Notices. Notice of preliminary results of full sunset review: ammonium nitrate from the Russian Federation

3,260 words·~15 min read·/register/2005/10/24/05-21191

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

Billing Code: 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-821-811] Preliminary Results of Five-year Sunset Review of Suspended Antidumping Duty Investigation on Ammonium Nitrate from the Russian Federation AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of full sunset review: ammonium nitrate from the Russian Federation. SUMMARY: On April 1, 2005, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) initiated a sunset review of the suspended antidumping duty investigation on ammonium nitrate from the Russian Federation (“Russia”) pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). *See Notice of Initiation of Five-year (“Sunset”) Reviews* , 70 FR 16800, (April 1, 2005) (“ *Initiation Notice* ”).

On the basis of notices of intent to participate filed on behalf of domestic interested parties and adequate substantive comments filed on behalf of domestic and respondent interested parties, the Department is conducting a full (240-day) review. As a result of this review, the Department preliminarily finds that termination of the suspended antidumping duty investigation on ammonium nitrate from Russia would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the levels indicated in the Preliminary Results of Review section of this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 24, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sally Gannon or Aishe Allen, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-0162, or 482-0172, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Scope of the Review The products covered by the sunset review of the suspended antidumping duty investigation on ammonium nitrate from Russia include solid, fertilizer grade ammonium nitrate products, whether prilled, granular or in other solid form, with or without additives or coating, and with a bulk density equal to or greater than 53 pounds per cubic foot. Specifically excluded from this scope is solid ammonium nitrate with a bulk density less than 53 pounds per cubic foot (commonly referred to as industrial or explosive grade ammonium nitrate). The merchandise subject to this investigation is classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) at subheading 3102.30.00.00. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise within the scope of this sunset review is dispositive. History of the Suspension Agreement On August 12, 1999, the Department initiated an antidumping duty investigation under section 732 of the Act on ammonium nitrate from Russia. *See Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Solid Fertilizer Grade Ammonium Nitrate From the Russian Federation* , 64 FR 45236 (August 19, 1999). On January 7, 2000, the Department preliminarily determined that ammonium nitrate from Russia is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. *See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Solid Fertilizer Grade Ammonium Nitrate From the Russian Federation* , 65 FR 1139 (January 7, 2000). The Department suspended the antidumping duty investigation on ammonium nitrate from Russia effective May 19, 2000. The basis for this action was an agreement between the Department and the Ministry of Trade of the Russian Federation (“MOT”) accounting for substantially all imports of ammonium nitrate from Russia, wherein the MOT has agreed to restrict exports of ammonium nitrate from all Russian producers/exporters to the United States and to ensure that such exports are sold at or above the agreed reference price. *See Suspension of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Solid Fertilizer Grade Ammonium Nitrate From the Russian Federation* , 65 FR 37759, (June 16, 2000) (“ *Suspension Agreement* ”). Thereafter, pursuant to a request by the petitioner, the Committee for Fair Ammonium Nitrate Trade (“COFANT”), the Department completed its investigation and published in the **Federal Register** its final determination of sales at less that fair value. *See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Solid Fertilizer Grade Ammonium Nitrate From the Russian Federation* , 65 FR 42669, (July 11, 2000) (“ *Final Determination* ”). In the *Final Determination* , the Department calculated weighted-average dumping margins of 253.98 percent for Nevinnomyssky Azot, a respondent company in the investigation, and for the Russia-wide entity. The *Suspension Agreement* remains in effect for all manufacturers, producers, and exporters of ammonium nitrate from Russia. Background On April 1, 2005, the Department initiated a sunset review of the suspended antidumping duty investigation on ammonium nitrate from Russia, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. *See Notice of Initiation of Five-year (“Sunset”) Reviews* , 70 FR 16800 (April 1, 2005). The Department received Notices of Intent to Participate on behalf of COFANT and Agrium US Inc (“Agrium”), domestic interested parties in this proceeding, within the applicable deadline specified in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Department's Regulations. *See* Agrium's April 14, 2005, and COFANT's April 18, 2005, submissions to the Department. The domestic interested parties claimed interested-party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act. Id. In addition, the domestic interested parties assert that they are not related to a foreign producer/exporter and are not importers, or related to importers, of the subject merchandise. Id. The Department received complete substantive responses from the domestic interested parties within the 30-day deadline specified in the Department's regulations under section 351.218(d)(3)(i). *See* Agrium's April 29, 2005, and COFANT's May 2, 2005, substantive responses. Also, on May 2, 2005, the Department received a partial substantive response from respondent interested parties: MCC EuroChem (“EuroChem”); Novomoskovskiy Azot (“NAK”); Nevinnomyssky Azot; JSC Minudobreniya; JSC Acron; and JSC Dorogobuzh (collectively “Russian respondents”). In their initial response, the Russian respondents requested a one-week extension to submit a complete substantive response. On May 4, 2005, COFANT submitted a letter to the Department objecting to the Russian respondents' extension request. The Department granted the Russian respondents an extension and on May 9, 2005, the Department received a substantive supplemental response from the Russian respondents. COFANT and the Russian respondents filed rebuttal briefs to each other's substantive responses on May 16, 2005. *See* COFANT's and the Russian respondents' rebuttal responses, dated May 16, 2005. On May 24, 2005, the Department issued a questionnaire to the Russian respondents, requesting additional information on their substantive responses. On June 1, 2005, the Russian respondents submitted this additional information. In a sunset review, the Department normally will conclude that there is adequate response from respondent interested parties such that it is appropriate to conduct a full sunset review where respondent interested parties who filed complete substantive responses account for more than 50 percent, by volume, of total exports of subject merchandise to the United States. *See* Section 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(A) of the Department's regulations. After examining the respondent interested parties' total exports of the subject merchandise, the Department determined that the respondent interested parties, who filed complete substantive responses, accounted for the requisite amount of production. *See* Memorandum from the Sunset Team to Ronald Lorentzen, Acting Director, Office of Policy, “Adequacy Determination: Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Suspension Agreement on Ammonium Nitrate from the Russian Federation,” dated May 24, 2005. Because the respondent interested parties submitted an adequate response to the notice of initiation, the Department is conducting a full (240-day) sunset review in accordance with section 751(c)(5)(A) of the Act, and section 351.218(e)(1)(i) of the Department's regulations. On May 24, 2005, the Department notified the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) that it received an adequate response to the notice of initiation from the respondent interested parties and, therefore, is conducting a full (240-day) sunset review. The Department's preliminary results of this review were scheduled for July 20, 2005, and its final results of this review were scheduled for November 28, 2005. On July 19, 2005, the Department decided to extend time limits for its preliminary and final results in the full sunset review of the suspended antidumping duty investigation on ammonium nitrate from Russia because it needed additional time for its analysis. As a result of this extension, the Department is issuing the preliminary results of this sunset review on or about October 18, 2005 and the final results of this sunset review by February 27, 2006. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised by parties to this sunset review are addressed in the *Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Suspended Antidumping Duty Investigation on Ammonium Nitrate from the Russian Federation* (“ *Decision Memorandum* ”) from Ron Lorentzen, Acting Director, Office of Policy, Import Administration, to Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary, Import Administration, dated October 17, 2005, which is adopted by this notice. The issues discussed in the *Decision Memorandum* include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margins likely to prevail were the suspended antidumping duty investigation to be terminated. Parties may find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum which is on file in the Central Records Unit, room B-099, of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn, under the heading “October 2005.” The paper copy and electronic version of the *Decision Memorandum* are identical in content. Preliminary Results of Review We preliminarily determine that termination of the suspended antidumping duty investigation on ammonium nitrate from Russia would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping at the following percentage weighted-average margin: Exporter/manufacturer Weighted-average margin (percent) JSC Azot Nevinnomyssky 253.98 Russia-Wide 253.98 Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice in accordance with section 351.310(c) of the Department's regulations. Interested parties may submit case briefs no later than December 7, 2005, in accordance with section 351.309(c)(1)(i) of the Department's regulations. Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than December 12, 2005. Any hearing, if requested, will be held on December 14, 2005, in accordance with section 351.310(d) of the Department's regulations. The Department will issue a notice of final results of this sunset review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such comments, no later than February 27, 2006. This sunset review and notice are in accordance with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: October 17, 2005. Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-5864 Filed 10-21-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-549-813] Canned Pineapple Fruit from Thailand: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On August 8, 2005, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published in the **Federal Register** the preliminary results and partial preliminary rescission of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on canned pineapple fruit from Thailand. This review covers two manufacturers/exporters: Vita Food Factory

(1989)Ltd.

(Vita)and Thai Pineapple Canning Industry Corp., Ltd. (TPC). The period of review

(POR)is July 1, 2003, through June 30, 2004. We provided interested parties with an opportunity to comment on the preliminary results of review. However, we received no comments from interested parties. In these final results, we have made no changes to the weighted-average dumping margins calculated for TPC and Vita in the preliminary results of this administrative review. EFFECTIVE DATE: October 24, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Magd Zalok or Drew Jackson, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-4162 or

(202)482-4406, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On August 8, 2005, the Department published in the **Federal Register** the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on canned pineapple fruit from Thailand. *See Canned Pineapple Fruit From Thailand: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 45651 (August 8, 2005) ( *Preliminary Results* ). No interested parties filed case briefs in response to the Department's invitation to comment on the *Preliminary Results* . Scope of the Order The product covered by the order is canned pineapple fruit, defined as pineapple processed and/or prepared into various product forms, including rings, pieces, chunks, tidbits, and crushed pineapple, that is packed and cooked in metal cans with either pineapple juice or sugar syrup added. Imports of canned pineapple fruit are currently classifiable under subheadings 2008.20.0010 and 2008.20.0090 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). HTSUS 2008.20.0010 covers canned pineapple fruit packed in a sugar-based syrup; HTSUS 2008.20.0090 covers canned pineapple fruit packed without added sugar ( *i.e.* , juice-packed). The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the merchandise covered by this order is dispositive. Partial Final Rescission of Review As stated in the preliminary results of this review, the Department confirmed that Prachuab Fruit Canning Co., Ltd. (PRAFT) made no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR. Therefore, consistent with the Department's preliminary results of this review, and in accordance with 19 CFR § 351.213(d)(3), we are rescinding the instant review with respect to PRAFT. Analysis of Comments Received As noted above, we received no comments on the preliminary results of review. In these final results, we have made no changes to the weighted-average dumping margins calculated for TPC and Vita in the preliminary results of this administrative review. Final Results of Review We determine that the following weighted-average percentage margins exist for the period July 1, 2003, through June 30, 2004: Manufacturer/Exporter Margin (percent) Vita Food Factory

(1989)Ltd. 9.12 Thai Pineapple Canning Industry Corp., Ltd. 51.16 Assessment The Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR § 351.212(b)(1), we calculated importer-specific assessment rates for Vita's subject merchandise. Since Vita did not report the entered value for its sales, we calculated per-unit assessment rates for its merchandise by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to each importer and dividing this amount by the total quantity of those sales. To determine whether the per-unit duty assessment rates were *de minimis* ( *i.e.* , less than 0.50 percent *ad valorem* ), in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR § 351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer-specific *ad valorem* ratios based on export prices. Where the importer-specific assessment rate is above *de minimis* , we will instruct CBP to assess the importer-specific rate uniformly on all entries made during the POR. For TPC, the respondent receiving a dumping margin based upon adverse facts available (AFA), we will instruct CBP to liquidate entries according to the AFA *ad valorem* rate. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of these final results of review. Cash Deposit Requirements The following deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of canned pineapple fruit from Thailand entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of these final results of review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:

(1)the cash deposit rates for Vita and TPC will be the rates shown above;

(2)for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period;

(3)if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the less-than-fair-value 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 or any previous review conducted by the Department, the cash deposit rate will be the “all others” rate, which is 24.64 percent. These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. Reimbursement of Duties This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR § 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. Administrative Protective Orders This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders

(APOs)of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR § 351.305. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation that is subject to sanction. We are issuing and publishing these results and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 771(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. Dated: October 17, 2005. Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-5863 Filed 10-21-05; 8:45 am] Billing Code: 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE [Docket No. 2005-P-071] Patent and Trademark Office Grant of Interim Extension of the Term of U.S. Patent No. 4,650,787; Vapreotide Acetate AGENCY: United States Patent and Trademark Office. ACTION: Notice of interim patent term extension. SUMMARY: The United States Patent and Trademark Office has issued a certificate under 35 U.S.C. 156(d)(5) for a one-year interim extension of the term of U.S. Patent No. 4,650,787. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karin Ferriter by telephone at

(571)272-7744; by mail marked to her attention and addressed to Mail Stop Patent Ext., Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450; by fax marked to her attention at

(571)273-7744, or by e-mail to *Karin.Ferriter@uspto.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 156 of Title 35, United States Code, generally provides that the term of a patent may be extended for a period of up to five years if the patent claims a product, or a method of making or using a product, that has been subject to certain defined regulatory review, and that the patent may be extended for interim periods of up to a year if the regulatory review is anticipated to extend beyond the expiration date of the patent. On April 7, 2005, H3 Pharma, Inc., an agent of the Administrators of the Tulane Educational Fund of New Orleans, Louisiana, the patent owner, timely filed an application under 35 U.S.C. 156(d)(5) for an interim extension of the term of U.S. Patent No. 4,650,787. The patent claims the active ingredient vapreotide acetate in the human drug product Sanvar®, and a method of use of said product. The application indicates that a New Drug Application for Sanvar® (vapreotide acetate) has been filed and is currently undergoing regulatory review before the Food and Drug Administration for permission to market or use the product commercially. Review of the application indicates that except for permission to market or use the product commercially, the subject patent would be eligible for an extension of the patent term under 35 U.S.C. 156, and that the patent should be extended for one year as required by 35 U.S.C. 156(d)(5)(B). Since the regulatory review period extended beyond the expiration date of the patent April 25, 2005, interim extension of the patent term under 35 U.S.C. 156(d)(5) is appropriate. An interim extension under 35 U.S.C. 156(d)(5) of the term of U.S. Patent No. 4,650,787 is granted for a period of one year from the expiration date of the patent, i.e., until April 25, 2006. Dated: October 17, 2005. Jon W. Dudas, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. [FR Doc. 05-21191 Filed 10-21-05; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 6

Traces to 6 documents

CFR

U.S. Code

Extension of patent term
§ 156

Citation graph

cites case law

Notices

Notice of preliminary results of full sunset review: ammonium nitrate from the Russian Federation

Cites 6Cited by 0 across 0 sources