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 · 2006-03-07 · Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce · Notices

Notices. Notice of Issuance of an Export Trade Certificate of Review, Application No

19,162 words·~87 min read·/register/2006/03/07/06-2138

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

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-427-818 Low Enriched Uranium from France: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on Low Enriched Uranium
(LEU)from France in response to requests by USEC Inc. and the United States Enrichment Corporation (collectively, petitioners) and by Eurodif, S.A.(Eurodif), Compagnie Générale Des Matières Nucléaires (COGEMA) and COGEMA, Inc. (collectively, Eurodif/COGEMA or the respondent). This review covers sales of subject merchandise to the United States during the period February 1, 2004 through January 31, 2005. We preliminarily determine that U.S. sales have been made below normal value (NV). If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)to assess antidumping duties based on the difference between the constructed export price
(CEP)and the NV. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. *See* the *Preliminary Results of Review* section of this notice. EFFECTIVE DATE: March 7, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Hoadley or Myrna Lobo, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-3148 or
(202)482-2371, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On February 13, 2002, the Department published the antidumping duty order on LEU from France in the **Federal Register** (67 FR 6680). On February 1, 2005, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of this order (70 FR 5136). On February 1, 2005 and February 25, 2005, the Department received timely requests for review from Eurodif/COGEMA and from petitioners, respectively. On March 23, 2005, we published a notice initiating an administrative review of the antidumping order on LEU from France covering one respondent, Eurodif/COGEMA. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part* , 70 FR 14643 (March 23, 2005). The Department issued its original questionnaire, sections A through C, on May 2, 2005, and received timely responses. On September 29, 2005, the Department extended the deadline for the preliminary results of this antidumping duty administrative review until February 28, 2006. *See Low Enriched Uranium from France; Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 58381 (October 6, 2005). On October 11, 2005, the Department issued a section D and supplemental sections A through C questionnaire and received timely responses, after granting deadline extensions, on December 8, 2005. The Department issued further supplemental questionnaires on January 12, 2006 and February 3, 2006 and received timely responses. On January 25, 2006, pursuant to an allegation filed by petitioners, the Department initiated an investigation to determine whether Eurodif/COGEMA's purchases of electricity from Électricité de France (EdF), an affiliated supplier, during the period of review (POR), were made at prices below the cost of production (COP). The Department also issued a questionnaire 1 to obtain EdF's COP for electricity on the same date and received a timely response on February 6, 2006. For purposes of these preliminary results the Department has used the information reported for EdF. However, the Department may solicit some clarifying information from respondent regarding EdF's COP after the issuance of the preliminary results, and we will take such information into account in its cost calculation for the final results of this review. 1 Section A of the questionnaire requests general information concerning a company's corporate structure and business practices, the merchandise under investigation that it sells, and the manner in which it sells that merchandise in all of its markets. Section B requests a complete listing of all home market sales, or, if the home market is not viable, of sales in the most appropriate third-country market (this section is not applicable to respondents in non-market economy
(NME)cases). Section C requests a complete listing of U.S. sales. Section D requests information on the cost of production
(COP)of the foreign like product and the constructed value
(CV)of the merchandise under investigation. Section E requests information on further manufacturing. Period of Review This review covers the period February 1, 2004, through January 31, 2005. Scope of the Order The product covered by this order is all low enriched uranium. LEU is enriched uranium hexafluoride (UF 6 ) with a U 235 product assay of less than 20 percent that has not been converted into another chemical form, such as UO 2 , or fabricated into nuclear fuel assemblies, regardless of the means by which the LEU is produced (including LEU produced through the down-blending of highly enriched uranium). Certain merchandise is outside the scope of this order. Specifically, this order does not cover enriched uranium hexafluoride with a U 235 assay of 20 percent or greater, also known as highly enriched uranium. In addition, fabricated LEU is not covered by the scope of this order. For purposes of this order, fabricated uranium is defined as enriched uranium dioxide (UO 2 ), whether or not contained in nuclear fuel rods or assemblies. Natural uranium concentrates (U 3 O 8 ) with a U 235 concentration of no greater than 0.711 percent and natural uranium concentrates converted into uranium hexafluoride with a U 235 concentration of no greater than 0.711 percent are not covered by the scope of this order. Also excluded from this order is LEU owned by a foreign utility end-user and imported into the United States by or for such end-user solely for purposes of conversion by a U.S. fabricator into uranium dioxide (UO 2 ) and/or fabrication into fuel assemblies so long as the uranium dioxide and/or fuel assemblies deemed to incorporate such imported LEU
(i)remain in the possession and control of the U.S. fabricator, the foreign end-user, or their designed transporter(s) while in U.S. customs territory, and
(ii)are re-exported within eighteen
(18)months of entry of the LEU for consumption by the end-user in a nuclear reactor outside the United States. Such entries must be accompanied by the certifications of the importer and end user. The merchandise subject to this order is classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at subheading 2844.20.0020. Subject merchandise may also enter under 2844.20.0030, 2844.20.0050, and 2844.40.00. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise is dispositive. Analysis Home Market Viability In accordance with sections 773(a)(1)(B) and
(C)of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the home market and/or in third country markets to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we compared Eurodif/COGEMA's volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. Pursuant to sections 773(a)(1)(B) and
(C)of the Act and section 351.404
(b)of the Department's regulations, because Eurodif/COGEMA's home market sales were greater than five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, we determine the home market to be viable. However, because all sales were to a single affiliated customer and the Department was unable to confirm these sales to be at arm's length, we have used constructed value
(CV)as NV, for purposes of these preliminary results. We have consistently used CV as the basis for NV in past segments of this proceeding, *see* , e.g. *Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Low Enriched Uranium from France* , 69 FR 3883 (January 27, 2004). Fair Value Comparisons To determine whether sales of LEU from France were made in the United States at less-than-fair value (LTFV), we compared the CEP to CV, as described in the *Constructed Export Price* and *Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value* sections of this notice. In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we calculated CEPs and compared them to CV. We note that during the POR, the respondent sold LEU in the United States pursuant to contracts in which the respondent undertook to manufacture and deliver LEU for a cash payment covering only the value of the enrichment component; for the natural uranium feedstock component, the respondent received an amount of natural uranium equivalent to the amount used to produce the LEU shipped under contracts referred to as separative work unit
(SWU)2 contracts. However, the product manufactured and delivered by the respondent was LEU. For purposes of our antidumping analysis, we have translated prices and costs involved in SWU contracts into an LEU basis, increasing those values to account for the cost of the uranium feedstock involved. These adjustments are described in greater detail below. 2 A SWU is a unit of measurement of the effort required to separate the U235 and U238 atoms in uranium feed in order to create a final product richer in U235 atoms. Constructed Export Price In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, CEP is the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) in the United States before or after the date of importation by or for the account of the producer or exporter of such merchandise, or by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the producer or exporter. During the POR, Eurodif/COGEMA's U.S. sales were made to its U.S. affiliate, COGEMA Inc., which then resold the merchandise to unaffiliated customers. Therefore, Eurodif/COGEMA classified all of its U.S. export sales of LEU as CEP sales. As stated in section 351.401(i) of the Department's regulations, the Department will use the respondent's invoice date as the date of sale unless another date better reflects the date upon which the exporter or producer establishes the material terms of sale. In this review, we find that the material terms of sale are established by the contract between COGEMA Inc. and the U.S. customer. Therefore, as in prior reviews, we have used the contract date as the date of sale. *See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Low Enriched Uranium from France* , 70 FR 54359 (September 14, 2005). The Department calculated CEP for Eurodif/COGEMA based on packed prices to the first unaffiliated customer in the United States. For all sales involving payments on a SWU basis, we translated the prices to an LEU basis, as indicated above, by adding a value for the uranium feedstock used in the production of the LEU. This value was derived from the respondent's reported entered value of feed, which was based on publicly available information used for customs entry purposes. We made deductions from the starting price, net of discounts, for movement expenses (foreign and U.S. movement expenses, expenses associated with shipment of sample assays, and movement of customer feed from North America to France, marine insurance, merchandise processing and U.S. harbor maintenance fees, and brokerage) in accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act and section 351.401(e) of the Department's regulations. In addition, in accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we also deducted credit expenses and indirect selling expenses, including inventory carrying costs, incurred in the United States and France and associated with economic activities in the United States. Furthermore, in accordance with sections 772(d)(3) and 772(f) of the Act, we made a deduction for CEP profit. The CEP profit rate is normally calculated on the basis of total revenue and total expenses related to sales in the comparison market and the U.S. market. In this case, all home market sales were to an affiliate; consequently, we based CEP profit on the costs and revenues reported for AREVA's front end division, which is COGEMA's parent company and represents the highest level of consolidation for Eurodif. *See* CV section below and Memorandum to the File from Mark Hoadley and Myrna Lobo, “Analysis of Eurodif/COGEMA for the Preliminary Results of the Third Administrative Review of Low Enriched Uranium
(LEU)from France,” dated February 28, 2006 ( *Prelim Analysis Memo* ). Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value Section 773(e) of the Act provides that CV shall be based on the sum of the costs of materials and fabrication of the foreign like product, plus amounts for selling, general, and administrative expenses (SG&A), profit, and U.S. packing costs. In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act, we based general and administrative (G&A) expenses on amounts derived from Eurodif's financial statements. In our calculation of the interest expense, we based financial expenses on the financial statements of AREVA. For selling expenses, we used information on indirect selling expenses in third countries provided in the questionnaire response. Where appropriate, we made circumstance of sale
(COS)adjustments to CV, in accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act and section 351.410 of the Department's regulations. Electricity is considered a major input in the production of LEU. Eurodif obtained electricity from its affiliated supplier, EdF. On December 19, 2005, petitioners alleged that Eurodif purchased electricity from EdF at prices less than the affiliated suppliers' COP during the POR. After reviewing petitioners' major input allegation, the Department determined that it provided a reasonable basis on which to initiate an investigation of Eurodif's purchases of electricity from EdF. *See* Memorandum from Mark Hoadley to Barbara E. Tillman, Director, Office 6, “Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Low Enriched Uranium from France (2/1/04-1/31/05), Petitioners' Allegation of Purchases of a Major Input From Electricité de France (EdF), an Affiliated Party, at Prices Below the Affiliated Party's Cost of Production,” dated January 25, 2006. Section 773(f)(3) of the Act states that “{i}f, in the case of a transaction between affiliated persons involving the production by one of such persons of a major input to the merchandise, the administering authority has reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that an amount represented as the value of such input is less than the cost of production of such input, then the administering authority may determine the value of the major input on the basis of the information available regarding such cost of production, if such cost is greater than the amount that would be determined for such input under paragraph (2).” In applying the major input rule under section 351.407(b) of the Department's regulations, the Department will normally compare the transfer price between affiliates to the market price for the input to ensure that the transfer price is at least reflective of the market price. For major inputs, the Department then compares the transfer price and the market price to the COP to ensure that the transfer price charged recovers the producer's costs of production. We evaluated the affiliated supplier's reported electricity COP accordingly. On January 25, 2006, the Department solicited information from the respondent regarding the calculation of EdF's COP. Based on the response received on February 6, 2006, we have calculated the average cost of electricity for EdF. For details on calculations of EdF's cost of electricity *see Prelim Analysis Memo* . Because the calculated COP for electricity exceeded the transfer price Eurodif paid to EdF for the electricity purchased, we calculated CV based on EdF's COP for electricity, in accordance with section 773(f)(3) of the Act. In addition, the Department requested that Eurodif/COGEMA provide details on certain research and development (R&D) projects undertaken by its affiliate, the Commissariat à l'Energie Atomique (CEA). Because Eurodif/COGEMA did not provide the requested information and the Department does not have any data on the record regarding CEA's R&D expenditures, we must rely on secondary information. As facts available and pursuant to sections 776(a) and
(c)of the Act, we are relying on USEC's R&D expenditures on centrifuge technology as a surrogate for CEA's R&D expenditure because it is the only information on the record relating to R&D. Section 776(c) of the Act provides that the Department shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate secondary information used for facts available by reviewing independent sources reasonably at its disposal. The *Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. 103-316 (SAA)* , at 870 (1994), explains that the word “corroborate” means that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value. Because USEC's R&D appears to be for the very same technology and it is conducted by a company in the same industry, we consider the information relevant and corroborated. We have therefore added an amount for R&D based on an average of USEC's costs over five years as done in the previous review. *See Issues and Decision Memorandum for Final Results of the Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Low Enriched Uranium from France (2003-2004)* dated September 6, 2005, at Comment 7. In addition to the adjustments described above, in calculating CV we recalculated the reported defluorination cost. For a full discussion of the adjustments in calculating CV *see Prelim Analysis Memo* . We calculated profit in accordance with section 773(e)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act as explained in the SAA at 841. We used a CV profit rate based on AREVA's front end division as reported by respondent. *See Prelim Analysis Memo* . Currency Conversion We made currency conversions pursuant to section 351.415 of the Department's regulations based on rates certified by the Federal Reserve Bank. Preliminary Results of Review We preliminarily determine that the following dumping margin exists: Manufacturer/Exporter Margin (percent) Eurodif/COGEMA 7.70 Duty Assessment The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Pursuant to section 351.212(b) of the Department's regulations, the Department calculates an assessment rate for each importer of the subject merchandise for each respondent. Liquidation of the entries of LEU under review remains enjoined; however, if the injunction is lifted, the Department will promptly issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP. Cash Deposit Requirements The following cash deposit rates will be effective with respect to all shipments of LEU from France entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:
(1)For Eurodif/COGEMA, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established in the final results of this review;
(2)for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will 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 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 by this review, a prior review, or the LTFV investigation, the cash deposit rate shall be the “all other” rate established in the LTFV investigation, which is 19.95 percent. *See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Low Enriched Uranium from France* , 67 FR 6680 (February 13, 2002). These deposit rates, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. Public Comment Pursuant to section 351.224(b) of the Department's regulations, the Department will disclose to parties to the proceeding any calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results within five days after the date of publication of this notice. Pursuant to section 351.309 of the Department's regulations, interested parties may submit written comments in response to these preliminary results. Unless extended by the Department, case briefs are to be submitted within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice, and rebuttal briefs, limited to arguments raised in case briefs, are to be submitted no later than five days after the time limit for filing case briefs. Parties who submit arguments in this proceeding are requested to submit with the argument:
(1)a statement of the issues, and
(2)a brief summary of the argument. Case and rebuttal briefs must be served on interested parties in accordance with section 351.303(f) of the Department's regulations. Also, pursuant to section 351.310
(c)of the Department's regulations, within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice, interested parties may request a public hearing on arguments raised in the case and rebuttal briefs. Unless the Secretary specifies otherwise, the hearing, if requested, will be held two days after the date for submission of rebuttal briefs. Parties will be notified of the time and location. The Department will publish the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any case or rebuttal brief, no later than 120 days after publication of these preliminary results, unless extended. *See* section 351.213(h) of the Department's regulations. Notification to Importers This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under section 351.402(f) of the Department's regulations to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. This administrative review and notice are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: February 28, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-3176 Filed 3-6-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A-533-810) Stainless Steel Bar from India: Notice of Preliminary Results and Preliminary Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar from India. The period of review is February 1, 2004, through January 31, 2005. This review covers imports of stainless steel bar from two producers/exporters. We preliminarily find that sales of the subject merchandise have been made below normal value. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to assess antidumping duties. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. We will issue the final results no later than 120 days from the date of publication of this notice. EFFECTIVE DATE: March 7, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Holland, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20230; telephone
(202)482-1279. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On February 21, 1995, the Department of Commerce (the “Department”) published in the **Federal Register** the antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar (“SSB”) from India. See Antidumping Duty Orders: Stainless Steel Bar form Brazil, India and Japan, 60 FR 9661 (February 21, 2005). On February 1, 2005, the Department published a notice in the **Federal Register** providing an opportunity for interested parties to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on SSB from India for the period of review (“POR”), February 1, 2004, through January 31, 2005. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review* , 70 FR 5136 (February 1, 2005). On February 22, 2005, we received a timely request for review from Shah Alloys, Ltd. (“Shah”). 1 On February 25, 2005, we received a timely request for review and revocation from Venus Wire Industries Pvt., Ltd. (“Venus”). On February 28, 2005, we received timely review requests from Ferro Alloys Corporation, Ltd. (“Facor”), Chandan Steel, Ltd. (“Chandan”), Isibars Ltd. (“Isibars”), Mukand Ltd. (“Mukand”), and the Viraj Group (“Viraj”). 2 On February 28, 2005, Carpenter Technology Corporation, Electralloy Corporation, and Crucible Specialty Metals Division, Crucible Materials Corporation (collectively, the “petitioners”) also requested an administrative review of Viraj. 1 On February 28, 2005, the Department declined Shah's request for review because Shah explicitly stated in its request that it did not have any export sales to the United States during the period of review. *See* Letter from the Department to Mr. D.P.S. Bindra (Senior Vice President of Shah Alloys, Ltd.), dated February 28, 2005. 2 We did not initiate with respect to Viraj because the order for this company was revoked on September 14, 2004. *See* Letter from the Department to counsel to Viraj, “Extension Requests,” dated April 19, 2005; *see also Stainless Steel Bar From India; Final Results, Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part, and Determination To Revoke in Part* , 69 FR 55409 (Sept. 14, 2004); *Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part* , 70 FR 14643 (March 23, 2005). On March 23, 2005, the Department initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on SSB from India with respect to Facor, Chandan, Isibars, Mukand, and Venus (collectively, the “respondents”). *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part* , 70 FR 14643 (March 23, 2005). On March 29, 2005, the Department issued antidumping duty questionnaires to the respondents. On April 18, 2005, Isibars, Mukand, and Venus, withdrew their requests for an administrative review. For further discussion, see the “Partial Rescission of Review” section of this notice, below. On May 4, and May 31, 2005, we received responses to section A and sections B-D of the Department's antidumping duty questionnaire, respectively, from Facor. On June 9, 2005, and October 5, 2005, the Department issued supplemental questionnaires to Facor requesting additional information on Facor's U.S. sales process and date of sale. On June 16, 2005, and October 19, 2005, Facor filed its responses to the Department's supplemental questionnaires. On June 21, 2005, the petitioners requested that the Department conduct verifications of Facor and Chandan. Based on Facor's submissions, the Department learned that Facor had no entries of the subject merchandise during the POR. To confirm that Facor made no entries of subject merchandise during the POR, the Department requested data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) on July 26, 2005. CBP provided the Department with the requested data on September 8, 2005. *See* Memorandum to the File, “ *U.S. Customs and Border Protection Data* ,” dated September 26, 2005, which is on file in the Central Records Unit (“CRU”) in room B-099 of the main Department building. On November 22, 2005, the Department published in the **Federal Register** a notice of intent to rescind the antidumping duty administrative review with respect to Facor. *See Stainless Steel Bar from India: Notice of Intent to Rescind Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Ferro Alloys Corporation Limited* , 70 FR 70582 (November 22, 2005). In May 2005, we received responses to sections A, B, and C of the Department's antidumping duty questionnaire from Chandan. On June 13, 2005, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(d)(2)(ii), the petitioners made a timely allegation that Chandan's home market sales were made below the cost of production (“COP”). On September 6, 2005, we determined that the Department's application of total adverse facts available (“AFA”) to the sales made by Chandan in the most recently completed review provided the Department with reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales made in the current review were below the COP. *See* Memorandum to Susan Kuhbach, *“Sales Below the Cost of Production for Chandan Steel, Ltd.,”* dated September 6, 2005. On September 20, 2005, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), the Department initiated a sales below-cost investigation of Chandan's home market sales. Accordingly, we notified Chandan that it must respond to section D of the Department's antidumping duty questionnaire. *See* Letter from Julie H. Santoboni to Chandan Steel, Ltd., dated September 20, 2005. We did not receive a response to the Department's section D questionnaire from Chandan. For further discussion, see the “Application of Facts Available” section, below. On September 23, 2005, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire for sections A, B, and C to Chandan. We received a narrative response to the supplemental questionnaire on October 26, 2005. On October 27, 2005, Chandan submitted additional supporting documentation in response to the Department's supplemental questionnaire. On October 18, 2005, the Department found that, because of the complexity of choosing the appropriate date of sale, and the late initiation of a cost investigation, it was not practicable to complete this review within the time period prescribed. Accordingly, we extended the time limit for completing the preliminary results of this review to no later than February 28, 2006, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. *See Stainless Steel Bar from India; Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results in Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 60493 (October 18, 2005). On November 4, 2005, the Department issued its second supplemental questionnaire, in which we requested Chandan clarify certain information reported in its May 10, 2005, section A response. On November 7, 2005, we sent a third supplemental questionnaire to Chandan requesting Chandan make certain revisions to its submitted U.S. sales listings. We received responses to these supplemental questionnaires on November 10, 2005. On November 14, 2005, the we issued a fourth supplemental questionnaire to Chandan for sections A, B, and C. We did not receive a response to this supplemental questionnaire from Chandan. For further discussion, see the “Application of Facts Available” section of this notice, below. On November 23, 2005, the petitioners submitted comments on Chandan's failure to cooperate fully in the current administrative review. In those comments, the petitioners noted that Chandan:
(1)Failed to provide a response to the Department's original section D questionnaire;
(2)failed to timely respond to the Department's November 14, 2005, supplemental questionnaire; and
(3)failed to substantiate that Chandan's U.S. prices are correct and that they correspond to the sale to the first unaffiliated customer in the United States. Accordingly, the petitioners argued that, due to these deficiencies, the Department should apply total AFA for these preliminary results. Scope of the Order Imports covered by the order are shipments of SSB. SSB means articles of stainless steel in straight lengths that have been either hot-rolled, forged, turned, cold-drawn, cold-rolled or otherwise cold-finished, or ground, having a uniform solid cross section along their whole length in the shape of circles, segments of circles, ovals, rectangles (including squares), triangles, hexagons, octagons, or other convex polygons. SSB includes cold-finished SSBs that are turned or ground in straight lengths, whether produced from hot-rolled bar or from straightened and cut rod or wire, and reinforcing bars that have indentations, ribs, grooves, or other deformations produced during the rolling process. Except as specified above, the term does not include stainless steel semi-finished products, cut-to-length flat-rolled products ( *i.e.* , cut-to-length rolled products which if less than 4.75 mm in thickness have a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness, or if 4.75 mm or more in thickness having a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at least twice the thickness), wire ( *i.e.* , cold-formed products in coils, of any uniform solid cross section along their whole length, which do not conform to the definition of flat-rolled products), and angles, shapes, and sections. The SSB subject to these reviews is currently classifiable under subheadings 7222.11.00.05, 7222.11.00.50, 7222.19.00.05, 7222.19.00.50, 7222.20.00.05, 7222.20.00.45, 7222.20.00.75, and 7222.30.00.00 of the *Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States* (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of the order is dispositive. On May 23, 2005, the Department issued a final scope ruling that SSB manufactured in the United Arab Emirates out of stainless steel wire rod from India is not subject to the scope of this proceeding. *See* Memorandum to Barbara E. Tillman, *Antidumping Duty Orders on Stainless Steel Bar from India and Stainless Steel Wire Rod from India: Final Scope Ruling* , dated May 23, 2005. *See also Notice of Scope Rulings* , 70 FR 55110 (September 20, 2005). Period of Review The POR is February 1, 2004, through January 31, 2005. Partial Rescission of Review Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department may rescind an administrative review in whole or in part, if interested parties that requested a review withdraw their requests within 90 days of the date of publication of notice of initiation of the requested review. As noted above in the “Background” section of this notice, Isibars, Mukand and Venus withdrew their requests for an administrative review on April 18, 2005. Because the petitioners did not request an administrative review for any of these companies and the requests to withdraw were made within the time limit specified under section 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), we are rescinding this administrative review with respect to Isibars, Mukand and Venus. With regard to Facor, pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act, when conducting an administrative review, the Department examines entries of subject merchandise. According to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), the Department will rescind an administrative review in whole or only with respect to a particular exporter or producer, if we conclude that, during the POR, there were no entries, exports, or sales of the subject merchandise, as the case may be. The Department has interpreted the statutory and regulatory language as requiring “that there be entries during the period of review upon which to assess antidumping duties.” *See Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from Japan: Notice of Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 44088, 44089 (August 1, 2005). Moreover, in *Chia Far Industrial Factory Co., Ltd. v. United States* , 343 F. Supp. 2d 1344, 1374 (CIT August 2, 2004), the Court affirmed the Department's rescission of a review for lack of entries, stating that “Commerce correctly decided to rescind Ta Chen's review based on the fact that there were no entries of the merchandise at issue during the POR, regardless of whether there were sales.” As stated above in the “Background” section, in this administrative review, Facor reported no entries of subject merchandise to the U.S. market during the POR, a fact which the Department confirmed by conducting an inquiry with CBP. Even if the Department's practice were to review sales, as opposed to entries, Facor had no sales during the POR. In its questionnaire responses, Facor argued that the Department should use the purchase order date, as opposed to the invoice date, as the U.S. date of sale. However, the Department's rebuttable presumption is to use the invoice date as the date of sale. *See* 19 CFR 351.401(i). Facor failed to provide a compelling reason for the Department to deviate from its standard practice. According to information on the record, Facor issued no sales invoices to the United States during the POR. On November 22, 2005, we published a notice of intent to rescind this administrative review. We invited interested parties to comment. No comments were received. Accordingly, we are preliminarily rescinding the current administrative review with respect to Facor. Application of Facts Available Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that the Department will apply “facts otherwise available” if, *inter alia* , necessary information is not on the record or an interested party:
(1)Withholds information that has been requested by the Department;
(2)fails to provide such information within the deadlines established, or in the form or manner requested by the Department, subject to subsections (c)(1) and
(e)of section 782 of the Act;
(3)significantly impedes a proceeding; or
(4)provides such information, but the information cannot be verified, the Department shall, subject to subsection 782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination. As discussed in the “Background” section above, on September 20, 2005, the Department requested that Chandan respond to section D of the Department's antidumping duty questionnaire. The original deadline to file a response to section D of the questionnaire was October 12, 2005. During October and November 2005, Chandan requested, and the Department granted, numerous extensions to Chandan for the submission of the section D questionnaire response. Ultimately, Chandan's section D questionnaire response was due on November 14, 2005. However, the Department did not receive a response from Chandan, nor did Chandan request an additional extension. On November 22, 2005, the Department contacted Chandan's legal counsel with respect to Chandan's filing of the section D response. The Department was informed by Chandan's legal counsel that counsel had not received a response from Chandan, nor did counsel know whether Chandan would be filing a response. *See* Memorandum from Mark Todd, Office of Accounting, to the File, dated November 22, 2005. Further, the Department gave Chandan until November 21, 2005, to file a supplemental questionnaire response regarding sales information. However, no response was received. Moreover, Chandan did not ask for an extension of time nor did it indicate that a response would be submitted at a later date. Despite the Department's attempts to obtain the information, pursuant to section 782(d) of the Act, Chandan failed to respond to certain questionnaires and has refused to participate fully in this administrative review. As such, Chandan has significantly impeded this proceeding. Thus, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and
(C)of the Act, the Department preliminarily finds that the use of total facts available is appropriate. Adverse Facts Available According to section 776(b) of the Act, if the Department finds that an interested party fails to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with requests for information, the Department may use an inference that is adverse to the interests of that party in selecting from the facts otherwise available. *See e.g., Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Bar from India* , 70 FR 54023, 54025-26 (September 13, 2005) (“ *2003/2004 Final Results* ”); *see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales of Less Than Fair Value and Final Negative Critical Circumstances: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil* , 67 FR 55792, 55794-96 (August 30, 2002). Adverse inferences are appropriate “to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.” *See* Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, Vol. 1, at 870
(1994)(“SAA”). Furthermore, “affirmative evidence of bad faith on the part of a respondent is not required before the Department may make an adverse inference.” *See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule* , 62 FR 27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997), and *Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States* , 337 F.3d 1373, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“ *Nippon* ”). We preliminarily find that Chandan did not act to the best of its ability in this proceeding, within the meaning of section 776(b) of the Act. Chandan has participated in prior administrative reviews ( *see, e.g., 2003/2004 Final Results; and Stainless Steel Bar from India; Final Results, Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part, and Determination To Revoke in Part* , 69 FR 55409 (September 14, 2004) (“ *2002/2003 Final Results* ”)), and, therefore, should know that it is required to respond to the Department's questionnaire, including the section D questionnaire. In not responding to the Department's questionnaires, Chandan has failed to act to the best of its ability in complying with the Department's requests for information in this review. Therefore, an adverse inference is warranted. *See Nippon* 337 F.3d at 1382-83. We note that COP/constructed value (“CV”) data provided by a respondent in the section D questionnaire is vital to our dumping analysis, because: 1) it provides the basis for determining whether comparison market sales can be used to calculate normal value; and 2) in certain instances ( *e.g.* , when there are no comparison market sales made at prices above the COP), it is used as the basis of normal value itself. In cases involving a sales-below-cost investigation, as in this case, lack of COP/CV information renders a company's response so incomplete as to be unuseable. *See e.g., Frozen Concentrated Orange Juice From Brazil; Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 64 FR 43650, 43655 (August 11, 1999); *Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 64 FR 76, 82-83 (January 4, 1999); *Notice of Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Canned Pineapple Fruit From Thailand* , 63 FR 43661, 43664 (August 14, 1998); and *Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Sweden: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 62 FR 18396, 18401 (April 15, 1997). Therefore, section 782(e) of the Act does not apply. Accordingly, we preliminarily find that an adverse inference is warranted in selecting facts otherwise available. Section 776(b) of the Act further provides that the Department may use as AFA, information derived from: 1) The petition; 2) a final determination in the investigation; 3) any previous review; or 4) any other information placed on the record. The Department's practice, when selecting an AFA rate from among the possible sources of information, has been to ensure that the margin is sufficiently adverse “as to effectuate the statutory purposes of the adverse facts available rule to induce respondents to provide the Department with complete and accurate information in a timely manner.” *See e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors from Taiwan* , 63 FR 8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998). Additionally, the Department's practice has been to assign the highest margin determined for any party in the less-than-fair-value (“LTFV”) investigation or in any administrative review of a specific order to respondents who have failed to cooperate with the Department. *See, e.g., Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or Without Handles, from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Final Rescission and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews* , 70 FR 54897, 54898 (September 19, 2005). In order to ensure that the margin is sufficiently adverse so as to induce Chandan's cooperation, we have preliminarily assigned a rate of 21.02 percent, which was the rate alleged in the petition and assigned in previous segments of this proceeding, and is the highest rate determined for any respondent in any segment of this proceeding. *See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Bar from India* , 59 FR 66915, 66921 (December 28, 1994) (“ *LTFV Final Determination* ”). The Department finds that this rate is sufficiently high as to effectuate the purpose of the facts available rule ( *i.e.* , we find that this rate is high enough to encourage participation in future segments of this proceeding in accordance with 776(b) of the Act). Furthermore, this rate was also assigned as AFA to Chandan in the 2002/2003 antidumping duty administrative review because Chandan provided incomplete and largely unresponsive replies to explicit instructions and numerous requests for information made by the Department. *See 2002/2003 Final Results* . The Department recognizes that in the previous administrative review, Chandan was assigned a different AFA rate, that is, Chandan was assigned the highest calculated rate given to any respondent in any segment of this proceeding ( *i.e.* , 19.80 percent). *See 2003/2004 Final Results* . However, after reconsideration of the facts on the record in this proceeding and past Department practice, we find that the appropriate rate to assign Chandan as AFA is the rate of 21.02 percent. Information from prior segments of the proceeding constitutes secondary information and section 776(c) of the Act provides that the Department shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that secondary information from independent sources reasonably at its disposal. The Department's regulations provide that “corroborate” means that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value. *See* 19 CFR 351.308(d) and SAA at 870. To the extent practicable, the Department will examine the reliability and relevance of the information to be used. Unlike other types of information, such as input costs or selling expenses, there are no independent sources from which the Department can derive dumping margins. The only source for dumping margins is administrative determinations. In a previous administrative review in this proceeding, the Department found that the petition rate was reliable. *See Stainless Steel Bar From India; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 68 FR 47543 (August 11, 2003) (“ *2001/2002 Final Results* ”). With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, however, the Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal as to whether there are circumstances that would render a margin inappropriate. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not appropriate as adverse facts available, the Department will disregard the margin and determine an appropriate margin. *See, e.g., Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 61 FR 6812, 6814 (Feb. 22, 1996) (where the Department disregarded the highest margin as adverse facts available because the margin was based on another company's uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an unusually high margin). Therefore, we also examined whether any information on the record would discredit the selected rate as reasonable facts available for Chandan. No such information exists. In particular, there is no information that might lead to a conclusion that a different rate would be more appropriate. Accordingly, we have assigned Chandan, in this administrative review, the rate of 21.02 percent as total AFA. This is consistent with section 776(b) of the Act which states that adverse inferences may include reliance on information derived from the petition. Finally, we note that Chandan was previously assigned this rate for its failure to cooperate. *See 2001/2002 Final Results* and *2002/2003 Final Results* . Furthermore, the Department has corroborated this rate in prior segments of this proceeding. *See 2001/2002 Final Results; see also 2002/2003 Final Results* . Because there are no calculated margins for any other respondents in this administrative review, we believe the 21.02 percent rate continues to have probative value and that there are no circumstances indicating that this margin is inappropriate as facts available. Therefore, we find that the 21.02 percent margin is corroborated to the greatest extent practicable in accordance with 776(c) of the Act. Preliminary Results of the Review For the firm listed below, we find that the following percentage margin exists for the period February 1, 2004, through January 31, 2005: Exporter/Manufacturer Margin Chandan Steel, Ltd. 21.02 Public Comment Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice. Any hearing, if requested, will be held 42 days after the publication of this notice, or the first workday thereafter. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the case and rebuttal briefs. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c), interested parties may submit case briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice. *See* 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are requested to submit with each argument: 1) a statement of the issue; and 2) a brief summary of the argument with an electronic version included. Assessment Pursuant to section 351.212(b) of the Department's regulations, the Department calculates an assessment rate for each importer or customer of the subject merchandise. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of the final results of this review. Upon issuance of the final results of this administrative review, if any importer- or customer-specific assessment rates calculated in the final results are above de minimis ( *i.e.* , at or above 0.5 percent), *see* 19 CFR 351.106(c), the Department will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on appropriate entries by applying the assessment rate to the entered value of the merchandise. For those companies for which this review is rescinded, antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). In accordance with the Department's clarification of its assessment policy ( *see Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties* , 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003)), in the event any entries were made during the period of review through intermediaries under the CBP case number for Facor, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the all-others rate in effect on the date of entry. Cash Deposit Requirements The following deposit requirements will be effective upon completion of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of SSB from India entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: 1) The cash deposit rate for the reviewed company will be the rate established in the final results of this administrative review (except no cash deposit will be required if its weighted-average margin is *de minimis, i.e.* , less than 0.5 percent); 2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in the original LTFV investigation or a previous review, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the most recent rate published in the final determination or final results for which the manufacturer or exporter received an individual rate; 3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, the previous review, or the original investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and 4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous reviews, the cash deposit rate will be 12.45 percent, the “all others” rate established in the LTFV investigation. *See LTFV Final Determination* . Notification to Importers This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. We are issuing and publishing these results of review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: February 28, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-3171 Filed 3-6-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-570-890 Notice of Initiation of Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China AGENCY: AGENCY:Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (“Department”) received timely requests to conduct an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). The anniversary month of this order is January. In accordance with the Department's regulations, we are initiating this administrative review. EFFECTIVE DATE: March 7, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eugene Degnan or Robert Bolling, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230, telephone:
(202)482-0414 or
(202)482-3434, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Department received timely requests, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b) (2002), during the anniversary month of January, for an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from the PRC covering 137 entities. Subsequently, 30 requesters withdrew their requests for review. The Department is now initiating an administrative review of the order covering the remaining 107 companies. Initiation of Review In accordance with section 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we are initiating an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from the PRC. We intend to issue the final results of this review not later than January 31, 2007. Antidumping Duty Proceeding Period to be Reviewed THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: 1 Wooden Bedroom Furniture A-570-890 6/24/04 - 12/31/05 • Art Heritage International Ltd., Super Art Furniture Co. Ltd., Artwork Metal & Plastic Co., Ltd., Jibson Industries, Always Loyal International* • Baigou Crafts Factory of Fengkai • Best King International Limited, Best King International Ltd., Bouvrie International Limited • Birchfield Design Group, Inc., Birchfield Design (Asia), Ltd., Dongguan Birchfield Gifts Co., Ltd., Dongguan Longreen Birchfield Arts & Craft Co., Ltd. • Chiu's Faithful Furniture (Shenzhen) Company Limited, Faithful International Trading (Hong Kong) Company Limited • Conghua J.L. George Timber & Co. • Dalian Guangming Furniture Co., Ltd.* • Dalian Huafeng Furniture Co., Ltd.* • DaLian Pretty Home Furniture Co., Ltd. • Dawn Smart Furniture Co., Ltd. • Decca Furniture Limited and other affiliates of Decca Holdings Limited • Deqing Ace Furniture & Crafts Limited • Der Cheng Furniture Co., Ltd. • Dong Guan Hua Ban Furniture Co., Ltd. • Dongguan Cambridge Furniture Co., Ltd., Glory Oceanic Co., Ltd.* • Dongguan Dihao Furniture Co., Ltd. • Dongguan Landmark Furniture Products Ltd. • Dongguan Lung Dong Furniture Co., Ltd., Dongguan Dong He Furniture Co., Ltd., Engmost Investment Ltd.* • Dongguan Mingsheng Furniture Co., Ltd. • Dongguan New Technology Import & Export Co., Ltd. • Dongguan Sea Eagle Furniture Co., Ltd., Kalanter (Hong Kong) Furniture Co., Ltd. • Dongguan Sunpower Enterprise Co., Ltd. • Dongguan Sunrise Furniture Co., Taicang Sunrise Wood Industry Co., Ltd, Shanghai Sunrise Furniture Co., Ltd., Fairmont Designs * • Dongguan Yihaiwei Furniture Limited • Dream Rooms Furniture (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.* • Ever Spring Furniture Co., Ltd., S.Y.C. Family * • Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited and its affiliates * • Foshan Guanqiu Furniture Co., Ltd.* • Fujian Lianfu Forestry Co., Ltd., Fujian Wonder Pacific Inc., Fuzhou Huan Mei Furniture Co., Ltd., Jiangsu Dare Furniture Co. Ltd.* • Fujian Senda Foreign Trade Co., Ltd. • Fuzhou Huan Mei Furniture Co., Ltd. • Gaomi Yatai Wooden Ware Co., Ltd., Team Prospect International Ltd.* • Guangdong New Four Seas Furniture Manufacturing, Ltd., Four Seas Furniture Manufacturing Ltd. • Guangzhou Lucky Furniture Co., Ltd. • Guangzhou Maria Yee Furnishings, Ltd., Pyla HK Ltd., Maria Yee, Inc. • Hainan Rulai Furniture Co., Ltd. • Honest Furniture Company Ltd. • Hong Yu Furniture (Shenzhen) • Huizhou Jadom Furniture Co., Ltd., Jadom Furniture Co., Ltd. • Hung Fai Wood Products Factory Ltd. • Hwangho New Century Furniture (Dongguan) Corp. Ltd., Trade Rich Furniture (Dongguan) Corp., Ltd., Hwang Ho International Holdings Limited • Inni Furniture • Jiangmen Kinwai Furniture Decoration Co., Ltd., Jiangmen Kinwai International Furniture Co., Ltd.* • King Kei Trading Co. Ltd. King Kei Furniture Factory, Jiu Ching Trading Co., Ltd. • King Wood Furniture Co., Ltd. • Kong Fong Furniture • Kong Fong Mao Iek Hong • Kunwa Enterprises Company • Lacquer Craft Mfg. Co., Ltd., Samson Holding Ltd., Samson International Enterprises, Legacy Classic Furniture, Universal Furniture International Inc.* • Langfang TianCheng Furniture, Huari Furniture* • Leefu Wood (Dongguan) Co., Ltd., King Rich International, Ltd.* • Locke Furniture Factory, Kai Chan Furniture Co. Ltd., Kai Chan (Hong Kong) Enterprise Ltd., Taiwan Kai Chan* • Maestro Wood Product Factory • Mandarin Furniture (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. • Meikangchi (Nantong) Furniture Company Ltd. • Million Kind Co., Ltd. • Million Kind Furniture Co., Ltd. Million Kind Co., Ltd. • NanTong YangZi Furniture Co., Ltd. • Nathan International Ltd., Nathan Rattan Factory, Nathan China Group* • Ngai Kun Trading • Ningbo Furniture Industries Ltd., Ningbo Fubang Furniture Industries Limited, Techniwood Industries Limited, Techniwood (Macao Commercial Offshore) Limited, Ningbo Techniwood Furniture Industries Limited* • Placetech Co., Ltd. • Po Ying Industrial Co. • Profit Force Limited • Protrend Metal & Plastics (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. • Putian Ou Dian Furniture Co., Ltd. • Qingdao Beiyuan-Shengli Furniture Co., Ltd., Qingdao Beiyuan Industry Trading Co. Ltd. • Qingdao Shengchang Wooden Co., Ltd. • RiZhao SanMu Woodworking Co., Ltd., RiZhao SanMu Woodworking Group* • Rui Feng Woodwork (Dongguan) Co., Rui Feng Lumber Development (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd.* • Senyuan Furniture Group • Shanghai Aosen Furniture Co., Ltd. • Shenyang Kunyu Wood Industry Co., Ltd. • Shenzhen Dafuhao Industrial Development Co., Ltd. • Shenzhen Shen Long Hang Industry Co., Ltd. • Shenzhen Tiancheng Furniture Co., Ltd., Winbuild Industrial Ltd., Red Apple Furniture Co., Ltd., Red Apple Trading Co., Ltd. • Sino Concord (Zhangzhou) Furniture Co., Ltd., Sino Concord International Corp. • Speedy International Ltd. • Starcorp Furniture (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., Shanghai Starcorp Furniture Co., Ltd., Orin* • Sunforce Furniture (Hui-Yang) Co., Ltd., SunFung Wooden Factory, Sun Fung Co., Shin Feng Furniture Co. Ltd., Stupendous International Co. Ltd.* • T.J. Maxx International Co., Ltd. • Tianjin First Wood Co., Ltd. • Tianjin Sande Fairwood Furniture Co., Ltd.* • Time Crown (U.K.) International Ltd., China United International Co. • Top Art Furniture • Top Goal Development Co., Top Goal Furniture Co., Ltd. (Shenzhen) • Tradewinds Furniture Ltd., Fortune Glory Industrial Ltd. (HK Ltd.) Nanhai Jiantai Woodwork Co., Ltd.* • Transworld (Zhangzhou) Furniture Co., Ltd. • Trendex Industries Ltd., Trendex Industries Ltd., (BVI), Dongguan Chunsan Wood Products Co., Ltd., Kunshan Junsen Furniture Co., Ltd.* • Triple J Enterprises Co. • Triple J Furniture (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. • Wan Bao Cheng Group Hong Kong Co., Ltd. • Wanhengton Nueevder (Furniture) Manufacture Co., Ltd., Dongguan Wanhengton Industry Co., Ltd.* • WBE Industries (Hui-Yang) Co., Ltd. • Winmost Enterprises Limited • Winny Universal, Ltd. • Xilinmen Group Co., Ltd. • Yihua Timber Industries Co., Ltd., New Classic Home Furnishings, Inc.* • Yixinglong Furniture Co., Ltd. • Yongxin Industrial (Holdings) Limited • Zhejiang Niannianhong Industrial Co., Ltd. • Zhongshan Fine Furniture • Zhongshan Gainwell Furniture Co., Ltd. • Zhongshan Golden King Furniture Industrial Co., Ltd., King Group Furniture* • Zhongshan Winly Furniture Ltd. • Zhongshan Winny Furniture Ltd. • Zhongshan Youcheng Wooden Arts & Crafts Co., Ltd. * These companies received a separate rate in the prior segment (the less-than-fair-value-investigation) of this proceeding. 1 If one of the above named companies does not qualify for a separate rate, all other exporters of wooden bedroom furniture from the PRC that have not qualified for a separate rate are deemed to be covered by this review as part of the single PRC entity of which the named exporter is a part. Sampling Section 777A(c)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), directs the Department to calculate individual dumping margins for each known exporter and producer of the subject merchandise. Where it is not practicable to examine all known producers/exporters of subject merchandise, section 777A(c)(2) of the Act permits the Department to examine either
(1)a sample of exporters, producers or types of products that is statistically valid based on the information available at the time of selection; or
(2)exporters and producers accounting for the largest volume of the subject merchandise from the exporting country that can be reasonably examined. Due to the large number of firms requested for an administrative review and the Department's experience regarding the resulting administrative burden to review each company for which a request has been made, the Department is considering exercising its authority to limit the number of respondents selected for review by sampling. *See* Section 777A(c) of the Act. Should the Department determine to sample, it will follow the procedures outlined below. The Department will 1) Issue a letter to the interested parties detailing the proposed sampling methodology and the deadline for submitting comments thereon, 2) after analyzing the parties' comments, finalize its sampling methodology, 3) notify the parties and invite them to send a representative to witness the sampling selection, 4) conduct the sampling exercise, 5) notify all interested parties of the selection outcome of the sampling exercise (selected respondents will be issued the full antidumping questionnaire), and 6) record the results in a memo to the file. Withdrawl of Request for Administrative Review For this particular administrative review, due to the time constraints imposed by our statutory deadlines, and the need to preserve the statistical validity of the sampling methodology, it is unlikely that the Department will be able to grant any extensions to the 90-day time limit for withdrawals of request for review pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). Separate Rates In proceedings involving Non-Market Economy (“NME”) countries, the Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and, thus, should be assigned a single antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the Department's policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to investigation in an NME country this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate. To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from government control of its export activities to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department analyzes each entity exporting the subject merchandise under a test arising from 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* ”), as amplified by *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China* , 59 FR 22585 (May 2,1994) (“ *Silicon Carbide* ”). In accordance with the separate-rates criteria, the Department assigns separate rates to companies in NME cases only if respondents can demonstrate the absence of both *de jure* and *de facto* government control over export activities. The Department recently modified the process by which exporters and producers may obtain separate-rate status in NME investigations. *See* Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates Practice and Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigations Involving Non-Market Economy Countries, (April 5, 2005), available on the Department's website at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf. The process now requires the submission of a separate-rate status application. Due to the large number of firms requesting an administrative review in this proceeding, the Department is requiring all firms listed above that wish to qualify for separate-rate status in this administrative review to complete, as appropriate, either a separate-rate status application or certification, as described below. If the Department determines to select the mandatory respondents through sampling in this administrative review, the Department will require all potential respondents to demonstrate their eligibility for a separate rate. The Department then will make the separate-rate determinations and allow only those respondents with separate-rate status to be included in the sampling pool. For those respondents that are determined later in this segment to have provided inaccurate information regarding their separate-rate status, the Department may apply facts available with an adverse inference. For this administrative review, in order to demonstrate separate-rate eligibility, the Department requires entities for whom a review was requested that were assigned a separate rate in the previous segment of this proceeding to certify that they continue to meet the criteria for obtaining a separate rate. The certification form will be available on the Department's website at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ on the date of publication of this **Federal Register** . In responding to the certification, please follow the “Instructions for Filing the Certification” in the Separate Rate Certification. Certifications are due to the Department no later than March 30, 2006. The deadline and requirement for submitting a Certification applies equally to NME-owned firms, wholly foreign-owned firms, and foreign sellers who purchase the subject merchandise and export it to the United States. For entities that have not previously been assigned a separate rate, to demonstrate eligibility for such, the Department requires a separate-rate status application. The separate-rate status application will be available on the Department's website at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ on the date of publication of this **Federal Register** . In responding to the separate-rate status application, refer to the instructions contained in the application. Separate-rate status applications are due to the Department no later than April 18, 2006. The deadline and requirement for submitting a separate-rate status application applies equally to NME-owned firms, wholly foreign-owned firms, and foreign sellers that purchase the subject merchandise and export it to the United States. Further, if the Department decides to select mandatory respondents by sampling, due to the time constraints imposed by our statutory deadlines and the need to preserve the statistical validity of the sampling methodology, the Department may be unable to grant any extensions for the submission of separate-rate certifications or applications. Quantity and Value Questionnaire In advance of issuance of the antidumping questionnaire, we will also be requiring all parties for whom a review is requested to respond to a Quantity and Value (“Q&V”) questionnaire, which will request information on the respective quantity and U.S. dollar sales value of all exports to the United States of wooden bedroom furniture during the period of June 24, 2004, through December 31, 2005. Additionally, in the event sampling is employed, in order to determine a sampling method that is representative of the sales under review, the Department will require that each company complete the economic characteristics section of the Q&V questionnaire. The Q&V questionnaire will be available on the Department's website at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ on the date of publication of this **Federal Register** . The responses to the Q&V questionnaire are due to the Department no later than April 7, 2006. Due to the time constraints imposed by our statutory and regulatory deadlines, and the need to preserve the statistical validity of the sampling methodology, the Department may not be able to grant any extensions for the submission of the Q&V questionnaire. In responding to the Q&V questionnaire, refer to the instructions contained in the Q&V questionnaire. Notice This notice constitutes public notification to all firms requested for review and seeking separate-rate status in this administrative review of the antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from the PRC that they must submit a separate-rate status application or certification (as appropriate) as described above, and a complete response to the Q&V questionnaire within the time limits established in this notice of initiation of administrative review in order to receive consideration for separate-rate status. In other words, the Department will not give consideration to any separate-rates certification or separate rate-status application made by parties that fail to timely respond to the Q&V questionnaire or fail to timely submit the requisite separate-rate certification or application. All information submitted by respondents in this administrative review is subject to verification. To allow the possibility for sampling and to complete this segment within the statutory time frame, the Department will be limited in its ability to extend deadlines on the above submissions. As noted above, the separate-rate certification, the separate-rate status application, and the Q&V questionnaire will be available on the Department's website at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ on the date of publication of this **Federal Register** . However, because this is the first administrative review in which the Department is applying these procedures, the Department will also issue, as a courtesy to the parties, a letter of notification of these requirements to the parties requested for review. Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective orders in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Instructions for filing such applications may be found on the Department's website at http://ia.ita.doc.gov. This initiation and notice are in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act (19 USC 1675(a)), and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i). Dated: February 28, 2006. Wendy J. Frankel, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-3172 Filed 3-6-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (C-580-837) Notice of Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from the Republic of Korea AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the countervailing duty
(CVD)order on certain cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate (CLT plate) from the Republic of Korea (Korea) for the period January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2004, the period of review (POR). For information on the net subsidy rate for the reviewed company, see the “Preliminary Results of Review” section of this notice. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. *See* the “Public Comment” section of this notice. EFFECTIVE DATE: March 7, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tipten Troidl or Eric B. Greynolds, AD/ CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 4014, 14 th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-1767 or
(202)482-6071, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On February 10, 2000, the Department published in the **Federal Register** the CVD order on CTL plate from Korea. *See Notice of Amended Final Determination: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from India and the Republic of Korea; and Notice of Countervailing Duty Orders: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from France, India, Indonesia, Italy, and the Republic of Korea* , 65 FR 6587 (February 10, 2000) ( *CTL Plate Order* ). On February 1, 2005, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of this CVD order. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review* , 70 FR 5136 (February 1, 2005). On February 28, 2005, we received a timely request for review from Dongkuk Steel Mill Co., Ltd. (DSM), a Korean producer and exporter of subject merchandise. On March 23, 2005, the Department initiated an administrative review of the CVD order on CTL plate from Korea, covering January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2004. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part* , 70 FR 14643 (March 23, 2005). On May 16, 2005, the Department issued a questionnaire to the Government of Korea
(GOK)and DSM. We received questionnaire responses from DSM and the GOK on July 15, 2005. On September 27, 2005, we issued supplemental questionnaires to the GOK and DSM; the responses were received on October 11, 2005, from the DSM and on October 17, 2005, from the GOK. On February 22, 2006, we issued a second supplemental to DSM and received a response on February 24, 2006. On October 13, 2005, the Department published in the **Federal Register** an extension of the deadline for the preliminary results. *See Notice of Extension of Time Limits for Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from Korea* , 70 FR 59722 (October 13, 2005). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), this review covers only those producers or exporters for which a review was specifically requested. The only company subject to this review is DSM. This review covers 19 programs. Scope of Order The products covered by the CVD order are certain hot-rolled carbon-quality steel:
(1)universal mill plates ( *i.e.* , flat-rolled products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 mm but not exceeding 1250 mm, and of a nominal or actual thickness of not less than 4 mm, which are cut-to-length (not in coils) and without patterns in relief), of iron or non-alloy-quality steel; and
(2)flat-rolled products, hot-rolled, of a nominal or actual thickness of 4.75 mm or more and of a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at least twice the thickness, and which are cut-to-length (not in coils). Steel products to be included in the scope of the order are of rectangular, square, circular or other shape and of rectangular or non-rectangular cross-section where such non-rectangular cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process ( *i.e.* , products which have been “worked after rolling'')--for example, products which have been beveled or rounded at the edges. Steel products that meet the noted physical characteristics that are painted, varnished or coated with plastic or other non-metallic substances are included within this scope. Also, specifically included in the scope of the order are high strength, low alloy
(HSLA)steels. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, titanium, vanadium, and molybdenum. Steel products to be included in this scope, regardless of Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) definitions, are products in which:
(1)iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements;
(2)the carbon content is two percent or less, by weight; and
(3)none of the elements listed below is equal to or exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated: 1.80 percent of manganese, or 1.50 percent of silicon, or 1.00 percent of copper, or 0.50 percent of aluminum, or 1.25 percent of chromium, or 0.30 percent of cobalt, or 0.40 percent of lead, or 1.25 percent of nickel, or 0.30 percent of tungsten, or 0.10 percent of molybdenum, or 0.10 percent of niobium, or 0.41 percent of titanium, or 0.15 percent of vanadium, or 0.15 percent zirconium. All products that meet the written physical description, and in which the chemistry quantities do not equal or exceed any one of the levels listed above, are within the scope of this order unless otherwise specifically excluded. The following products are specifically excluded from the order:
(1)products clad, plated, or coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished or coated with plastic or other non-metallic substances;
(2)SAE grades (formerly AISI grades) of series 2300 and above;
(3)products made to ASTM A710 and A736 or their proprietary equivalents;
(4)abrasion-resistant steels ( *i.e.* , USS AR 400, USS AR 500);
(5)products made to ASTM A202, A225, A514 grade S, A517 grade S, or their proprietary equivalents;
(6)ball bearing steels;
(7)tool steels; and
(8)silicon manganese steel or silicon electric steel. The merchandise subject to the order is currently classifiable under the HTSUS under subheadings: 7208.40.3030, 7208.40.3060, 7208.51.0030, 7208.51.0045, 7208.51.0060, 7208.52.0000, 7208.53.0000, 7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.13.0000, 7211.14.0030, 7211.14.0045, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, 7225.40.3050, 7225.40.7000, 7225.50.6000, 7225.99.0090, 7226.91.5000, 7226.91.7000, 7226.91.8000, 7226.99.0000. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise covered by the order is dispositive. SUBSIDIES VALUATION INFORMATION A. Allocation Period In *CTL Plate Investigation* , the Department determined that the Average Useful Life
(AUL)listed in the IRS table reasonably reflects the AUL of renewable physical assets for the firm or industry under investigation. *See Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from the Republic of Korea* , 64 FR 73176, 73177 (December 29, 1999) ( *CTL Plate Investigation* ). No interested parties have claimed that the AUL of 15 years is unreasonable. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.524(d)(2), we continue to allocate DSM's non-recurring subsidies over 15 years. B. Benchmarks for Loans and Discount Rate Benchmark for Long-Term Loans issued through 2004 During the POR, DSM had both won- and foreign currency denominated long-term loans outstanding which they received from government-owned banks, and Korean commercial banks. Based on our findings on this issue in prior investigations, we are using the following benchmarks to calculate the subsidies attributable to respondent's long-term loans obtained in the years 1992 through 2004:
(1)For foreign-currency denominated loans, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.505(a)(2)(i), our preference is to use the company-specific weighted-average foreign currency-denominated interest rates on the company's loans from foreign bank branches in Korea, foreign securities, and direct foreign loans received after April 1999. We note that these benchmarks are consistent with the decisions in *Plate in Coils* and *Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip* , in which the Department determined that the GOK did not control access to foreign currency loans from Korean branches of foreign banks. *See Final Negative Countervailing Duty Determination: Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from the Republic of Korea* , 64 FR 15530, 15533 (March 31, 1999) ( *Plate in Coils* ) and *Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from the Republic of Korea* , 64 FR 30636, 30642 (June 8, 1999) ( *Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip* ). For variable-rate loans outstanding during the POR, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.505(a)(2)(i), our preference is to use, as the benchmark, an interest rate of a lending instrument issued during the POR; and for fixed-rate loans, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.505(a)(2)(iii), our preference is to use a benchmark rate issued in the same year that the loan was issued. However, no such benchmark instruments were available, and consistent with our methodology in *2001 Sheet and Strip* we relied on the lending rates as reported by the IMF's *International Financial Statistics Yearbook* . *See Final Results and Partial Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from the Republic of Korea* , 69 FR 2113 (January 14, 2004) ( *2001 Sheet and Strip* ), and the “Subsidies Valuation Information” section of the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (2001 Sheet and Strip Decision Memorandum).
(2)For won-denominated long-term loans, we used the company-specific corporate bond rate on the company's public and private bonds. We note that this benchmark is consistent with our decision in *Plate in Coils* , 64 FR at 15531, in which we determined that the GOK did not control the Korean domestic bond market after 1991, and that the interest rate on domestic bonds may serve as an appropriate benchmark interest rate. Programs Preliminarily Determined To Be Countervailable 1. The GOK's Direction of Credit The Department determined in *H-Beams* that the Korean steel industry received a disproportionate amount of long-term financing as a result of the GOK's effective control and direction of government loans, government-directed long-term commercial loans, and government-directed foreign loans. *See Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Structural Steel Beams from the Republic of Korea* , 65 FR 41051 (July 3, 2000) ( *H-Beams* ) and the “The GOK's Direction of Credit Policies” section of the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (H-Beams Decision Memorandum). Thus, the Department determined that the GOK's direction of credit policies were specific to the Korean steel industry through 1991 pursuant to section 771(5A)(D)(iii) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The Department further determined that the provision of long-term loans provided a financial contribution and a benefit within the meaning of sections 771(5)(D)(i) and 771(5)(E)(ii) of the Act, respectively. *Id* . In other Korean CVD proceedings, the Department determined that the GOK controlled and directed lending through year 2001 1 . DSM had outstanding loans that were received prior to the 2001 period. DSM did not provide any new information that would warrant a change in our methodology, therefore we continue to find that this program provides a countervailable subsidy for loans from government-owned or controlled banks through 2001. 1 The Department determined in the following cases that the GOK controlled or directed credit to the steel industry: (1992 through 1997) *Plate in Coils* , 64 FR at 15332 and *Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip* , 64 FR at 30641,
(1998)H-Beams Decision Memorandum at “The GOK's Direction of Credit” section,
(1999)*Final Results and Partial Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from the Republic of Korea* , 67 FR 1964 (January 15, 2002) ( *1999 Sheet and Strip* ) and “The GOK's Direction of Credit” section of the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (1999 Sheet and Strip Decision Memorandum),
(2000)*Notice of Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Republic of Korea* , 67 FR 62101 (October 3, 2002) ( *Cold-Rolled from Korea* ) and “The GOK's Direction of Credit” section of the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, (Cold-Rolled Decision Memorandum), and
(2001)2001 Sheet and Strip Decision Memorandum at “The GOK's Direction of Credit” section. DSM had outstanding loans during the POR that it received from government-owned or controlled lending institutions between 2002 and 2004. We asked the GOK for information pertaining to the GOK's direction of credit policies for the period between 2002 and 2004. The GOK did not provide any additional information, stating instead that, “the Government of Korea continues to believe that the evidence demonstrates that there has been no direction of credit to the Korean steel industry. Nevertheless, the Department has consistently found that long-term loans received by Korean steel producers were the result of the Korean Government's direction, despite the Government's repeated submission of evidence to the contrary. . . Consequently, in this review, the Government will not contest the Department's findings on direction of long-term loans.” *See* July 15, 2005 GOK submission at page 11. Because the GOK withheld the requested information on its lending policies, the Department does not have the necessary information on the record to determine whether the GOK has continued its direction of credit policies from 2002 through 2004; therefore, the Department must base its determination on facts otherwise available. *See* section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act. In making determinations based on facts available, the Department may resort to adverse inferences if it finds that a respondent has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability in complying with the Department's requests for information. *See* section 776(b) of the Act. In this case, the GOK refused to supply requested information which was in its possession and which it had provided in the past. *See Plate in Coils* and *CTL Plate Investigation* . Therefore, the Department finds that the GOK did not act to the best of its ability and is employing an adverse inference in selecting from among the facts otherwise available. *See also* , “The GOK's Direction of Credit” section in the 2001 Sheet and Strip Decision Memorandum. As adverse facts available, we therefore, find that the GOK's direction of credit policies continued from 2002 through 2004. As noted above, the GOK's direction of credit policies provide a financial contribution and a benefit, and are specific pursuant to sections 771(5)(D)(i), 771(5)(E)(ii), and 771(5A)(D)(iii) of the Act, respectively. Therefore, we preliminarily find that lending from domestic banks and from government-owned banks during the 2002 and 2004 period are countervailable. Therefore, any of DSM's loans received during 2002 and 2004 from domestic banks and government-owned banks that were outstanding during the POR are countervailable. DSM received long-term fixed and variable rate loans from GOK-owned or controlled institutions that were outstanding during the POR. DSM had both won- and foreign currency denominated loans outstanding during the POR. We calculated the benefit for each as follows: Won-Denominated Loans: There is no information on the record of this review that indicates that DSM received a benefit from any special repayment terms ( *i.e.* , abnormally long grace periods or maturities, etc.) on their long-term, fixed-rate loans. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.505(c)(2), to calculate the benefit for both fixed- and variable-rate loans received from GOK-owned or controlled banks, we used the difference between the interest payments on the directed loans and the benchmark interest payments. For benchmark information see “Subsidies Valuation Information” section of this notice. We then summed the benefits from DSM's long-term fixed- and variable-rate won-denominated loans. Foreign Currency Denominated Loans: DSM did not have foreign currency denominated loans outstanding during the POR which could be used for benchmark purposes. For the foreign currency denominated loans we used the lending rates as reported by the IMF's *Financial Statistics Yearbook* . *See* “Subsidies Valuation Information” section above. To calculate the benefit, we used the difference between the interest payments that DSM made and the benchmark interest payments. As the interest payments were in foreign currencies, we multiplied the benefit amount by the exchange rate to establish a Korean won benefit. To calculate the total benefit for all directed credit, we added the benefit received from foreign currency loans in Korean won to the benefit received from won-denominated loans. Because this program is not tied to exports, we used total sales as the denominator. We then divided the total benefit by DSM's total f.o.b. sales value during the POR. On this basis, we determine the countervailable subsidy to be 0.04 percent *ad valorem* for DSM. 2. Asset Revaluation under Tax Programs under the Tax Reduction and Exemption Control Act (TERCL) Article 56(2) During the investigation, the Department determined that DSM benefitted from the revaluation of its assets pursuant to TERCL Article 56(2). *See CTL Plate Investigation* , 65 FR at 73182-73183. The Department determined that this program was specific under section 771(5A)(D)(iii) of the Act, and that a financial contribution was provided in the form of tax revenue foregone pursuant to 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act. *Id* . Moreover, the Department determined that a benefit was conferred on those companies that were able to revalue their assets under TERCL Article 56(2) because the revaluation resulted in participants paying fewer taxes than they would otherwise pay absent the program. *Id* . *See also* 771(5)(E) of the Act. In 1998 DSM revalued its assets. This revaluation was not pursuant to TERCL Article 56(2) and, according to the GOK, was consistent with Korean Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). DSM claims that the asset revaluations that were adopted in 1988 under Article 56(2) of TERCL were superseded when it revalued its assets in 1998. Hence, the 1988 asset revaluation would only affect the calculation of depreciation costs for tax years prior to 1998. However, there were certain assets that were not revalued in 1998. For those assets which were not revalued in 1998, we identified the total amount of the change in depreciation expense attributable to the 1988 asset revaluation for 2003, (the tax return submitted during the POR). We then multiplied this amount by the tax rate for 2003 to determine the benefit under this program. As this program is not tied to exports we used the benefit amount as the numerator and DSM's total sales as the denominator. Using this methodology, we preliminarily determine the countervailable subsidy from this program to be less than 0.005 percent *ad valorem* , which, according to the Department's practice, is considered not measurable and is not included in the calculation of the countervailing duty rate. *See* , *e.g.* , *Notice of Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada* , 70 FR 33088, 33091 (June 7, 2005). 3. Research and Development under Korea Research Association of New Iron and Steelmaking Technology (KANIST) (formerly KNISTRA) During the *CTL Plate Investigation* , the Department determined that the GOK, through the Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy (MOCIE) provided R&D grants to support numerous projects designed to foster the development of efficient technology for industrial development. *See CTL Plate Investigation* , 64 FR at 73185. We found this program to be specific as the grants were provided directly to respondents and their affiliates that are steel-related, and that the grants provided a financial contribution. *Id* . *see also* sections 771(5A)(D)(ii) and 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act. Moreover, pursuant to section 771(5)(E) of the Act, the Department determined that the benefit was the amount of the GOK's contribution allocated to the percentage of the company's contribution and was conferred at the time of receipt. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.524(b)(2), the Department allocates non-recurring benefits provided under a particular subsidy program to the year in which the benefits are received if the total amount approved under the subsidy program is less that 0.5 percent of the relevant sales of the firm in question, during the year in which the subsidy was approved. However, neither the GOK nor DSM provided the total approved amount nor the date of approval. Therefore, for the preliminary results, the Department performed the 0.5 percent test by dividing DSM's portion of the GOK contribution at the time of receipt by DSM's total sales at the time of receipt. Using this approach, the calculated percentages were less than 0.5 percent. Therefore, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.524(b)(2), we expensed all of the GOK grants provided under the program to the respective years or receipt. Based on this methodology, we preliminarily determined that for the GOK's contributions made in 2002 and 2003, the benefits were expensed during the years of receipt and, therefore, are not subject to this review. For those grants that were received during the 2004 POR, we preliminarily determine that they were fully expensed in the year of receipt. We, therefore, preliminarily calculate a rate of 0.01 percent *ad valorem* . Programs Preliminarily Determined Not To Be Used 1. Special Cases of Tax for Balanced Development Among Areas (TERCL Articles 41, 42, 43, 44, and 45 In past Korean cases, the Department determined that Korean manufacturing companies using facilities outside the Seoul metropolitan area benefit from programs falling under the category of special cases of tax for balanced development among areas and includes TERCL Articles 41, 42, 43, 44, and 45. DSM stated that it did not claim any tax reductions or exemptions under these articles during the POR. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that DSM did not use this program during the POR. 2. Price Discount for DSM Land Purchase at Asan Bay In the *CTL Plate Investigation* the Department determined that the GOK forewent revenue that it normally would have collected on land sold to DSM. *See CTL Plate Investigation* , 64 FR at 73184. The Department determined that the reduced fees and waived management fees constituted a countervailable subsidy. The Department determined that this program was specific under section 771(5A)(D)(iii)(I) of the Act, as it was specific to DSM. *Id* . Moreover, the Department determined that the GOK provided a financial contribution pursuant to section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act, because it forewent revenue. *Id* . Pursuant to section 771(5)(E) of the Act, the benefit was equal to the amount of fees that DSM did not pay to the GOK. While this is a non-recurring benefit, the amount of the benefit was less than 0.5 percent of DSM's total sales and was, therefore, expensed during the year of receipt which was prior to the POR of this administrative review. *Id* . DSM was also initially exempted from the acquisition tax and registration tax on its purchase of land at Asan Bay. In addition, DSM was initially exempted from payment of the education tax and special tax for rural development. These exemptions were conditioned on DSM's constructing facilities within three years of purchase. DSM claims that as it did not construct any facilities at Asan Bay within the required three years of its land purchase, and, thus, it was required in 2002 to pay the acquisition and registration taxes from which it had previously been exempted. *See* DSM's July 15, 2005, submission page 32. Based on this information, we preliminarily find that DSM did not use this program during the POR. In addition to the above programs, the next twelve programs were also not used. 3. *Requested Load Adjustment (RLA)* 4. *Local Tax Exemption on Land Outside of Metropolitan Area* 5. *Exemption of VAT on Anthracite Coal* 6. *Emergency Load Reduction Program (ELR)* 7. *Private Capital Inducement Act (PCIA)* 8. *Social Indirect Capital Investment Reserve Funds (TERCL Article 28)* 9 *Energy-Savings Facilities Investment Reserve Funds (TERCL Article 29)* 10. *Industry Promotion and Research and Development Subsidies* a. *Highly Advanced National Project Fund* b. * Steel Campaign for the 21 st Century * 11. *Export Insurance Rates Provided by the Korean Export Insurance Corporation* 12. *Export Industry Facility Loans
(EIFL)and Speciality Facility Loans* 13. *Scrap Reserve Fund* 14. *Excessive Duty Drawback* Program Previously Found Not To Be Countervailable 1. TERCL and the Restriction of Special Taxation Act
(RSTA)In *Cold-Rolled from Korea* , the Department found that tax credits under RSTA Articles 24 and 25 (TERCL Articles 25 and 26) are not countervailable for investments made after April 10, 1998. *Id* . The tax credits DSM claimed under RSTA Articles 24 and 25 were related to investments made after April 10, 1998; therefore, we preliminarily find that the tax credits claimed under RSTA Articles 24 and 25 are not countervailable. Program Preliminarily Found to be not Countervailable 1. Electricity Discounts under Direct Load Interruption
(DLI)During the POR, both Korea Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO) and Korea Energy Management Corporation (KEMCO) administered the DLI program. The DLI program was established in 2001 and governed by the Regulation of Electricity Supply Options. The GOK describes the program as a long-term demand side management strategy for curtaining electricity during peak demand periods. The DLI program is designated for general, industrial and educational customers who agree to allow the supply of at least 300 kilowatts of electricity to their plants to be interrupted during peak demand periods. By agreeing to allow the possible interruption of service to occur during July and August, a company receives a rebate from either KEPCO or KEMCO. If a company applies for and participates in the DLI program, KEPCO/KEMCO installs equipment to control the usage of electricity during the designated periods, at KEPCO/KEMCO's discretion. The company is compensated for giving up an assured electricity supply by a flat fee that is paid in July and August regardless of whether the supply is interrupted. Moreover, the participating company receives an additional fee based on the actual interruptions in the electricity supplied to it, if any. The additional fees depend on the amount of advance warning to the customer and the extent of the interruption of electricity supply. During the POR, DSM's Inchon plant used this program in conjunction with KEPCO and DSM's Pohang plant had an agreement under the program with KEMCO. DSM's Pusan plant did not use this program during the POR. KEPCO installed equipment at DSM's Inchon plant, allowing it to control the usage of electricity at KEPCO's discretion; and KEMCO installed equipment in DSM's Pohang plant, allowing KEMPCO to control the usage at the Pohang plant. During the POR, DSM received compensation from KEPCO and KEMCO in exchange for foregoing an assured electricity supply during July and August. KEPCO bases the standard electricity rates it charges DSM on a published tariff schedule. The electricity rates for the Pohang (Plate Mill and Section Mill) and Inchon plants were based on the “Industrial Service-C/High Voltage Power-B/Option III” tariff schedule. The electricity rates applicable to DSM's Pohang (Steel Center) were based on the “Industrial Service-B/High Voltage Power-A/Option II” tariff schedule. In conducting the Department's investigation of the DLI electricity program, the Department must determine whether the program is specific within the meaning of section 771(5A) of the Act. We preliminarily determine that the DLI program is not *de jure* specific within the meaning of sections 771(5A)(D)(i) and
(ii)of the Act, because
(1)it is not based on exportation
(2)it is not contingent on the use of domestic goods over imported goods, and
(3)the legislation and/or regulations do not expressly limit the access to the subsidy to an enterprise or industry, as a matter of law. As the Department is preliminarily determining that the DLI program is not *de jure* specific, it must then examine the program under section 771(5A)(D)(iii) of the Act. If the Department finds that one of the following factors exist, then the program is *de facto* specific.
(I)The actual recipients of the subsidy, whether considered on an enterprise or industry basis, are limited in number.
(II)An enterprise or industry is a predominant user of the subsidy.
(III)An enterprise or industry receives a disproportionately large amount of the subsidy.
(IV)The manner in which the authority providing the subsidy has exercised discretion in the decision to grant the subsidy indicates that an enterprise or industry is favored over others. Pursuant to section 771(5A)(D)(iii)(I) of the Act, the Department preliminarily finds that under DLI program, the actual recipients of the subsidy are not limited in number, as there are many users of the program that fall into 31 industries. *See* GOK's July 15, 2005, submission at Exhibit G-4-M. Sections 771(5A)(D)(iii)(II) and
(III)of the Act direct the Department to examine whether an enterprise or an industry is a predominant user of the subsidy or receives a disproportionately large amount of the subsidy. Although the steel industry received a greater monetary benefit from the program than did other participants, that is not determinative of whether the steel industry was a dominant user or received disproportionate benefits. For example, in *CTL Plate Investigation* , the Department found that respondent steel companies were not dominant or disproportionate users of a similar electricity program. *See CTL Plate Investigation* , 64 FR at 73186. The Department also stated that “the fact that certain companies are necessarily large consumers of electricity does not make an electricity program providing tariff reductions to those companies countervailable.” *Id* . Furthermore, the U.S. Court of International Trade
(CIT)upheld the Department's decision in *Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. United States* , 140 F.Supp 2d 1354 (CIT 2001). The CIT found that the Department's methodology was reasonable and reflected the commercial realities of the industry in question. *Id* , at 1369. Consistent with our finding in *CTL Plate Investigation* , we preliminarily determine that although the steel industry is a large consumer of electricity and, therefore, a large recipient of the tariff reduction, this does not support a conclusion that the percentage of the benefits DSM or the steel industry received were disproportionately high or that the company or the industry was a dominant user. Accordingly, we preliminarily find that the DLI program is not *de facto* specific and is, therefore, not countervailable. Preliminary Results of Review In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(i), we calculated a subsidy rate for DSM for 2004. We preliminarily determine the total estimated net countervailable subsidy rate for DSM is 0.05 percent *ad valorem* for 2004, which is *de minimis* . *See* 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1). If the final results of this review remain the same as these preliminary results, the Department intends to instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), within 15 days of publication of the final results, to liquidate shipments of certain cut-to-length carbon-quality steel from DSM, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption from January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2004, at 0.00 percent. Also, the Department intends to instruct CBP to require a new cash deposit rate for estimated countervailing duties of 0.00 percent for all shipments of certain cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate from DSM, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication of the final results of this administrative review. The Department will issue appropriate instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of the final results of this review. We will instruct CBP to continue to collect cash deposits for non-reviewed companies at the most recent company-specific or country-wide rate applicable to the company. Accordingly, the cash deposit rates that will be applied to non-reviewed companies covered by this order are those established in the most recently completed administrative proceeding. *See CTL Plate Order* , 65 FR 6589. These rates shall apply to all non-reviewed companies until a review of a company assigned these rates is requested. Public Comment Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose to parties to the proceeding any calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results within five days after the date of the public announcement of this notice. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(b)(1), interested parties may submit written arguments in response to these preliminary results. Unless otherwise indicated by the Department, case briefs must be submitted within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice, and rebuttal briefs, limited to arguments raised in case briefs, must be submitted no later than five days after the time limit for filing case briefs. *See* 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii). Parties who submit written arguments in this proceeding are requested to submit with the written argument:
(1)a statement of the issue, and
(2)a brief summary of the argument. Parties submitting case and/or rebuttal briefs are requested to provide the Department copies of the public version on disk. Case and rebuttal briefs must be served on interested parties in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f). Also, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310, within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice, interested parties may request a public hearing on arguments to be raised in the case and rebuttal briefs. Unless the Secretary specifies otherwise, the hearing, if requested, will be held two days after the date for submission of rebuttal briefs, that is, 37 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results. Representatives of parties to the proceeding may request disclosure of proprietary information under administrative protective order no later than 10 days after the representative's client or employer becomes a party to the proceeding, but in no event later than the date the case briefs, under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii), are due. The Department will publish the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of arguments made in any case or rebuttal briefs. This administrative review is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: February 28, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-3174 Filed 3-6-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Export Trade Certificate of Review ACTION: Notice of Issuance of an Export Trade Certificate of Review, Application No. 05-00002. SUMMARY: On February 21, 2006, The U.S. Department of Commerce issued an Export Trade Certificate of Review to California Tomato Export Group (“CTEG”). This notice summarizes the conduct for which certification has been granted. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Anspacher, Director, Export Trading Company Affairs, International Trade Administration, by telephone at
(202)482-5131 (this is not a toll-free number), or by E-mail at *oetca@ita.doc.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title III of the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 (15 U.S.C. sections 4001-21) authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to issue Export Trade Certificates of Review. The regulations implementing Title III are found at 15 CFR part 325 (2005). Export Trading Company Affairs (“ETCA”) is issuing this notice pursuant to 15 CFR 325.6(b), which requires the U.S. Department of Commerce to publish a summary of the certification in the **Federal Register** . Under section 305(a) of the Act and 15 CFR 325.11(a), any person aggrieved by the Secretary's determination may, within 30 days of the date of this notice, bring an action in any appropriate district court of the United States to set aside the determination on the ground that the determination is erroneous. Description of Certified Conduct Export Trade 1. Products Processed tomato products: Processed tomato products limited to tomato paste, diced tomatoes, canned food service tomatoes, canned retail tomatoes and formulated glass retail tomato products. 2. Export Trade Facilitation Services (As They Relate to the Export of Products) All export-related services, including, but not limited to, international market research, marketing, advertising, sales promotion, brokering, handling, transportation, common marking and identification, communication and processing of foreign orders to and for Members, financing, export licensing and other trade documentation, warehousing, shipping, legal assistance, foreign exchange and taking title to goods. Export Markets The Export Markets include all parts of the world except the United States (the fifty states of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands). Export Trade Activities and Methods of Operation 1. With respect to Export Trade Activities, CTEG and/or one or more of its Members may on behalf of and with the advice and assistance of its Members: a. Engage in export promotion of Products through: i. Researching, developing and conducting promotion and public relations activities to develop demand for the exported Products of the Members; ii. Seeking export promotional funds to jointly promote the Members' exports of Products in existing and new markets; iii. Developing and disseminating industry news reports (based only on publicly available information) to foreign buyers and providing publicly available information collectively to prospective export buyers regarding items such as crop inventory and structure of the U.S. processed tomato industry; and iv. Organizing and conducting joint representation to buyers for export sales at tomato industry conferences; b. Invest jointly in export infrastructure, activities, and operations, such as: i. Bill and collect from foreign buyers and provide collective accounting, tax, legal and consulting assistance and services; ii. Write contracts for export payments; iii. Develop and maintain a Web site/newsletter and marketing brochures with publicly available product and crop information for the benefit of foreign customers; iv. Purchase/rent warehouse facilities to conduct export operations; v. Engage in minor product or packaging modification activities necessary to insure compatibility of Products with the requirements of foreign markets and/or design, develop, and market generic corporate labels and packaging materials for export Products; vi. Negotiate and enter into agreements with providers of transportation services for the export of Products; vii. Consolidate CTEG shipments to Export Markets; and viii. Administer phytosanitary protocols to qualify the Products for Export Markets; c. Apply for and utilize export assistance and incentive programs, as well as arrange export financing through bank holding companies, governmental programs, and other arrangements; d. Design and develop foreign marketing strategies for CTEG's Export Markets and design, develop and market generic corporate and/or CTEG labels for export; e. Establish export sales prices, minimum export sales prices, target export sales prices and/or minimum target export sales prices, and other terms of export sale in connection with actual or potential bona fide export opportunities; f. Engage in joint bidding or other joint selling arrangements for exported Products and allocate export sales resulting from such arrangements; g. Participate in negotiations and enter into agreements with foreign buyers (including governments and private persons) regarding: i. The quantities, time periods, prices and terms and conditions in connection with actual or potential bona fide export opportunities; and ii. Non-tariff trade barriers in the Export Markets; h. Refuse to quote prices for export Products, or to market or sell export Products, to or for any customer in the export Product market, or any countries or geographical areas in the Export Markets; i. Allocate geographic areas or countries in the Export Markets and/or customers in the Export Markets among Members of the CTEG; j. Enter into exclusive and nonexclusive agreements appointing one or more export intermediaries for the sale of export Products with price, quantity, territorial and/or customer restrictions; k. Conduct meetings with Members of the Certificate and/or CTEG's manager and/or consultant present to engage in export trade activities and/or methods of operation herein described in paragraph 1, or exchange information described in paragraph 2 below; l. Enter into agreements with non-members, whether or not exclusive, to provide Export Trade Facilitation Services. Purchase Products from non-members to fulfill specific export sales obligations, provided that CTEG and/or its Members shall make such purchases only on a transaction-by-transaction basis and when the Members are unable to supply, in a timely manner, the requisite products at a price competitive under the circumstances. In no event shall a non-member be included in any deliberations concerning any export activities and operations; and m. Advise and cooperate with the United States and foreign governments in: i. Establishing procedures regulating the export of Products, and ii. Fulfilling the phytosanitary and/or funding requirements imposed by foreign governments for export of Products. 2. CTEG may exchange the following information with and among its Members: a. Information about export sales and marketing efforts, selling strategies, and contract and spot pricing in the Export Markets; b. Information regarding Product demand in the Export Markets; c. Information about the customary terms of sales in Export Markets; d. Information about export prices and availability of competitor's Products for sale in the Export Markets; e. Specifications for Products by customers in the Export Markets; f. Information about terms, conditions, and specifications of contracts relating to actual or potential bona fide export opportunities in the Export Markets to be considered and/or bid on by CTEG and its Members; g. Information about the price, quality, source, and delivery dates of Products available for export by CTEG Members; h. Information about joint bidding and/or selling arrangements for Export Markets; i. Information about expenses specific to exporting to and within the Export Markets, sales, and distribution networks established by CTEG and/or its Members in the Export Markets; j. Information about export customer credit terms and credit history; k. Information about United States and foreign legislation and regulations, including federal marketing order programs, affecting sales to the Export Markets; l. Information about joint bidding or selling arrangements for the Export Markets and allocations of sales resulting from such arrangements among the Members; m. Information about the expenses specific to exporting to and within the Export Markets, including without limitation, transportation, trans- or intermodal shipments, insurance, inland freight to port, port storage, commissions, export sales, documentation, financing, customs duties and taxes; n. Information about CTEG's and/or its Members' export operations, including without limitation, sales and distribution networks established by CTEG and/or its Members in the Export Markets, and prior export sales by Members (including export price information); o. Publicly available information regarding the industry-wide forecasted quantity of Products secured through contracts for upcoming seasons; and p. Relevant information about non-domestic tomato crop supply, including planting intentions, growing conditions, weather, disease, transportation, consumer trends, health news, regulatory impacts and information that impacts on the availability, conditions and costs to foreign buyers. Definition “Export Intermediary” means a person who acts as a distributor, sales representative, sales or marketing agent, broker, or who performs similar functions including providing or arranging for the provision of Export Trade Facilitation Services. Members (Within the Meaning of Section 325.2(1) of the Regulations) The Members are Ingomar Packing Company, Los Banos, California; Los Gatos Tomato Products, Huron, California; and SK Foods, Lemoore, California. Protection Provided by Certificate This Certificate protects CTEG, its Members, and directors, officers, and employees acting on behalf of CTEG and its Members from private treble damage actions and government criminal and civil suits under U.S. federal and state antitrust laws for the export conduct specified in the Certificate and carried out during its effective period in compliance with its terms and conditions. Effective Period of Certificate This Certificate continues in effect from the effective date indicated below until it is relinquished, modified, or revoked as provided in the Act and the Regulations. Other Conduct Nothing in this Certificate prohibits CTEG and Members from engaging in conduct not specified in this Certificate, but such conduct is subject to the normal application of U.S. antitrust laws. Disclaimer The issuance of this Certificate of Review to CTEG by the Secretary of Commerce with the concurrence of the Attorney General under the provisions of the Act does not constitute, explicitly or implicitly, an endorsement or opinion by the Secretary of Commerce or by the Attorney General concerning either
(a)the viability or quality of the business plans of CTEG or Members or
(b)the legality of such business plans of CTEG or its Members under the laws of the United States (other than as provided in the Act) or under the laws of any foreign country. A copy of the certificate will be kept in the International Trade Administration's Freedom of Information Records Inspection Facility, Room 4100, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. Dated: March 1, 2006. Jeffrey Anspacher, Director, Export Trading Company Affairs. [FR Doc. E6-3147 Filed 3-6-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DR-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-890] Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's Republic of China; Initiation of New Shipper Reviews AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: March 7, 2006. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the “Department”) has determined that three requests for a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”), received by January 31, 2006, meet the statutory and regulatory requirements for initiation. The period of review (“POR”) of these new shipper reviews is June 24, 2004, through December 31, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eugene Degnan or Robert Bolling at
(202)482-0414 or
(202)482-3434, 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 wooden bedroom furniture from the PRC was published on January 4, 2005 (70 FR 329). On January 31, 2006, we received new shipper review requests from Dongguan Huanghouse Furniture Co., Ltd. (“Huanghouse”), Senyuan Furniture Group (“Senyuan”), and Tianjin First Wood Co., Ltd. (“First Wood”). All of these companies certified that they are both the producers and exporters of the subject merchandise upon which the respective requests for a new shipper review are based. Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(i)(I) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the “Act”), and 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(i), Huanghouse, Senyuan, and First Wood certified that they did not export wooden bedroom furniture to the United States during the period of investigation (“POI”). In addition, pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(i)(II) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(A), Huanghouse, Senyuan, and First Wood certified that, since the initiation of the investigation, they have never been affiliated with any exporter or producer who exported wooden bedroom furniture 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 its export activities were not controlled by the central government of the PRC. In addition to the certifications described above, the companies submitted documentation establishing the following:
(1)The date on which they first shipped wooden bedroom furniture for export to the United States;
(2)the volume of their first shipment and the volume of subsequent shipments (if applicable); and
(3)the date of their first sale to an unaffiliated customer in the United States. Initiation of New Shipper Reviews Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(d)(1), we find that the requests submitted by Huanghouse, Senyuan, and First Wood meet the threshold requirements for initiation of a new shipper review for shipments of wooden bedroom furniture from the PRC produced and exported by these companies. The POR is June 24, 2004, through December 31, 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 Huanghouse, Senyuan, and First Wood have certified that they produced and exported the wooden bedroom furniture on which they based their respective requests for a new shipper review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection 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 wooden bedroom furniture that was both produced and exported by each company until the completion of the new shipper reviews, pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act. Interested parties that need access to proprietary information in these new shipper reviews 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: February 28, 2006. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. 06-2138 Filed 3-6-06; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 19
Traces to 19 documents
CFR
5 references not yet in our index
  • 343 F. Supp. 2d 1344
  • 337 F.3d 1373
  • 140 F. Supp. 2d 1354
  • 15 USC 4001-21
  • 15 CFR 325
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice of Issuance of an Export Trade Certificate of Review, Application No
C.F.R.§ 351.301
C.F.R.§ 351.213
C.F.R.§ 351.401
C.F.R.§ 351.308
C.F.R.§ 351.310
C.F.R.§ 351.309
C.F.R.§ 351.106
C.F.R.§ 351.212
C.F.R.§ 351.402
F. Supp.343 F. Supp. 2d 1344
F. App'x337 F.3d 1373
F. Supp.140 F. Supp. 2d 1354
Cites 24 · 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.