that it “did not account for samples provided to its customers as sales” because they are free and New-Tec does not invoice the customer for the sales. Additionally, New-Tec stated that the sales are not booked into its revenue account. Despite the Department's requests, New-Tec did not place any evidence on the record to even indicate how many samples it provided during the POR or what products and quantities were provided in those samples. In response to the Department's second question requesting documentation for the purported samples, New-Tec again failed to provide any of the requested documentation. Instead, New-Tec reiterated part of its answer to the first question, stating that the samples were treated as selling expenses. New-Tec also stated that it was unaware of the disposition of the samples but did not think that they were resold. Moreover, New-Tec claimed that the shipments were made by its “shipper” and that it was unaware of any Chinese export forms or U.S. customs forms associated with these shipments notwithstanding its March 25, 2005, response to the Department's second supplemental questionnaire, where New-Tec demonstrated specific knowledge of the documents required for export. In that response New-Tec stated, at page seven, that it was “required to use Xiamen Municipal Invoice for export declaration purpose pursuant to local customs authority regulations.” New-Tec has not demonstrated that it is unable to provide, for the shipment of the samples, the same documentation that it *was* able to provide for its sales for remuneration. 2. Application of Facts Available As described above, New-Tec failed to respond to the Department's requests for information by the deadlines established or in the form required. The absence of this information has significantly impeded this review because the Department has been unable to determine how many sample sales were made (much less what the details of these sample sales were). New-Tec failed to properly respond to the Department's requests, pursuant to section 782(d) of the Act, when it refused to provide documentation related to its purported samples and failed to provide data on the quantity of its samples within the deadlines established in the questionnaires. New- Tec's failure to provide the requested information prevented the Department from conducting the analysis necessary to determine the nature of these transactions and whether they should be excluded from the margin calculation. It is the Department, not the respondents, that makes the legal determination as to whether these transactions should be excluded from the database as samples. In order to do so, the Department must review the documentation pertaining to the samples, including documentation with respect to the quantities and values of the products classified as samples. Because New-Tec failed to provide any of this documentation, the Department has no reliable basis for reaching a decision as to the true transactional nature of the claimed samples. Typically, where the Department has found that there is insufficient evidence to prove that a transaction was a sample, it will include that sale in the sales database. *See, e.g., Antifriction Bearings and Parts Thereof, From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Singapore and the United Kingdom: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews* , 69 FR 55574, Issues and Decision Memorandum, at Comment 18 (September 15, 2004). However, by failing to provide even the quantity of its POR samples, New-Tec has given the Department no way to determine the volume of the purported sample transactions and their relevance to any margin calculations. As a result, New-Tec's entire U.S. sales database is unuseable for purposes of these preliminary results. Moreover, because there is no acceptable U.S. sales database to which we can compare New-Tec's FOP information, we are also unable to use that information. Therefore pursuant to section 782(e) of the Act, the Department must disregard all of New-Tec's U.S. sales and FOP data. Because we are basing New-Tec's margin on total facts available, we have also rejected New-Tec's information regarding separate rates, for purposes of the preliminary results, and thus we preliminarily find that separate rates treatment is not warranted. Finally, we find that the application of section 782(e) of the Act does not overcome New-Tec's failure to respond. *See* sections 782(e)(1), (3), and
(4)of the Act. Because the information that New-Tec failed to report is critical for purposes of the preliminary dumping calculations, the Department must resort to total facts otherwise available in determining the margin in its preliminary results, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A)-(C) of the Act. 3. Use of Adverse Inferences We also find that the application of an adverse inference in this review is appropriate, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act. As discussed above, by refusing to provide any specific information about its purported samples, New-Tec has not acted to the best of its ability. Also, on June 7, 2005, New-Tec stated that it “recorded” expenses related to its samples as selling expenses. However, despite stating that such “records” exist, New-Tec did not provide them to the Department. Thus, New-Tec has failed to cooperate with the Department by not acting to the best of its ability to provide the requested information, and has hampered the Department's ability to evaluate whether or not the alleged sample transactions should be included in New-Tec's U.S. sales database, and if so what the corresponding data should be. Therefore, an adverse inference is warranted under section 776(b) of the Act. *See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Germany* , 64 FR 30710 (June 8, 1999), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 3; *see also Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip From Taiwan; Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 67 FR 6682 (February13, 2002), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 24. Because New-Tec failed to act to the best of its ability, we have made the adverse inference that New-Tec is part of the PRC-wide entity. 4. Request for Substantiating Documentation It is the Department's practice to review all transactions in which samples are provided to U.S. customers. *See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China* , 69 FR 60980 (Oct. 14, 2004), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 5; and *Honey From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 69 FR 25060 (May 5, 2004), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2. Although the NME questionnaire indicated that parties were to report all sales, implying that the provisions of samples should also be included, it did not explicitly reference the reporting of samples. Therefore, the Department sent New-Tec two additional supplemental questionnaires specifically requesting information on New-Tec's sample sales. New-Tec continued to deny the existence of sample “sales,” arguing that its purported samples transactions were at zero value and, therefore, do not constitute sales. Further, the Department recognizes that the reference to “sample sales” in our supplemental questionnaires in this case may have been a potential source of confusion because parties may have understood the term “sales” to refer only to transactions involving remuneration. Therefore, the Department will be amending its NME questionnaire to address this issue. In the future, the questionnaire will specifically request information on “sample transactions” to clarify that the Department requires information on any sample product provided to U.S. customers, regardless of whether the U.S. customer paid for that sample. Because New-Tec has responded to the rest of the Department's requests for information, and in view of the Department's concern regarding potential for confusion based on the terminology used in our questionnaires, the Department is providing New-Tec with a final opportunity to substantiate its claim that these are in fact sample transactions at zero value by: 1) providing the total POR quantity of samples transactions for each product code and; 2) providing *all* documentation related to its POR sample transactions. Such documentation would include, *but is not limited to* , general ledger entries, records from the workshop providing the samples, Chinese export forms, U.S. customs forms, and related invoices. In addition, New-Tec must explain, in detail, how the documentation demonstrates that the transactions involved samples for which no payment was required, not sales transactions, and why they should not be included in the sales database. Finally, the Department is asking New-Tec to explain why it was able to provide the Xiamen Municipal Invoice for export declaration purposes for its reported sales, but has claimed it is unable to do so for its sample transactions. Due to the unique circumstances of this case, the Department is allowing New-Tec to provide this information to the Department no later than 14 days after receipt of our questionnaire, and will consider New-Tec's response in reaching the final determination. *Wok and Pan* 1. Background Wok and Pan failed to respond to any of the following: the initial questionnaire (August 9, 2004); a letter from the Department to Wok and Pan, specifically requesting a response to the Department's questionnaire (September, 15, 2004); and the Department's request for information to be considered when valuing the FOPs (September, 30, 2004). 2. Application of Facts Available After requesting a review, Wok and Pan failed to respond to the Department's questionnaire. Because Wok and Pan has not responded to any of our requests for information, including information regarding separate rates, we preliminarily find that separate rates treatment is not warranted. Consequently, consistent with the statement in our notice of initiation, we find that, because Wok and Pan does not qualify for a separate rate, it is deemed to be part of the PRC-wide entity. *PRC-Wide Entity* 1. Application of Facts Available Because some companies which are part of the PRC-wide entity were reviewed in this segment of the proceeding, the Department determines that the PRC-wide entity has also been reviewed with respect to this POR. Because some companies which are part of the PRC-wide entity failed to respond to one or more of our requests for information, we find it necessary, under section 776(a)(2) of the Act, to use facts otherwise available as the basis for the preliminary results of review for the PRC-wide entity (including New-Tec and Wok and Pan). 2. Use of Adverse Inferences In addition, because the PRC-wide entity failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with our requests for information, it is appropriate, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, to use an inference that is adverse to the interests of the PRC-wide entity in selecting from among the facts otherwise available. By doing so, companies that are part of the PRC-wide entity (including New-Tec and Wok and Pan) will not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than had they cooperated fully in this review. The Department has assigned the highest rate from any segment of the proceeding as total AFA because the PRC-wide entity (including New-Tec and Wok and Pan) failed to cooperate to the best of its ability. This is in accord with the Department's practice where respondents refuse to cooperate to the best of their ability. *See, e.g., Stainless Steel Wire Rods from India, Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 69 FR 29923, 29924 (May 26, 2004). *Selection of the Adverse Facts Available Rate* In deciding which facts to use as AFA, section 776(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.308(c)(1) authorize the Department to rely on information derived from
(1)the petition,
(2)a final determination in the investigation,
(3)any previous review or determination, or
(4)any information placed on the record. It is the Department's practice to select, as AFA, the higher of
(a)the highest margin alleged in the petition, or
(b)the highest calculated rate of any respondent in the investigation. *See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products, Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products, and Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Belgium* , 58 FR 37083 (July 9, 1992). The Court of International Trade
(CIT)and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit have consistently upheld the Department's practice. *See Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. United States* , 899 F.2d 1185, 1190 (Fed. Cir. 1990) *(Rhone Poulenc); See also NSK Ltd. v. United States* , 346 F. Supp. 2d 1312, 1335 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2004)(upholding a 73.55 percent total AFA rate, the highest available dumping margin from a different respondent in a less-than-fair-value
(LTFV)investigation); *See also Kompass Food Trading Int'l v. United States* , 24 CIT 678, 689
(2000)(upholding a 51.16 percent total AFA rate, the highest available dumping margin from a different, fully cooperative respondent); and *Shanghai Taoen International Trading Co., Ltd. v. United States* , 2005 Ct. Int'l. Trade 23 *23; Slip Op. 05-22 (February 17, 2005) (upholding a 223.01 percent total AFA rate, the highest available dumping margin from a different respondent in a previous administrative review). 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 role to induce respondents to provide the Department with complete and accurate information in a timely manner.” *See Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors from Taiwan; Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value* , 63 FR 8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998). The Department's practice also ensures “that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.” *See* SAA at 890. *See also Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil* , 69 FR 76910 (December 23, 2004); *See also D&L Supply Co. v. United States* , 113 F. 3d 1220, 1223 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In choosing the appropriate balance between providing respondents with an incentive to respond accurately and imposing a rate that is reasonably related to the respondents prior commercial activity, selecting the highest prior margin “reflects a common sense inference that the highest prior margin is the most probative evidence of current margins, because, if it were not so, the importer, knowing of the rule, would have produced current information showing the margin to be less.” *Rhone Poulenc* , 899 F. 2d at 1190. Where we must base the entire dumping margin for a respondent in an administrative review on facts available because that respondent failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information, section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the use of inferences adverse to the interests of that respondent in choosing facts available. Section 776(b) of the Act also authorizes the Department to use as AFA information derived from the petition, the final determination, a previous administrative review, or other information placed on the record. Due to New-Tec's and Wok and Pan's failure to cooperate, we have preliminarily assigned the PRC-wide entity, of which they are deemed to be a part, an AFA rate of 70.71 percent, the PRC-wide rate calculated in the investigation. *See Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the PRC, (FMTC Investigation)* 67 FR 34898, (May 16, 2002). The Department preliminarily determines that this information is the most appropriate, from the available sources, to effectuate the purposes of AFA. The Department's reliance on secondary information to determine an AFA rate is subject to the requirement to corroborate. See section 776(c) of the Act and the “Corroboration of Secondary Information” section below. *Corroboration of Secondary Information* 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. The SAA states that “corroborate” means to determine that the information used has probative value. The Department has determined that to have probative value information must be reliable and relevant. *Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished from Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, from Japan: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews* , 61 FR 57391, 57392 (Nov. 6, 1996). The SAA also states that independent sources used to corroborate such evidence may include, for example, published price lists, official import statistics and customs data, and information obtained from interested parties during the particular investigation. *See Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: High and Ultra-High Voltage Ceramic Station Post Insulators from Japan* , 68 FR 35627 (June 16, 2003); and, *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Live Swine From Canada* , 70 FR 12181 (March 11, 2005). The reliability of the AFA rate was determined in the first administrative review of this case. *See Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 69 FR 75913, (December 20, 2004). The Department has received no information to date that warrants revisiting the issue of the reliability of the rate calculation itself. *See e.g., Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the New Shipper Review and Final Results and Partial Rescission of the Third Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 68 FR 41304, 41307-41308 (July 11, 2003). No information has been presented in the current review that calls into question the reliability of this information. Thus, the Department finds that the information contained in the LTFV investigation is reliable. With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal to determine whether a margin continues to have relevance. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not appropriate as AFA, the Department will disregard the margin and determine an appropriate margin. For example, in *Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review* , 61 FR 6812 (February 22, 1996), the Department disregarded the highest margin in that case as adverse best information available (the predecessor to facts available) because the margin was based on another company's uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an unusually high margin. Similarly, the Department does not apply a margin that has been discredited. *See D&L Supply Co. v. United States* , 113 F.3d 1220, 1221 (Fed. Cir. 1997), which ruled that the Department will not use a margin that has been judicially invalidated. To assess the relevancy of the rate used, the Department compared the margin calculations of Feili in this administrative review with PRC-wide entity margin from the LTFV investigation and used in the first administrative review of this case. The Department found that the margin of 70.71 percent was within the range of the highest margins calculated on the record of this administrative review. *See* memorandum to the file from Marin Weaver and Cathy Feig, International Trade Compliance Analysts, through Charles Riggle, Program Manager, Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the PRC: Corroboration of the PRC-wide Adverse Facts-Available Rate, dated June 30, 2005. Because the record of this administrative review contains margins within the range of 70.71 percent, we determine that the rate from LTFV investigation continues to be relevant for use in this administrative review. As the LTFV investigation margin is both reliable and relevant, we determine that it has probative value. As a result, the Department determines that the LTFV investigation margin is corroborated for the purposes of this administrative review and may reasonably be applied to the PRC-wide entity (including New-Tec and Wok and Pan), as AFA. Accordingly, we determine that the highest rate from any segment of this administrative proceeding, 70.71 percent, meets the corroboration criteria established in section 776(c) of the Act that secondary information have probative value. Because these are the preliminary results of review, the Department will consider all margins on the record at the time of the final results of review for the purpose of determining the most appropriate final margin for the PRC-wide entity. *See Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Solid Fertilizer Grade Ammonium Nitrate From the Russian Federation* , 65 FR 1139 (January 7, 2000). *Export Price* Because Feili sold subject merchandise to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States prior to importation into the United States (or to unaffiliated resellers outside the United States with knowledge that the merchandise was destined for the United States) and use of a constructed-export-price methodology is not otherwise indicated, we have used export price in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act. We calculated export price based on the FOB price to unaffiliated purchasers for Feili. From this price, we deducted amounts for foreign inland freight and brokerage and handling pursuant to section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. We valued these deductions using surrogate values. We selected India as the primary surrogate country for the reasons explained in the “Normal Value” section of this notice. *Normal Value* Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that, in the case of an NME, the Department shall determine normal value
(NV)using an FOP methodology if the merchandise is exported from an NME and the 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. Because information on the record does not permit the calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-country prices, or constructed value and no party has argued otherwise, we calculated NV based on FOP in accordance with sections 773(c)(3) and
(4)of the Act and 19 CFR 351.408(c). Because we are using surrogate country FOP prices to determine NV, section 773(c)(4) of the Act requires that the Department use values from a market-economy (surrogate) country that is at a level of economic development comparable to that of the PRC and is a significant producer of comparable merchandise. We have determined that India, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, the Philippines, and Egypt are market-economy countries at a comparable level of economic development to that of the PRC. (For a further discussion of our surrogate selection, see the September 28, 2004, memorandum entitled Request for a List of Surrogate Countries, which is available in the Department's Central Records Unit (CRU), room B099 of the main Commerce building). In addition, looking at United Nations export statistics, we found that India exported 4,551,694 kilograms of comparable merchandise ( *i.e.* , FMTCs based on HTS numbers 9401.71, 9401.79, 9403.20, 9403.70) valued at USD 6,731,202. *See* *http://unstats.un.org/unsd/comtrade* . Therefore, India is a significant producer of comparable merchandise. Additionally, we are able to access Indian data that are contemporaneous with this POR. As in the investigation and the previous review of this order, we have chosen India as the primary surrogate country and are using Indian prices to value the FOP. We selected, where possible, publicly available values from India that were average non-export values, representative of a range of prices within the POR or most contemporaneous with the POR, product-specific, and tax-exclusive. Also, where we have relied upon import values, we have excluded imports from NME countries as well as from South Korea, Thailand, and Indonesia. The Department has found that South Korea, Thailand, and Indonesia maintain broadly available, non-industry-specific export subsidies. The existence of these subsidies provides sufficient reason to believe or suspect that export prices from these countries may be subsidized. *See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields From the People's Republic of China* , 67 FR 6482 (Feb. 12, 2002), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. Our practice of excluding subsidized prices has been upheld in *China National Machinery Import and Export Corporation v. United States* , 293 F. Supp. 2d 1334, 1136 (CIT 2003). *Material Inputs* • To value hydrochloric acid used in the production of FMTCs, we used per-kilogram import values obtained from *Chemical Weekly* . We adjusted this value for taxes and to account for freight costs incurred between the supplier and each respondent, respectively. • Where Feili had usable market-economy purchases that represented a meaningful portion of total purchases of each respective input ( *e.g.* , cold-rolled steel, polypropylene plastic resin, powder coating, and cartons), we valued these inputs with their respective per-kilogram purchase prices. Where applicable we also adjusted these values to account for freight costs incurred between the supplier and respondent. • To value all other material inputs and carbon dioxide used in the production of FMTCs, we used per-kilogram import values obtained from the *Monthly Statistics of the Foreign Trade of India* (MSFTI), as published by the Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India, and available from *World Trade Atlas* (WTA). 3 We also adjusted these values to account for freight costs incurred between the supplier and respondent. 3 *Available* at http://www.gtis.com/wta.htm. • To value diesel oil, we used a per-kilogram value obtained from Bharat Petroleum for December 2003. *See* Memorandum to File: Factor Values Used for the Preliminary Results of the 2003-2004 Administrative Review” (Factors Memorandum) (June 30, 2005). We also made adjustments to account for freight costs incurred between the supplier and respondent. • To value electricity, we used the 2000 electricity price data from *International Energy Agency, Energy Prices and Taxes - Quarterly Statistics (First Quarter 2003)* , available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/elecprii.html. • To value water, we used the Revised Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation
(MIDC)water rates for June 1, 2003, available at http://www.midcindia.com/water_supply. • For labor, we used the regression-based wage rate for the PRC in “Expected Wages of Selected NME Countries,” available at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/index.html* . • For factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative expenses (SG&A), and profit values, we used information from Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd (2003-2004). From this information, we were able to determine factory overhead as a percentage of the total raw materials, labor and energy (ML&E) costs; SG&A as a percentage of ML&E plus overhead ( *i.e.* , cost of manufacture); and the profit rate as a percentage of the cost of manufacture plus SG&A. • For packing materials, we used the per-kilogram values obtained from the MSFTI and made adjustments to account for freight costs incurred between the PRC supplier and respondent. • To value foreign brokerage and handling, we used information reported in the *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India* , 67 FR 50406 (Oct. 3, 2001). • To value truck freight, we used the freight rates published by Indian Freight Exchange available at http://www.infreight.com. Where necessary, we adjusted the surrogate values to reflect inflation/deflation using the Indian Wholesale Price Index
(WPI)as published on the Reserve Bank of India
(RBI)website, available at www.rbi.org.in. For a complete description of the factor values we used, *see* the Factors Memorandum, a public version of which is available in the Public File of the CRU. Preliminary Results of Review We preliminarily determine that the following dumping margins exist: Manufacturer/exporter Margin (percent) Feili 7.02 PRC-Wide (including New-Tec and Wok and Pan) 70.71 We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties to this proceeding within five days of the publication date of this notice. *See* 19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary results and may submit case briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed no later than 37 days after the date of publication of this notice. Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with each argument a statement of the issue, a brief summary of the argument, and a table of authorities. Further, we would appreciate it if parties submitting written comments would provide an additional copy of the public version of any such comments on a diskette. Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice. *See* 19 CFR 351.310(c). If requested, a hearing will be held 44 days after the publication of this notice or the first workday thereafter. The Department will publish a notice of the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any written comments or hearing, within 120 days from publication of this notice. Assessment Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department calculated an assessment rate for each importer of subject merchandise. Upon completion of this review, the Department will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise. We have calculated each importer's duty-assessment rate based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total quantity of sales examined. Where the assessment rate is above *de minimis* , the importer-specific rate will be assessed uniformly on all entries made during the POR. Cash Deposit Requirements The following cash deposit rates will be effective upon publication of the final results for all shipments of FMTCs from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:
(1)for Feili, which has a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the company-specific rate established in the final results of the review;
(2)the cash deposit rates for any other companies, that have separate rates established in the investigation or first administrative review of this case, but were not reviewed in this proceeding, will not change;
(3)for all other PRC exporters, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC rate, 70.71 percent, which is the “All Other PRC Manufacturers, Producers and Exporters” rate from the *Notice of Final Determination of Sales of Less Than Fair Value: Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the People's Republic of China* , 67 FR 20090 (Apr. 24, 2002); and
(4)for non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise from the PRC, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC supplier of that exporter. These deposit rates, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. 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 determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(I)(1) of the Act. Dated: June 30, 2005. Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-3653 Filed 7-8-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-831] Fresh Garlic From the People's Republic of China; Initiation of New Shipper Reviews AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 11, 2005. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the “Department”) has determined that three requests for new shipper reviews of the antidumping duty order on fresh garlic from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”), received in May 2005, meet the statutory and regulatory requirements for initiation. The period of review (“POR”) of these new shipper reviews is November 1, 2004, through April 30, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ryan A. Douglas or Brian Ledgerwood at
(202)482-1277 and
(202)482-3836, respectively, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The notice announcing the antidumping duty order on fresh garlic from the PRC was published on November 16, 1994. On May 17, May 26, and May 31, 2005, we received requests for new shipper reviews from Shandong Chengshun Farm Produce Trading Company, Ltd. (“Shandong Chengshun”); Xi'an XiongLi Foodstuff Co., Ltd. (“Xian XiongLi”); and Shenzhen Fanhui Import and Export Co., Ltd. (“Fanhui”), respectively. Fanhui certified that it grew and exported the garlic on which it based its request for a new shipper review. Shandong Chengshun and Xian XiongLi certified that they exported, but did not grow, the fresh garlic on which they based their requests for a new shipper review. Specifically, Shandong Chengshun certified that Jinxiang Chengsen Agricultural Trade Company, Ltd. (“CATC”) grew the fresh garlic it exported and Xian XiongLi certified that Jinxiang Tianshan Foodstuff Co., Ltd. (“JTFC”) grew the fresh garlic it exported. Initiation of New Shipper Reviews. Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(i)(I) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(i), Shandong Chengshun, Fanhui, and Xian XiongLi certified that they did not export fresh garlic to the United States during the period of investigation (“POI”). In addition, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(ii)(B), CATC and JTFC, the growers of the garlic exported by Shandong Chengshun and Xian XiongLi, respectively, provided certification that they did not export fresh garlic to the United States during the POI. Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(i)(II) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(A), each of the three exporters, Shandong Chengshun, Fanhui, and Xian XiongLi, certified that, since the initiation of the investigation, they have never been affiliated with any exporter or grower who exported fresh garlic to the United States during the POI, including those not individually examined during the investigation. As required by 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(B), each of the above-mentioned companies also certified that their export activities were not controlled by the central government of the PRC. In addition to the certifications described above, the exporters submitted documentation establishing the following:
(1)the date on which they first shipped fresh garlic for export to the United States and the date on which the fresh garlic was first entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption;
(2)the volume of their first shipment and the volume of subsequent shipments; and
(3)the date of their first sale to an unaffiliated customer in the United States. Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(d)(1), we are initiating three new shipper reviews for shipments of fresh garlic from the PRC: 1) grown by CATC and exported by Shandong Chengshun; 2) grown and exported by Fanhui; and 3) grown by JTFC and exported by Xian XiongLi. The POR is November 1, 2004, through April 30, 2005. See 19 CFR 351.214(g)(1)(i)(B). We intend to issue preliminary results of these reviews no later than 180 days from the date of initiation, and final results of these reviews no later than 270 days from the date of initiation. See section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act. Because Fanhui has certified that it grew and exported the fresh garlic on which it based its request for a new shipper review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)to allow, at the option of the importer, the posting of a bond or security in lieu of a cash deposit for each entry of fresh garlic both grown and exported by Fanhui until the completion of the new shipper reviews, pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act. With respect to Shandong Chengshun and Xian XiongLi, they have certified that they exported, but did not grow, the fresh garlic on which they based their requests for new shipper reviews. Therefore, until completion of the new shipper reviews, we will instruct CBP to allow, at the option of the importer, the posting of a bond or security in lieu of a cash deposit for entries of fresh garlic grown by CATC and exported by Shandong Chengshun or fresh garlic grown by JTFC and exported by Xian XiongLi. Interested parties that need access to proprietary information in this new shipper review should submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective order in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 and 351.306. This initiation and notice are in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214 and 351.221(c)(1)(i). Dated: June 30, 2005. Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. 05-13502 Filed 7-8-05; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 12
Traces to 12 documents
CFR
5 references not yet in our index
  • 226 F.3d 1361
  • 899 F.2d 1185
  • 346 F. Supp. 2d 1312
  • 113 F.3d 1220
  • 293 F. Supp. 2d 1334
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce
C.F.R.§ 351.102
C.F.R.§ 351.403
C.F.R.§ 351.224
C.F.R.§ 351.309
C.F.R.§ 351.212
C.F.R.§ 351.402
C.F.R.§ 351.213
C.F.R.§ 351.308
C.F.R.§ 351.408
F. App'x226 F.3d 1361
F. App'x899 F.2d 1185
F. Supp.346 F. Supp. 2d 1312
Cites 17 · 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.