Notices. Extension of request for nominations
14,510 words·~66 min read·
/register/2006/03/09/06-2253·A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
BILLING CODE 3510-DT-M DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-427-801, A-428-801, A-475-801, A-588-804, A-412-801] Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to requests from interested parties, the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting administrative reviews of the antidumping duty orders on ball bearings and parts thereof from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom.
The merchandise covered by these orders are ball bearings and parts thereof (ball bearings) from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom. The reviews cover 14 manufacturers/exporters. The period of review is May 1, 2004, through April 30, 2005. We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below normal value by various companies subject to these reviews. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of administrative reviews, we will instruct U.S.
Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results. Parties who submit comments in these reviews are requested to submit with each argument
(1)a statement of the issue and
(2)a brief summary of the argument. EFFECTIVE DATE: March 9, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janis Kalnins or Richard Rimlinger , AD/CVD Operations, Office 5, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-1392 and
(202)482-4477, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On May 15, 1989, the Department published in the **Federal Register** (54 FR 20900) the antidumping duty orders on ball bearings from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom. On June 30, 2005, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), we published a notice of initiation of administrative reviews of these orders (70 FR 37749). On January 27, 2006, we extended the due date for the completion of these preliminary results of reviews from January 31, 2006, to March 2, 2006 (71 FR 4568). The list of companies for which we have conducted administrative reviews of the various orders on ball bearings are as follows: France: * SKF France S.A. or Sarma (SKF France) * SNR Roulements or SNR Europe
(SNR)Germany: * Gebrüder Reinfurt GmbH & Co., KG
(GRW)* INA-Schaeffler KG; INA Vermogensverwaltungsgesellschaft GmbH; INA Holding Schaeffler KG; FAG Kugelfischer Georg-Schaefer AG; FAG Automobiltechnik AG; FAG OEM und Handel AG; FAG Komponenten AG; FAG Aircraft/Super Precision Bearings GmbH; FAG Industrial Bearings AG; FAG Sales Europe GmbH; FAG International Sales and Service GmbH (collectively INA/FAG) * SKF GmbH (SKF Germany) Italy: * FAG Italia S.p.A.; FAG Automobiltechnik AG; FAG OEM und Handel AG (collectively FAG Italy) * SKF Industrie S.p.A.; SKF RIV-SKF Officine di Villas Perosa S.p.A.; RFT S.p.A.; OMVP S.p.A. (collectively SKF Italy) Japan: * Koyo Seiko Co., Ltd.
(Koyo)1 1 On February 3, 2006, Koyo filed a request for a changed-circumstances review of the order on ball bearings from Japan with the Department. As Koyo explained, the request for such a review is precipitated by the merger of Koyo and an affiliated company that has resulted in the creation of JTEKT Corporation. Koyo requests that JTEKT Corporation be recognized as its successor-in-interest for antidumping-duty purposes. The Department is considering the request for the review separately from the ongoing administrative review. * NSK Ltd.
(NSK)* NTN Corporation
(NTN)* Nachi-Fujikoshi Corporation (Nachi) * Nippon Pillow Block Co., Ltd.
(NPB)* Sapporo Precision Inc. (Sapporo) United Kingdom: * The Barden Corporation
(UK)Limited; FAG (U.K.) Limited (collectively Barden/FAG) Scope of Orders The products covered by the orders are ball bearings (other than tapered roller bearings) and parts thereof. These products include all antifriction bearings that employ balls as the rolling element. Imports of these products are classified under the following categories: antifriction balls, ball bearings with integral shafts, ball bearings (including radial ball bearings) and parts thereof, and housed or mounted ball bearing units and parts thereof. Imports of these products are classified under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedules (HTSUS) subheadings: 3926.90.45, 4016.93.00, 4016.93.10, 4016.93.50, 6909.19.5010, 8431.20.00, 8431.39.0010, 8482.10.10, 8482.10.50, 8482.80.00, 8482.91.00, 8482.99.05, 8482.99.2580, 8482.99.35, 8482.99.6595, 8483.20.40, 8483.20.80, 8483.50.8040, 8483.50.90, 8483.90.20, 8483.90.30, 8483.90.70, 8708.50.50, 8708.60.50, 8708.60.80, 8708.70.6060, 8708.70.8050, 8708.93.30, 8708.93.5000, 8708.93.6000, 8708.93.75, 8708.99.06, 8708.99.31, 8708.99.4960, 8708.99.50, 8708.99.5800, 8708.99.8080, 8803.10.00, 8803.20.00, 8803.30.00, 8803.90.30, and 8803.90.90. Although the HTSUS item numbers above are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written descriptions of the scope of these orders remain dispositive. The size or precision grade of a bearing does not influence whether the bearing is covered by one of the orders. These orders cover all the subject bearings and parts thereof (inner race, outer race, cage, rollers, balls, seals, shields, etc.) outlined above with certain limitations. With regard to finished parts, all such parts are included in the scope of the these orders. For unfinished parts, such parts are included if they have been heat-treated or heat treatment is not required to be performed on the part. Thus, the only unfinished parts that are not covered by these orders are those that will be subject to heat treatment after importation. The ultimate application of a bearing also does not influence whether the bearing is covered by the orders. Bearings designed for highly specialized applications are not excluded. Any of the subject bearings, regardless of whether they may ultimately be utilized in aircraft, automobiles, or other equipment, are within the scope of these orders. For a listing of scope determinations which pertain to the orders, see the Scope Determination Memorandum (Scope Memorandum) from the Antifriction Bearings Team to Laurie Parkhill, dated March 2, 2006. The Scope Memorandum is on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU), main commerce building, room B-099, in the General Issues record (A-100-001) for the 04/05 reviews. Verification As provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), we have verified information provided by certain respondents using standard verification procedures, including on-site inspection of the manufacturers' facilities, the examination of relevant sales and financial records, and the selection of original documentation containing relevant information. Specifically, we conducted verifications of NTN, Nachi, FAG Italy, SNR, NSK, SKF Germany, SKF Italy, SKF France, and Koyo. Our verification results are outlined in the public versions of the verification reports, which are on file in the CRU, room B-099. Use of Adverse Facts Available Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party withholds information that has been requested by the Department, fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form or manner requested, significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping statute, or provides such information but the information cannot be verified, the Department shall use, subject to sections 782(d) and
(e)of the Act, facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination. Pursuant to section 782(e) of the Act, the Department shall not decline to consider submitted information if that information is necessary to the determination but does not meet all of the requirements established by the Department provided that all of the following requirements are met:
(1)the information is submitted by the established deadline;
(2)the information can be verified;
(3)the information is not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching the applicable determination;
(4)the interested party has demonstrated that it acted to the best of its ability; and
(5)the information can be used without undue difficulties. In addition, section 776(b) of the Act provides that, if the Department finds that an interested party “has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information,” the Department may use information that is adverse to the interests of that party as facts otherwise available. We found at verification that Nachi reported the physical characteristics for a number of models incorrectly. See Nachi Verification Report dated February 9, 2006, at pages 4-5. As explained in the verification report, we found that Nachi reported incorrect physical characteristics for 16 of the 40 models we examined at verification. Each time we selected additional models for verification, we found additional models with incorrectly reported physical characteristics. Because of this, we must conclude that the errors were systemic in nature. Accordingly, we determine that it is appropriate to use the facts available to account for the fact that Nachi misreported its physical characteristics for a substantial proportion of its models. Because the correct physical characteristics appeared on Nachi's technical drawings and in its catalogs that we examined at verification, we find that Nachi's failure to report the critical information accurately indicates that the company did not act to the best of its ability in reporting the information. Moreover, because Nachi did not act to the best of its ability in reporting these characteristics, it is appropriate to use adverse inferences in addressing the errors in the characteristics Nachi reported in accordance with section 776(b) of the Act. The matching of U.S. and home-market models is at the core of our antidumping analysis because it determines which sales we use as the basis for normal value. In order to conduct an accurate model match we must be satisfied that the physical characteristics the respondent reports for its sales are accurate. Because we found at verification that Nachi reported incorrect physical characteristics for a substantial proportion of its models, however, we are not satisfied that we can make accurate comparisons of similar merchandise using Nachi's reported physical characteristics. Moreover, we cannot be certain that, for any of the U.S. sales for which we would not find a match using Nachi's reported physical characteristics, we would not find a similar match had Nachi reported its physical characteristics correctly. Accordingly, we can have no confidence in the normal values we would identify (or, in the case of constructed value, do not identify) using Nachi's reported physical characteristics and, therefore, we cannot calculate accurate dumping margins for those U.S. sales. Because we identify matches of identical U.S. and home-market models on the basis of control number rather than physical characteristics, the verification finding has no impact on the identical matches we found for Nachi. As a result, we can calculate margins for Nachi's U.S. sales for which we found an identical product sold in the home market. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that it is appropriate to limit the application of adverse facts available to non-identical ( *i.e.* , similar and constructed-value) matches. As adverse facts available, we have selected the highest margin we have determined for Nachi in any previous segment of this proceeding and applied this rate to all U.S. sales for which we found no identical match. This rate is 48.69 percent which we established for Nachi in *Final Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof from Japan* , 54 FR 19101 (May 3, 1989). Furthermore, as required by section 776(c) of the Act, we were able to corroborate this margin with respect to Nachi. For a detailed explanation of how we corroborated this margin with respect to Nachi, see the March 2, 2006, analysis memorandum for Nachi for the preliminary results. Export Price and Constructed Export Price For the price to the United States, we used export price
(EP)or constructed export price
(CEP)as defined in sections 772(a) and
(b)of the Act, as appropriate. Due to the extremely large volume of transactions that occurred during the period of review and the resulting administrative burden involved in calculating individual margins for all of these transactions, we sampled CEP sales in accordance with section 777A of the Act. When a firm made more than 10,000 CEP sales transactions to the United States of merchandise subject to a particular order, we reviewed CEP sales that occurred during sample weeks. We selected one week from each two-month period in the review period, for a total of six weeks, and analyzed each transaction made in those six weeks. The sample weeks are as follows: May 30 - June 5, 2004; August 22 - August 28, 2004; September 5 - September 11, 2004; October 31 - November 6, 2004; February 6 - February 12, 2005; February 27 - March 5, 2005. We reviewed all EP sales transactions the respondents made during the period of review. We calculated EP and CEP based on the packed F.O.B., C.I.F., or delivered price to unaffiliated purchasers in, or for exportation to, the United States. We made deductions, as appropriate, for discounts and rebates. We also made deductions for any movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act and the Statement of Administrative Action
(SAA)accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), H. Doc. No. 103-316 at 823-824, we calculated the CEP by deducting selling expenses associated with economic activities occurring in the United States, which includes commissions, direct selling expenses, and U.S. repacking expenses. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we also deducted those indirect selling expenses associated with economic activities occurring in the United States and the profit allocated to expenses deducted under section 772(d)(1) in accordance with sections 772(d)(3) and 772(f) of the Act. In accordance with section 772(f) of the Act, we computed profit based on the total revenues realized on sales in both the U.S. and home markets, less all expenses associated with those sales. We then allocated profit to expenses incurred with respect to U.S. economic activity based on the ratio of total U.S. expenses to total expenses for both the U.S. and home markets. When appropriate, in accordance with section 772(d)(2) of the Act, we also deducted the cost of any further manufacture or assembly except where we applied the special rule provided in section 772(e) of the Act. Finally, we made an adjustment for profit allocated to these expenses in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act. With respect to subject merchandise to which value was added in the United States prior to sale to unaffiliated U.S. customers, *e.g.* , parts of bearings that were imported by U.S. affiliates of foreign exporters and then further processed into other products which were then sold to unaffiliated parties, we determined that the special rule for merchandise with value added after importation under section 772(e) of the Act applied to all firms that added value in the United States except NPB. Section 772(e) of the Act provides that, when the subject merchandise is imported by an affiliated person and the value added in the United States by the affiliated person is likely to exceed substantially the value of the subject merchandise, we shall determine the CEP for such merchandise using the price of identical or other subject merchandise sold by the exporter or producer to an unaffiliated customer if there is a sufficient quantity of sales to provide a reasonable basis for comparison and we determine that the use of such sales is appropriate. If there is not a sufficient quantity of such sales or if we determine that using the price of identical or other subject merchandise is not appropriate, we may use any other reasonable basis to determine the CEP. To determine whether the value added is likely to exceed substantially the value of the subject merchandise, we estimated the value added based on the difference between the averages of the prices charged to the first unaffiliated purchaser for the merchandise as sold in the United States and the averages of the prices paid for the subject merchandise by the affiliated purchaser. Based on this analysis, we determined that the estimated value added in the United States by all further-manufacturing firms, except NPB, accounted for at least 65 percent of the price charged to the first unaffiliated customer for the merchandise as sold in the United States. *See* 19 CFR 351.402(c) for an explanation of our practice on this issue. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that for these firms the value added is likely to exceed substantially the value of the subject merchandise. Also, for these firms, we determine that there was a sufficient quantity of sales remaining to provide a reasonable basis for comparison and that the use of these sales is appropriate. See analysis memoranda for Barden/FAG, INA/FAG, Koyo, Nachi, NSK, NTN, SKF France, SKF Germany, and SKF Italy, dated March 2, 2006. Accordingly, for purposes of determining dumping margins for the sales subject to the special rule, we have used the weighted-average dumping margins calculated on sales of identical or other subject merchandise sold to unaffiliated persons. For NPB, we determined that the special rule did not apply because the value added in the United States did not exceed substantially the value of the subject merchandise. Consequently, this firm submitted complete responses to our further-manufacturing questionnaire which included the costs of the further processing performed by its U.S. affiliates. Because the majority of its products sold in the United States were further processed, we analyzed all sales. No other adjustments to EP or CEP were claimed or allowed. Nachi reported certain sales to U.S. customers as EP sales. We treated the sales in question as CEP sales. Due to the business-proprietary nature of this matter see our preliminary analysis memorandum for Nachi dated March 2, 2006, for further details. For NTN, we calculated a direct selling expense for NTN's EP sales, attributable to NTN's U.S. affiliate's provision of technical support and other selling-support functions to NTN's EP customer. We identified and extracted the value of these expenses, captured in NTN's calculation of indirect selling expenses for CEP sales, and allocated this value over NTN's EP sales to this customer. In addition, we revised NTN's calculation of inventory carrying costs incurred in the home market for NTN's EP and CEP sales by applying the inventory carrying cost factor calculated by NTN to the total cost of manufacture value it reported for each model instead of the gross unit price of each sale in the U.S. sales list. For NTN we recalculated indirect selling expenses incurred in the home market for NTN's CEP sales because we found that certain expenses, such as welfare, the reserve for retirement, and the reserve for bonuses, were not captured by NTN in its calculation of indirect selling expenses. Also, NTN reported commissions in the home market but did not report indirect selling expenses for its EP sales. In order to apply the calculation of a commission offset, where applicable, we calculated indirect selling expenses incurred in the home market for NTN's EP sales using the information NTN provided with respect to its calculation of indirect selling expenses for NTN's CEP sales. In addition, we corrected certain product characteristics with respect to certain United States models which NTN had reported incorrectly in its sales databases. Further, we corrected reported errors in the sales quantities and billing adjustments for a number of NTN's reported CEP sales. We deducted early payment discounts which NTN did not report with respect to NTN's CEP sales to certain U.S. customers. We corrected a rebate factor, which NTN misreported, with respect to NTN's CEP sales to a certain U.S. customer. We included unreported terminal charges associated with NTN's air shipments to the United States in the calculation of our deduction for ocean and air freight expenses. We recalculated NTN's re-packing expenses for NTN's reported CEP sales because we found the methodology used by NTN to allocate such expenses contained a number of distortions and did not distinguish between the packing requirement for different customer categories. Finally, we have determined that NTN's allocation of international and inland freight expenses based on the value of the shipped product causes substantial distortions and could otherwise mask dumping. See the Memorandum to Laurie Parkhill entitled “Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof; Examination of Allocation Basis Used in the Calculation of Freight Expenses,” dated March 2, 2006. We recalculated the expenses in question for NTN using a weight-based allocation for purposes of this administrative review. With respect to other respondents in these administrative reviews that used a value-based methodology to allocate freight expenses, we recognize that no longer accepting value-based freight-expense allocation methodologies is a significant change in practice. Moreover, we do not have all of the data ( *e.g.* , the per-unit weight of the bearings) we would need to reallocate these respondents' freight expenses. Therefore, we have not reallocated other respondents' freight expenses in the current reviews. For future reviews of these orders, we will not accept value-based methodologies for the allocation of inland freight or international freight expenses except in situations where the freight charges are, in fact, incurred on a value, not weight or volume, basis ( *e.g.* , marine insurance). Home-Market Sales Based on a comparison of the aggregate quantity of home-market and U.S. sales and absent any information that a particular market situation in the exporting country did not permit a proper comparison, we determined that the quantity of foreign like product sold by all respondents in the exporting country was sufficient to permit a proper comparison with the sales of the subject merchandise to the United States, pursuant to section 773(a) of the Act. Each company's quantity of sales in its home market was greater than five percent of its sales to the U.S. market. Therefore, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based normal value on the prices at which the foreign like product was first sold for consumption in the exporting country in the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of trade and, to the extent practicable, at the same level of trade as the EP or CEP sales. Due to the extremely large number of transactions that occurred during the period of review and the resulting administrative burden involved in examining all of these transactions, we sampled sales to calculate normal value in accordance with section 777A of the Act. When a firm had more than 10,000 home-market sales transactions on a country-specific basis, we used sales in sample months that corresponded to the sample weeks which we selected for U.S. CEP sales, sales in a month prior to the period of review, and sales in the month following the period of review. The sample months were February, June, August, September, and November of 2004 and February, March, and May of 2005. The Department may calculate normal value based on a sale to an affiliated party only if it is satisfied that the price to the affiliated party is comparable to the price at which sales are made to parties not affiliated with the exporter or producer, *i.e.* , sales at arm's-length prices. See 19 CFR 351.403(c). We excluded sales to affiliated customers for consumption in the home market that we determined not to be at arm's-length prices from our analysis. To test whether these sales were made at arm's-length prices, the Department compared the prices of sales of comparable merchandise to affiliated and unaffiliated customers, net of all rebates, movement charges, direct selling expenses, and packing. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.403(c) and in accordance with our practice, when the prices charged to an affiliated party were, on average, between 98 and 102 percent of the prices charged to unaffiliated parties for merchandise comparable to that sold to the affiliated party, we determined that the sales to the affiliated party were at arm's-length prices. See *Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in the Ordinary Course of Trade* , 67 FR 69186 (November 15, 2002). We included in our calculation of normal value those sales to affiliated parties that were made at arm's-length prices. Cost of Production We disregarded below-cost sales in accordance with section 773(b) of the Act in the last completed review with respect to ball bearings sold by Barden/FAG, FAG Italy, GRW, INA/FAG, Koyo, NSK, NPB, Nachi, NTN, SKF France, SKF Germany, SKF Italy, and SNR. See *Antifriction Bearings and Parts Thereof from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Singapore, and the United Kingdom: Final Results Of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum* , 70 FR 54711 (September 16, 2005) ( *AFBs 15* ). Therefore, we have reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of the foreign like product under consideration for the determination of normal value in these reviews may have been made at prices below the cost of production
(COP)as provided by section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we conducted COP investigations of sales by these firms in the home market. In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the COP based on the sum of the costs of materials and fabrication employed in producing the foreign like product, the selling, general, and administrative (SG&A) expenses, and all costs and expenses incidental to packing the merchandise. In our COP analysis, we used the home-market sales and COP information provided by each respondent in its questionnaire responses. After calculating the COP, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we tested whether home-market sales of the foreign like product were made at prices below the COP within an extended period of time in substantial quantities and whether such prices permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. We compared model-specific COPs to the reported home-market prices less any applicable movement charges, discounts, and rebates. Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, when less than 20 percent of a respondent's sales of a given product were at prices less than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because the below-cost sales were not made in substantial quantities within an extended period of time. When 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a given product during the period of review were at prices less than the COP, we disregarded the below-cost sales because they were made in substantial quantities within an extended period of time pursuant to sections 773(b)(2)(B) and
(C)of the Act and because, based on comparisons of prices to weighted-average COPs for the period of review, we determined that these sales were at prices which would not permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. See the Department's analysis memoranda for Barden/FAG, FAG Italy, GRW, INA/FAG, Koyo, NSK, NPB, Nachi, NTN, SKF France, SKF Germany, SKF Italy, and SNR, dated March 2, 2006. Based on this test, we disregarded below-cost sales with respect to all of the above-mentioned companies. Model-Match Methodology We compared U.S. sales with sales of the foreign like product in the home market. Specifically, in making our comparisons, we used the following methodology. If an identical home-market model was reported, we made comparisons to weighted-average home-market prices that were based on all sales which passed the COP test of the identical product during the relevant month. We calculated the weighted-average home-market prices on a level of trade-specific basis. If there were no contemporaneous sales of an identical model, we identified the most similar home-market model. To determine the most similar model, we limited our examination to models sold in the home market that had the same bearing design, load direction, number of rows, and precision grade. Next, we calculated the sum of the deviations (expressed as a percentage of the value of the U.S. characteristics) of the inner diameter, outer diameter, width, and load rating for each potential home-market match and selected the bearing with the smallest sum of the deviations. If two or more bearings had the same sum of the deviations, we selected the model that was sold at the same level of trade as the U.S. sale and was the closest contemporaneous sale to the U.S. sale. If two or more models were sold at the same level of trade and were sold equally contemporaneously, we selected the model that had the smallest difference-in-merchandise adjustment. Finally, if no bearing sold in the home market had a sum of the deviations that was less than 40 percent, we concluded that no appropriate comparison existed in the home market and we used the constructed value of the U.S. model as normal value. For a full discussion of the model-match methodology for these reviews, see *AFBs 15* . Normal Value Home-market prices were based on the packed, ex-factory, or delivered prices to affiliated or unaffiliated purchasers. When applicable, we made adjustments for differences in packing and for movement expenses in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and
(B)of the Act. We also made adjustments for differences in cost attributable to differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411 and for differences in circumstances of sale in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. For comparisons to EP, we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments by deducting home-market direct selling expenses from and adding U.S. direct selling expenses to normal value. For comparisons to CEP, we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments by deducting home-market direct selling expenses from normal value. We also made adjustments, when applicable, for home-market indirect selling expenses to offset U.S. commissions in EP and CEP calculations. For NTN we did not accept its claim for an elimination of so-called sample sales and high-profit sales in the home market from the calculation of normal value because NTN did not demonstrate that these sales were made outside the ordinary course of trade. We corrected certain product characteristics with respect to certain home-market models which NTN had reported incorrectly in its sales databases. We recalculated NTN's packing expenses for reported home-market sales because we found the methodology it used to allocate such expenses contained a number of distortions and did not distinguish between packing requirements for different customer categories. Further, we revised NTN's calculation of inventory carrying costs incurred in the home market for its home-market sales by applying the inventory carrying cost factor it calculated to the total cost of manufacture value it reported for each model instead of the gross unit price of each sale in the home market. We revised the financial-expenses factor with respect to COP and constructed-value information NTN reported to capture foreign-exchange gains/losses on transactions and foreign-exchange gains/losses on translations of asset and liability accounts stated in foreign currencies into domestic currency as well as hedging expenses associated with the foreign-exchange and currency options contracts NTN used. Further, based on our findings at verification and consistent with *AFBs 15* , we denied NTN's claim for other discounts in the home market that NTN granted on a model-specific basis to certain customers for specific periods but allocated incorrectly over sales of all models to the same customers and a similar claim for which NTN had allocated its discounts over sales that had occurred outside the period of time for which NTN had granted the adjustment to such customers. Finally, as discussed above with respect to NTN's U.S. sales, we re-calculated NTN's inland-freight expenses to reflect the basis on which they were incurred ( *i.e.* , weight basis). For NPB, we recalculated credit expenses in the home market because NPB discounted some of the promissory notes it received for its home-market sales and reported the average discount rate the company paid with respect to these transactions. For Koyo and consistent with *AFBs 15* at Comment 11, we denied certain negative home-market billing adjustments that Koyo granted on a model-specific basis but reported on a broad customer-specific basis because we found that the allocation of these adjustments resulted in its allocation over sales of models for which Koyo had not granted an adjustment and over sales that had occurred outside the period of time for which Koyo had granted the adjustment to the customer. For a more detailed discussion of the individual changes, please see the Department's company-specific analysis memorandum dated March 2, 2006. We have also examined the business relationship between Koyo and one of its home- market affiliated suppliers and have determined that it is appropriate to collapse these companies as one entity. Our decision to collapse these companies was based on our conclusion that a potential exists for Koyo to manipulate prices and production. Due to the business-proprietary nature of this matter, see the decision memorandum to Laurie Parkhill regarding Koyo and its affiliated supplier, dated March 2, 2006, for further details. We will be obtaining additional information from Koyo to implement this decision fully prior to our final results of these administrative reviews. In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based normal value, to the extent practicable, on sales at the same level of trade as the EP or CEP. If normal value was calculated at a different level of trade, we made an adjustment, if appropriate and if possible, in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. See *Level of Trade* section below. Constructed Value In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we used constructed value as the basis for normal value when there were no usable sales of the foreign like product in the comparison market. We calculated constructed value in accordance with section 773(e) of the Act. We included the cost of materials and fabrication, SG&A expenses, U.S. packing expenses, and profit in the calculation of constructed value. In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based SG&A expenses and profit on the amounts incurred and realized by each respondent in connection with the production and sale of the foreign like product in the ordinary course of trade for consumption in the home market. When appropriate, we made adjustments to constructed value in accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act, 19 CFR 351.410, and 19 CFR 351.412 for circumstance-of-sale differences and level-of-trade differences. For comparisons to EP, we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments by deducting home-market direct selling expenses from and adding U.S. direct selling expenses to constructed value. For comparisons to CEP, we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments by deducting home-market direct selling expenses from constructed value. We also made adjustments, when applicable, for home-market indirect selling expenses to offset U.S. commissions in EP and CEP comparisons. When possible, we calculated constructed value at the same level of trade as the EP or CEP. If constructed value was calculated at a different level of trade, we made an adjustment, if appropriate and if possible, in accordance with sections 773(a)(7) and
(8)of the Act. Level of Trade To the extent practicable, we determined normal value for sales at the same level of trade as the U.S. sales (either EP or CEP). When there were no sales at the same level of trade, we compared U.S. sales to home-market sales at a different level of trade. The normal-value level of trade is that of the starting-price sales in the home market. When normal value is based on constructed value, the level of trade is that of the sales from which we derived SG&A and profit.To determine whether home-market sales are at a different level of trade than U.S. sales, we examined stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated customer. If the comparison-market sales were at a different level of trade from that of a U.S. sale and the difference affected price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the sales on which normal value is based and comparison-market sales at the level of trade of the export transaction, we made a level-of-trade adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. See, *e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa* , 62 FR 61731, 61732 (November 19, 1997). Where the respondent reported no home-market levels of trade that were equivalent to the CEP level of trade and where the CEP level of trade was at a less advanced stage than any of the home-market levels of trade, we were unable to determine a level-of-trade adjustment based on the respondent's home-market sales of the foreign like product. Furthermore, we have no other information that provides an appropriate basis for determining a level-of-trade adjustment. For respondents' CEP sales, to the extent possible, we determined normal value at the same level of trade as the U.S. sale to the unaffiliated customer and made a CEP-offset adjustment in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. The CEP-offset adjustment to normal value was subject to the offset cap, calculated as the sum of home-market indirect selling expenses up to the amount of U.S. indirect selling expenses deducted from CEP (or, if there were no home-market commissions, the sum of U.S. indirect selling expenses and U.S. commissions). For a company-specific description of our level-of-trade analyses for these preliminary results, see Memorandum to Laurie Parkhill from Antifriction Bearings Team Regarding Level of Trade, dated March 2, 2006, on file in the CRU, room B-099. Preliminary Results of Reviews As a result of our reviews, we preliminarily determine that the following percentage weighted-average dumping margins on ball bearings and parts thereof exist for the period May 1, 2004, through April 30, 2005: FRANCE Company Margin (percent) SKF France 12.56 SNR 12.79 GERMANY Company Margin FAG/INA 4.03 GRW 1.21 SKF Germany 7.35 ITALY Company Margin FAG Italy 2.52 SKF Italy 16.04 JAPAN Company Margin Koyo 17.85 NSK 6.62 NTN 13.32 Nachi 28.33 NPB 25.91 Sapporo 9.01 UNITED KINGDOM Company Margin Barden/FAG 0.23 Comments We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties to these reviews within five days of the date of publication of this notice. Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. A general-issues hearing, if requested, and any hearings regarding issues related solely to specific countries, if requested, will be held at the main Department building at times and locations to be determined. Interested parties who wish to request a hearing or to participate if one is requested must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain the following:
(1)the party's name, address, and telephone number;
(2)the number of participants;
(3)a list of issues to be discussed. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Issues raised in hearings will be limited to those raised in the respective case and rebuttal briefs. Case briefs from interested parties and rebuttal briefs, limited to the issues raised in the respective case briefs, may be submitted not later than the dates shown below for general issues and the respective country-specific reviews. Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in these proceedings are requested to submit with each argument
(1)a statement of the issue and
(2)a brief summary of the argument. Parties are also encouraged to provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five pages and a table of statutes, regulations, and cases cited. Case Briefs due Rebuttals due General Issues April 3, 2006 April 10, 2006 Germany April 4, 2006 April 11, 2006 Italy April 5, 2006 April 12, 2006 United Kingdom April 6, 2006 April 13, 2006 France April 7, 2006 April 14, 2006 Japan April 10, 2006 April 17, 2006 The Department will issue the final results of these administrative reviews, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such written briefs or at the hearings, if held, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice. Assessment Rates The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have calculated, whenever possible, an exporter/importer (or customer)-specific assessment rate or value for merchandise subject to these reviews. The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003 (68 FR 23954). This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the period of review produced by companies included in these preliminary results of reviews for which the reviewed companies did not know their merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. For a full discussion of this clarification, see *Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties* , 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). Export-Price Sales With respect to EP sales, for these preliminary results, we divided the total dumping margins (calculated as the difference between normal value and EP) for each exporter's importer or customer by the total number of units the exporter sold to that importer or customer. We will direct CBP to assess the resulting per-unit dollar amount against each unit of merchandise in each of that importer's/customer's entries under the relevant order during the review period. Constructed Export-Price Sales For CEP sales (sampled and non-sampled), we divided the total dumping margins for the reviewed sales by the total entered value of those reviewed sales for each importer. We will direct CBP to assess the resulting percentage margin against the entered customs values for the subject merchandise on each of that importer's entries under the relevant order during the review period. See 19 CFR 351.212(b). Cash-Deposit Requirements In order to derive a single weighted-average margin for each respondent, we weight-averaged the EP and CEP weighted-average deposit rates (using the EP and CEP, respectively, as the weighting factors). To accomplish this when we sampled CEP sales, we first calculated the total dumping margins for all CEP sales during the review period by multiplying the sample CEP margins by the ratio of total days in the review period to days in the sample weeks. We then calculated a total net value for all CEP sales during the review period by multiplying the sample CEP total net value by the same ratio. Finally, we divided the combined total dumping margins for both EP and CEP sales by the combined total value for both EP and CEP sales to obtain the deposit rate. Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of administrative reviews for all shipments of ball bearings and parts thereof entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:
(1)The cash-deposit rates for the reviewed companies will be the rates established in the final results of reviews;
(2)for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash-deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period;
(3)if the exporter is not a firm covered in these reviews, a prior review, or the less-than-fair-value investigations but the manufacturer is, the cash-deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise;
(4)the cash-deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be the “All Others” rate for the relevant order made effective by the final results of review published on July 26, 1993. See *Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France, et al; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Revocation in Part of an Antidumping Duty Order* , 58 FR 39729, 39730 (July 26, 1993). For ball bearings from Italy, see *Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France, et al; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews, and Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty Orders* , 61 FR 66472, 66521 (December 17, 1996). These rates are the “All Others” rates from the relevant less-than-fair-value investigations. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative reviews. Notification to Importer This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties. These preliminary results of administrative reviews are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: March 2, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-3361 Filed 3-7-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-533-809 Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review; Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges From India AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On January 4, 2006, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published a notice of initiation of changed circumstances review of the antidumping duty order on certain forged stainless steel flanges (flanges) from India to determine whether Hilton Metal Forging Ltd.
(HMFL)is the successor-in-interest company to Hilton Forge. *See Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review: Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges from India* , 71 FR 327 (January 4, 2006). We have preliminarily determined that HMFL is the successor-in-interest to Hilton Forge for purposes of determining antidumping liability in this proceeding. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. EFFECTIVE DATE: March 9, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred Baker or Robert James, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230, telephone :
(202)482-2924 or
(202)482-0649, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On November 14, 2005, Hilton Forge requested that the Department conduct a changed circumstances review of the antidumping duty order on flanges from India pursuant to section 751(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Tariff Act), and 19 CFR 351.216. HMFL claims to be the successor-in-interest to Hilton Forge, and, as such, claims to be entitled to receive the same antidumping treatment as Hilton Forge. On January 18, 2006, and February 3, 2006, at the request of the Department, HMFL submitted additional information and documentation pertaining to its changed circumstances request. Scope of the Order The products covered by this order are certain forged stainless steel flanges, both finished and not finished, generally manufactured to specification ASTM A-182, and made in alloys such as 304, 304L, 316, and 316L. The scope includes five general types of flanges. They are weld-neck, used for butt-weld line connection; threaded, used for threaded line connections; slip-on and lap joint, used with stub-ends/butt-weld line connections; socket weld, used to fit pipe into a machined recession; and blind, used to seal off a line. The sizes of the flanges within the scope range generally from one to six inches; however, all sizes of the above-described merchandise are included in the scope. Specifically excluded from the scope of this order are cast stainless steel flanges. Cast stainless steel flanges generally are manufactured to specification ASTM A-351. The flanges subject to this order are currently classifiable under subheadings 7307.21.1000 and 7307.21.5000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS). Although the HTS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under review is dispositive. Preliminary Results of Review In antidumping duty changed circumstances reviews involving a successor-in-interest determination, the Department typically examines several factors including, but not limited to, changes in:
(1)Management;
(2)production facilities;
(3)supplier relationships; and
(4)customer base. *See Brass Sheet and Strip from Canada: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review* , 57 FR 20460, 20462 (May 13, 1992) and *Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Romania: Initiation and Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 22847 (May 3, 2005) ( *Plate from Romania* ). While no single factor or combination of factors will necessarily be dispositive, the Department generally will consider the new company to be the successor to the predecessor company if the resulting operations are similar to those of the predecessor company. *See* , *e.g.* , *Industrial Phosphoric Acid from Israel: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review* , 59 FR 6944, 6945 (February 14, 1994), and *Plate from Romania* , 70 FR 22847. Thus, if the record evidence demonstrates that, with respect to the production and sale of the subject merchandise, the new company operates as the same business entity as the predecessor company, the Department may assign the new company the cash deposit rate of its predecessor. *See* , *e.g.* , *Fresh and Chilled Atlantic Salmon from Norway: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 64 FR 9979, 9980 (March 1, 1999). In its November 14, 2005, submission HMFL stated it is the successor company to Hilton Forge, the latter having converted itself from a partnership firm into a company limited by shares, and having changed its name to HMFL. Further, HMFL stated there is otherwise no difference between Hilton Forge and HMFL. The Department now has on the record various documents that support this claim, including:
(1)A memorandum of association showing that the changeover to a company limited by shares and the name change were approved in a stockholders meeting of Hilton Forge on July 1, 2005;
(2)A stock certificate showing the new name;
(3)A list of partners and directors before and after the name change, showing that they are largely the same;
(4)Documentation showing that the production facilities have been retitled into the name HMFL;
(5)A list of suppliers and customers before and after the name change showing they are substantially the same;
(6)Documentation demonstrating that HMFL maintains the same bank account as did Hilton Forge;
(7)A certificate of importer and exporter codes for Hilton Forge and HMFL issued by the government of India showing that the codes are identical;
(8)A certificate of incorporation issued by the government of India showing the new name. In sum, HMFL has presented evidence to establish a *prima facie* case of its successorship status. Hilton Forge's name change to HMFL and its conversion from a limited partnership firm into a company limited by shares have not changed the operations of the company in a meaningful way. HMFL's management, production facilities, supplier relationships, and customer base are substantially unchanged from those of Hilton Forge. Therefore, the record evidence demonstrates that the new entity essentially operates in the same manner as the predecessor company. Consequently, we preliminarily determine that HMFL should be given the same antidumping duty treatment as Hilton Forge, *i.e.* , a 0.89 percent antidumping duty cash deposit rate. The cash deposit determination from this changed circumstances review will apply to all entries of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this changed circumstances review. *See Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from Italy; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review* , 68 FR 25327 (May 12, 2003). This deposit rate shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review in which HMFL is reviewed. Public Comment Interested parties may submit case briefs or written comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in the case briefs and comments, may be filed no later than five days after the time limit for filing the case briefs. *See* 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit arguments in these proceedings are requested to submit with their arguments:
(1)a statement of the issue;
(2)a brief summary of the argument; and
(3)a table of authorities. Further, parties submitting written comments should provide the Department an additional copy of the public version of any such comments on diskette. Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice. *See* CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, will be held no later than two days after the scheduled due date for submission of rebuttal briefs, or the first business day thereafter, unless the Department alters the date per 19 CFR 351.310(d). Consistent with section 351.216(e) of the Department's regulations, we will issue the final results of this changed circumstances review no later than 270 days after the date on which this review was initiated. The current requirements for cash deposits of estimated antidumping duties on all subject merchandise shall remain in effect unless and until they are modified pursuant to the final results of changed circumstances review. We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(b) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act, and section 351.221(c)(3)(i) of the Department's regulations. Dated: March 3, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-3366 Filed 3-8-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-570-863 Honey from the People's Republic of China: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of 2004/2005 New Shipper Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: March 9, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristina Boughton or Bobby Wong; AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-8173 or
(202)482-04709, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On December 10, 2001, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published in the **Federal Register** an antidumping duty order covering honey from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). *Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order; Honey from the People's Republic of China* , 66 FR 63670 (December 10, 2001). The Department received timely requests from Shanghai Taiside Trading Co., Ltd. (“Taiside”) and Wuhan Shino-Food Trade Co., Ltd. (“Shino-Food”), in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(c), for a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on honey from the PRC, which has a December annual anniversary month and a June semi-annual anniversary month. On August 5, 2005, the Department initiated a review with respect to Taiside and Shino-Food. *Honey from the People's Republic of China: Initiation of New Shipper Antidumping Duty Review* , 70 FR 45367 (August 5, 2005). On January 13, 2006, the Department extended the deadline for the preliminary results to March 31, 2006. *Honey from the People's Republic of China: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of 2004/2005 New Shipper Review* , 71 FR 2182 (January 13, 2006). Extension of Time Limits for Preliminary Results Section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), and 19 CFR 351.214(i)(1) require the Department to issue the preliminary results of a new shipper review within 180 days after the date on which the new shipper review was initiated and final results of a review within 90 days after the date on which the preliminary results were issued. The Department may, however, extend the deadline for completion of the preliminary results of a new shipper review to 300 days if it determines that the case is extraordinarily complicated. See Section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the ACT, and 19 CFR 351.214(i)(2). Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(i)(2), the Department has determined that due to the extraordinarily complicated nature of this review, the Department requires additional time to analyze the supplemental questionnaire responses, issue additional questionnaires, and conduct verification of the responses. Accordingly, the Department is extending the time limit for the completion of the preliminary results until May 22, 2006, in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(i)(2). The final results, in turn, will be due 90 days after the date of issuance of the preliminary results, unless extended. We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: March 1, 2006. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-3368 Filed 3-8-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-588-846] Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From Japan: 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 certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products (hot-rolled steel) from Japan in response to a request by Ispat Inland Inc. (Ispat), a petitioner in the original investigation, and Nucor Corporation (Nucor), a domestic producer of hot-rolled steel (collectively, petitioners). Petitioners requested administrative reviews of Kawasaki Steel Corporation (Kawasaki) and JFE Steel Corporation (JFE). This review covers exports of subject merchandise to the United States during the period June 1, 2004 through May 31, 2005. We preliminarily determine that adverse facts available should be applied to JFE and Kawasaki during the period of review
(POR)for declining to participate, and for not cooperating with the Department, in this administrative review. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. *See* the *Preliminary Results of Review* section of this notice. EFFECTIVE DATE: March 9, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Hoadley or Kimberley Hunt, 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)482-1272, respectively. Background On June 29, 1999, the Department published the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel from Japan in the **Federal Register** . *See Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products from Japan,* 64 FR 34778 (June 29, 1999). On June 1, 2005, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of this order. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation: Opportunity to Request Administrative Review,* 70 FR 31422 (June 1, 2005). On June 30, 2005, the Department received a timely request for a review from petitioners covering JFE and Kawasaki. On July 21, 2005, the Department published its initiation notice for the administrative review of the antidumping order on hot-rolled steel from Japan. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part,* 70 FR 42028 (July 21, 2005). The Department issued Sections A, B and C of its original questionnaire to JFE and to Kawasaki on August 10, 2005. 1 On September 7, 2005, JFE submitted a letter to the Department claiming that JFE Steel is the successor to Kawasaki Steel Corporation as a result of a corporate reorganization that was completed in April 2003 and Kawasaki Steel Corporation, as a corporate entity, no longer exists. *See* the September 7, 2005, letter from JFE to the Department. On September 27, 2005, JFE informed the Department that it did not intend to participate in the administrative review and would not submit a response to the Department's questionnaire. *See Letter from JFE Steel Corporation* dated September 27, 2005. 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 June 1, 2004, through May 31, 2005. Scope of the Order The merchandise covered by this order consists of certain hot-rolled flat-rolled carbon-quality steel products of a rectangular shape, of a width of 0.5 inch or greater, neither clad, plated, nor coated with metal and whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances, in coils (whether or not in successively superimposed layers) regardless of thickness, and in straight lengths, of a thickness less than 4.75 mm and of a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness. Universal mill plate ( *i.e.* , flat-rolled products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 mm but not exceeding 1250 mm and of a thickness of not less than 4 mm, not in coils and without patterns in relief) of a thickness not less than 4.0 mm is not included within the scope of this order. Specifically included in this scope are vacuum degassed, fully stabilized (commonly referred to as interstitial-free (IF)) steels, high strength low alloy
(HSLA)steels, and the substrate for motor lamination steels. IF steels are recognized as low carbon steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as titanium and/or niobium added to stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, titanium, vanadium, and molybdenum. The substrate for motor lamination steels contains micro-alloying levels of elements such as silicon and aluminum. Steel products to be included in the scope of this investigation, 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 2 percent or less, by weight; and
(3)none of the elements listed below 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 0.012 percent of boron, 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 of zirconium. All products that meet the physical and chemical description provided above are within the scope of this order unless otherwise excluded. The following products, by way of example, are outside and/or specifically excluded from the scope of this order: • Alloy hot-rolled steel products in which at least one of the chemical elements exceeds those listed above (including *e.g.* , ASTM specifications A543, A387, A514, A517, and A506). • SAE/AISI grades of series 2300 and higher. • Ball bearing steels, as defined in the HTSUS. • Tool steels, as defined in the HTSUS. • Silico-manganese (as defined in the HTSUS) or silicon electrical steel with a silicon level exceeding 1.50 percent. • ASTM specifications A710 and A736. • USS abrasion-resistant steels (USS AR 400, USS AR 500). • Hot-rolled steel coil which meets the following chemical, physical and mechanical specifications: C Mn P S Si Cr Cu Ni 0.10-0.14% 0.90% Max 0.025% Max 0.005% Max 0.30-0.50% 0.50-0.70% 0.20-0.40% 0.20% Max Width = 44.80 inches maximum; Thickness = 0.063-0.198 inches; Yield Strength = 50,000 ksi minimum; Tensile Strength = 70,000-88,000 psi. Hot-rolled steel coil which meets the following chemical, physical and mechanical specifications: C Mn P S Si Cr Cu Ni Mo 0.10-0.16% 0.70-0.90% 0.025% Max 0.006% Max 0.30-0.50% 0.50-0.70% 0.25% Max 0.20% Max 0.21% Max Width = 44.80 inches maximum; Thickness = 0.350 inches maximum; Yield Strength = 80,000 ksi minimum; Tensile Strength = 105,000 psi Aim. Hot-rolled steel coil which meets the following chemical, physical and mechanical specifications: C Mn P S Si Cr Cu Ni V (wt.) Cb 0.10-0.14% 1.30-1.80% 0.025% Max 0.005% Max 0.30-0.50% 0.50-0.70% 0.20-0.40% 0.20% Max 0.10% Max 0.08% Max Width = 44.80 inches maximum; Thickness = 0.350 inches maximum; Yield Strength = 80,000 ksi minimum; Tensile Strength = 105,000 psi Aim. Hot-rolled steel coil which meets the following chemical, physical and mechanical specifications: C Mn P S Si Cr Cu Ni Nb Ca Al 0.15% Max 1.40% Max 0.025% Max 0.010% Max 0.50% Max 1.00% Max 0.50% Max 0.20% Max 0.005% Min Treated 0.01-0.07% Width = 39.37 inches; Thickness = 0.181 inches maximum; Yield Strength = 70,000 psi minimum for thicknesses 0.148 inches and 65,000 psi minimum for thicknesses > 0.148 inches; Tensile Strength = 80,000 psi minimum. • Hot-rolled dual phase steel, phase-hardened, primarily with a ferritic-martensitic microstructure, contains 0.9 percent up to and including 1.5 percent silicon by weight, further characterized by either
(i)tensile strength between 540 N/mm2 and 640 N/mm2 and an elongation percentage 26 percent for thicknesses of 2 mm and above, or
(ii)a tensile strength between 590 N/mm2 and 690 N/mm2 and an elongation percentage 25 percent for thicknesses of 2mm and above. • Hot-rolled bearing quality steel, SAE grade 1050, in coils, with an inclusion rating of 1.0 maximum per ASTM E 45, Method A, with excellent surface quality and chemistry restrictions as follows: 0.012 percent maximum phosphorus, 0.015 percent maximum sulfur, and 0.20 percent maximum residuals including 0.15 percent maximum chromium. • Grade ASTM A570-50 hot-rolled steel sheet in coils or cut lengths, width of 74 inches (nominal, within ASTM tolerances), thickness of 11 gauge (0.119 inch nominal), mill edge and skin passed, with a minimum copper content of 0.20%. The merchandise subject to this order is classified in the HTSUS at subheadings: 7208.10.15.00, 7208.10.30.00, 7208.10.60.00, 7208.25.30.00, 7208.25.60.00, 7208.26.00.30, 7208.26.00.60, 7208.27.00.30, 7208.27.00.60, 7208.36.00.30, 7208.36.00.60, 7208.37.00.30, 7208.37.00.60, 7208.38.00.15, 7208.38.00.30, 7208.38.00.90, 7208.39.00.15, 7208.39.00.30, 7208.39.00.90, 7208.40.60.30, 7208.40.60.60, 7208.53.00.00, 7208.54.00.00, 7208.90.00.00, 7210.70.30.00, 7210.90.90.00, 7211.14.00.30, 7211.14.00.90, 7211.19.15.00, 7211.19.20.00, 7211.19.30.00, 7211.19.45.00, 7211.19.60.00, 7211.19.75.30, 7211.19.75.60, 7211.19.75.90, 7212.40.10.00, 7212.40.50.00, and 7212.50.00.00. Certain hot-rolled flat-rolled carbon-quality steel covered by this order, including: vacuum degassed, fully stabilized; high strength low alloy; and the substrate for motor lamination steel may also enter under the following tariff numbers: 7225.11.00.00, 7225.19.00.00, 7225.30.30.50, 7225.30.70.00, 7225.40.70.00, 7225.99.00.90, 7226.11.10.00, 7226.11.90.30, 7226.11.90.60, 7226.19.10.00, 7226.19.90.00, 7226.91.50.00, 7226.91.70.00, 7226.91.80.00, and 7226.99.00.00. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise is dispositive. Analysis Application of Facts Available Sections 776(a)(1) and
(2)of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) provide that, if necessary information is not available on the record, or if an interested party or any other person
(A)withholds information that has been requested by the administering authority;
(B)fails to provide such information in a timely matter or in the form or manner requested subject to subsections 782(c)(1) and
(e)of the Act;
(C)significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping statute; or
(D)provides such information but the information cannot be verified as provided in section 782(i) of the Act, the administering authority shall, subject to section 782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination. As noted above, JFE submitted a letter to the Department claiming that JFE Steel is the successor to Kawasaki Steel Corporation as a result of a corporate reorganization that was completed in April 2003 and Kawasaki Steel Corporation, as a corporate entity, no longer exists. *See* the September 7, 2005, letter from JFE to the Department. Kawasaki did not respond to the Department's questionnaire. On September 27, 2005, JFE informed the Department that it would not participate in the administrative review and it did not respond to the Department's questionnaire. JFE's refusal to participate makes it impossible for the Department to evaluate its successor-in-interest claim with regard to Kawasaki. As such, the record of this review shows that neither JFE nor Kawasaki have complied with the Department's request for information in this review. JFE's stated decision not to participate in this administrative review, and Kawasaki's failure to respond to the Department's questionnaire constitute a refusal to provide the Department with information necessary to conduct its antidumping analysis. ( *See* section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act). As JFE and Kawasaki have withheld necessary information that has been requested by the Department, and have, in fact, made no effort to participate in this proceeding, the Department shall, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, use facts otherwise available to reach the applicable determination. JFE and Kawasaki have not submitted any requested information regarding this review; therefore sections 782(d) and
(e)of the Act are not applicable. Because of the lack of any response to the questionnaire by JFE and Kawasaki, the Department finds that JFE and Kawasaki have failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of their ability to comply with the Department's request for information. Therefore, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, the Department may use an inference that is adverse to the interests of JFE and Kawasaki in selecting from among the facts otherwise available. Section 776(b) of the Act also provides that an adverse inference may include reliance on information derived from the petition, the final determination in the investigation segment of the proceeding, a previous review under section 751 of the Act or a determination under section 753 of the Act, or any other information placed on the record. Additionally, the Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), H.R. Doc. No. 103-316 at 870
(SAA)establishes that the Department may employ an adverse inference “to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.” Furthermore, in employing adverse inferences, the Department is instructed to consider “the extent to which a party may benefit from its own lack of cooperation.” *See* SAA at 870. By refusing to respond to the Department's questionnaire, JFE and Kawasaki have failed to cooperate to the best of their ability. JFE and Kawasaki have not expressed concerns regarding the proposed deadlines, nor have JFE or Kawasaki requested additional time to respond to the questionnaire. By withholding the requested information, JFE and Kawasaki prevented the Department from conducting any company-specific analysis or calculating dumping margins for the POR. Because we find that JFE and Kawasaki have failed to cooperate by not complying with our request for information, and to ensure that JFE and Kawasaki will not benefit from their lack of cooperation, the Department, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, has determined an adverse inference is warranted with respect to JFE and Kawasaki. The Department's practice, when selecting an adverse facts available
(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., Sigma Corp.* v. *United States,* 117 F.3d 1401, 1411 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In order to ensure that the margin is sufficiently adverse so as to induce JFE and Kawasaki's cooperation, the Department is assigning theses companies an AFA rate of 40.26 percent *ad valorem,* the margin calculated in a section 129 redetermination of the original LTFV investigation using information provided by Kawasaki, and the highest rate determined for any party in this proceeding. *See, Notice of Determination Under Section 129 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act: Antidumping Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products from Japan,* 67 FR 71936, 71939 (December 3, 2002) ( *HR from Japan 129* ). 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. Secondary information is information derived from the petition that gave rise to the investigation or review, the final determination concerning the subject merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 concerning the subject merchandise. *See* SAA at 870. Information from a prior segment of the proceeding, such as that used here, constitutes secondary information. *See, e.g., Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate from France: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,* 68 FR 44283 (July 28, 2003) ( *Anhydrous Sodium* ). The SAA provides that to “corroborate” means that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value. *See* 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 calculated dumping margins. The only source for dumping margins is administrative determinations. In an administrative review, if the Department chooses as AFA a calculated dumping margin from a prior segment of the proceeding, it is not necessary to question the reliability of the margin for that period. *See Anhydrous Sodium* at 44284. In making a determination as to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal as to whether there are circumstances that would render a margin not relevant. 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. For example, in *Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 61 FR 6812 (February 22, 1996), the Department disregarded the highest margin as “best information available” (the predecessor to “facts available”) since the margin was based on another company's uncharacteristic business expense that resulted in an unusually high dumping margin. Similarly, the Department does not apply a margin that has been discredited. *See D&L Supply Co.* v. *United States* , 113 F.3d 1220, 1224 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (the Department will not use a margin that has been judicially invalidated). None of these unusual circumstances is present here, and there is no evidence indicating that the margin used as facts available in this review is not appropriate. Moreover, in this case, the Department is using a calculated dumping margin from a prior segment of the proceeding, namely the investigation. Because this margin is being applied to the company for which it was originally calculated and to a company claiming to be that company's successor-in-interest, the Department finds that using this rate is appropriate. However, in an attempt to further corroborate the rate, the Department conducted research in an attempt to find price lists or other data that might help inform the Department's corroboration analysis. We were unable to find any useful information. *See* the Memorandum to the File from Kimberley Hunt through Scott Lindsay and Barbara E. Tillman, “Research for Corroboration for Preliminary Results of the Administrative Review for Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Japan” (February 24, 2006). Absent any other information, we find the calculated rate from the investigation, which was modified by the 129 proceeding, to be appropriate in this case and the requirements of section 776(c) of the Act are satisfied. Preliminary Results of Review We preliminarily determine that the following dumping margins exist: Manufacturer/exporter Margin (percent) JFE Steel Corporation 40.26 Kawasaki Steel Corporation 40.26 Duty Assessment The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)within 15 days of publication of the final results of this review. Upon issuance of the final results of this administrative review, the Department will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on appropriate entries by applying the margin to the entered value of the merchandise. Cash Deposit Requirements The following cash deposit rates will be effective with respect to all shipments of hot-rolled steel from Japan 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 JFE and Kawasaki, 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 others rate established in the section 129 redetermination of the LTFV investigation, which is 22.92 percent. *See HR from Japan 129* . These deposit rates, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. Public Comment Pursuant to § 351.309 of the Department's regulations, interested parties may submit written comments in response to these preliminary results. Unless the deadline is 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 § 351.303(f) of the Department's regulations. Also, pursuant to § 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 to be raised in the case and rebuttal briefs. Unless the Department 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* § 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: March 2, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-3358 Filed 3-8-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A 351-840) Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Orange Juice from Brazil AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: March 9, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Eastwood or Jill Pollack, AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone
(202)482-3874 or
(202)482-4593, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Scope of Order The scope of this order includes certain orange juice for transport and/or further manufacturing, produced in two different forms:
(1)Frozen orange juice in a highly concentrated form, sometimes referred to as frozen concentrated orange juice for manufacture (FCOJM); and
(2)pasteurized single-strength orange juice which has not been concentrated, referred to as not-from-concentrate (NFC). At the time of the filing of the petition, there was an existing antidumping duty order on frozen concentrated orange juice
(FCOJ)from Brazil. *See Antidumping Duty Order; Frozen Concentrated Orange Juice from Brazil* , 52 FR 16426 (May 5, 1987). Therefore, the scope of this order with regard to FCOJM covers only FCOJM produced and/or exported by those companies which were excluded or revoked from the pre-existing antidumping order on FCOJ from Brazil as of December 27, 2004. Those companies are Cargill Citrus Limitada (Cargill), Coinbra-Frutesp S.A. (Coinbra-Frutesp), Sucocitrico Cutrale, S.A. (Cutrale), Fischer S/A - Agroindustria (Fischer), and Montecitrus Trading S.A. (Montecitrus). Excluded from the scope of the order are reconstituted orange juice and frozen concentrated orange juice for retail (FCOJR). Reconstituted orange juice is produced through further manufacture of FCOJM, by adding water, oils and essences to the orange juice concentrate. FCOJR is concentrated orange juice, typically at 42° Brix, in a frozen state, packed in retail-sized containers ready for sale to consumers. FCOJR, a finished consumer product, is produced through further manufacture of FCOJM, a bulk manufacturer's product. The subject merchandise is currently classifiable under subheadings 2009.11.00, 2009.12.25, 2009.12.45, and 2009.19.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). These HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and for customs purposes only and are not dispositive. Rather, the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. Antidumping Duty Order On February 27, 2006, the International Trade Commission (the ITC) notified the Department of Commerce (the Department) of its final determination pursuant to section 735(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), that the industry in the United States producing certain orange juice is materially injured by reason of less-than-fair-value imports of subject merchandise from Brazil. In addition, the ITC notified the Department of its final determination that critical circumstances do not exist with respect to imports of subject merchandise from Brazil that are subject to the Department's partial affirmative critical circumstances finding. Therefore, in accordance with section 736(a)(1) of the Act, the Department will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)to assess, upon further advice by the Department, antidumping duties equal to the amount by which the normal value of the merchandise exceeds the U.S. price of the merchandise for all relevant entries of certain orange juice from Brazil. These antidumping duties will be assessed on all unliquidated entries of certain orange juice from Brazil entered, or withdrawn from the warehouse, for consumption on or after August 24, 2005, the date on which the Department published its *Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Affirmative Preliminary Critical Circumstances Determination: Certain Orange Juice from Brazil* , 70 FR 49557 (Aug. 24, 2005). With regard to the ITC negative critical circumstances determination, we will instruct CBP to lift suspension and to release any bond or other security, and refund any cash deposit made, to secure the payment of antidumping duties with respect to entries of the merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after May 26, 2005 ( *i.e.* , 90 days prior to the date of publication of the preliminary determination in the **Federal Register** ), but before August 24, 2005. Section 733(d) of the Act states that instructions issued pursuant to an affirmative preliminary determination may not remain in effect for more than four months except where exporters representing a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise extend that four-month period to not more than six months. In this investigation, the six-month period beginning on the date of the publication of the preliminary determination ended on February 19, 2006. Furthermore, section 737 of the Act states that definitive duties are to begin on the date of publication of the ITC's final injury determination. Therefore, in accordance with section 733(d) of the Act and our practice, we instructed CBP to terminate the suspension of liquidation and to liquidate, without regard to antidumping duties, unliquidated entries of certain orange juice from Brazil entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after February 19, 2006, and before the date of publication of the ITC's final injury determination in the **Federal Register** . * See Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Color Television Receivers From the People's Republic of China * , 69 FR 31347 (June 3, 2004). Suspension of liquidation will continue on or after this date. On or after the date of publication of the ITC's notice of final determination in the **Federal Register** , CBP will require, at the same time as importers would normally deposit estimated duties on this merchandise, cash deposits for the subject merchandise equal to the estimated weighted-average antidumping duty margins listed below. We will also instruct CBP that, for NFC, the “All Others” rate applies to all companies not specifically named below. However, for FCOJM, the “All Others” rate only applies to FCOJM produced and/or exported by Cargill and Coinbra-Frutesp. Manufacturer/Exporter Weighted-Average Margin (percent) Fischer S/A - Agroindustria 12.46 Montecitrus Trading S.A. 60.29 Sucocitrico Cutrale, S.A. 19.19 All Others 16.51 This notice constitutes the antidumping duty order with respect to certain orange juice from Brazil, pursuant to section 736(a) of the Act. Interested parties may contact the Department's Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the main Commerce building, for copies of an updated list of antidumping duty orders currently in effect. This order is published in accordance with section 736(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.211. Dated: February 28, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-3364 Filed 3-8-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 013006B] International Whaling Commission; 58 th Annual Meeting; Nominations AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Extension of request for nominations. SUMMARY: This notice is to extend the call for nominees for the U.S. Delegation to the June 2006 International Whaling Commission
(IWC)annual meeting. A request for nominations was previously published in the **Federal Register** on February 13, 2006. DATES: All written nominations for the U.S. Delegation to the IWC annual meeting must be received by April 7, 2006. ADDRESSES: All nominations for the U.S. Delegation to the IWC annual meeting should be addressed to Bill Hogarth, U.S. Commissioner to the IWC, and sent via post to: Cheri McCarty, National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of International Affairs, 1315 East West Highway, SSMC3 Room 12603, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Prospective Congressional advisors to the delegation should contact the Department of State directly. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cheri McCarty, 301-713-9090, ext. 183. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Secretary of Commerce is charged with the responsibility of discharging the obligations of the United States under the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, 1946. The U.S. Commissioner has primary responsibility for the preparation and negotiation of U.S. positions on international issues concerning whaling and for all matters involving the IWC. He is staffed by the Department of Commerce and assisted by the Department of State, the Department of the Interior, the Marine Mammal Commission, and by other agencies. The non-federal representative(s) selected as a result of this nomination process is(are) responsible for providing input and recommendations to the U.S. IWC Commissioner representing the positions of non-governmental organizations. Generally, only one non-governmental position is selected for the U.S. Delegation. The IWC is hosting its 58 th annual meeting from June 16-20, 2006, in St. Kitts & Nevis. Dated: March 6, 2006. William T. Hogarth, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. 06-2253 Filed 3-6-06; 3:18 pm]
Connectionstraces to 12
Traces to 12 documents
CFR
- Administrative review of orders and suspension agreements under section 751(a)(1) of the Act.§ 351.213
- Calculation of export price and constructed export price; reimbursement of antidumping and countervailing duties.§ 351.402
- Sales used in calculating normal value; transactions between affiliated parties.§ 351.403
- Differences in physical characteristics.§ 351.411
- Differences in circumstances of sale§ 351.410
- Levels of trade; adjustment for difference in level of trade; constructed export price offset.§ 351.412
- Hearings.§ 351.310
- Assessment of antidumping and countervailing duties; provisional measures deposit cap; interest on certain overpayments and underpayments.§ 351.212
- Changed circumstances review under section 751(b) of the Act.§ 351.216
- Written argument.§ 351.309
- New shipper reviews under section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act; expedited reviews in countervailing duty proceedings.§ 351.214
- Antidumping order and countervailing duty order.§ 351.211
2 references not yet in our index
- 117 F.3d 1401
- 113 F.3d 1220
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Extension of request for nominations
Cites 14 · showing 11Cited by 0 across 0 sources