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

9,765 words·~44 min read·/register/2007/08/02/07-3764·

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

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sheila E. Forbes, Office of AD/CVD Operations, Customs Unit, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone:

(202)482-4697. Background Each year during the anniversary month of the publication of an antidumping or countervailing duty order, finding, or suspension of investigation, an interested party, as defined in section 771(9) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, may request, in accordance with section 351.213

(2002)of the Department of Commerce (the Department) Regulations, that the Department conduct an administrative review of that antidumping or countervailing duty order, finding, or suspended investigation. Opportunity to Request a Review: Not later than the last day of August 2007, 1 interested parties may request administrative review of the following orders, findings, or suspended investigations, with anniversary dates in August for the following periods: 1 Or the next business day, if the deadline falls on a weekend, federal holiday or any other day when the Department is closed. Period Antidumping Duty Proceeding Germany: Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products, A-428-815 8/1/06-7/31/07 Seamless Line and Pressure Pipe, A-428-820 8/1/06-7/31/07 Italy: Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin, A-475-703 8/1/06-7/31/07 Japan: Brass Sheet & Strip, A-588-704 8/1/06-7/31/07 Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin, A-588-707 8/1/06-7/31/07 Tin Mill Products, A-588-854 8/1/06-7/31/07 Malaysia: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags, A-557-813 8/1/06-7/31/07 Mexico: Gray Portland Cement and Cement Clinker, A-201-802 8/1/06-7/31/07 Republic Of Korea: Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products, A-580-816 8/1/06-7/31/07 Romania: Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe (Under 4 1/2 Inches), A-485-805 8/1/06-7/31/07 Thailand: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags, A-549-821 8/1/06-7/31/07 The People's Republic of China: Floor Standing Metal-Top Ironing Tables and Parts Thereof, A-570-888 8/1/06-7/31/07 Petroleum Wax Candles, A-570-504 8/1/06-7/31/07 Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags, A-570-886 8/1/06-7/31/07 Sulfanilic Acid, A-570-815 8/1/06-7/31/07 Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol, A-570-887 8/1/06-7/31/07 Vietnam: Frozen Fish Fillets, A-552-801 8/1/06-7/31/07 Countervailing Duty Proceedings Italy: Oil Country Tubular Goods, C-475-817 1/1/06-7/24/06 Republic of Korea: Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Plate, C-580-818 1/1/06-12/31/06 Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors, C-580-851 1/1/06-12/31/06 Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils, C-580-835 1/1/06-12/31/06 Suspension Agreements None. In accordance with section 351.213(b) of the regulations, an interested party as defined by section 771(9) of the Act may request in writing that the Secretary conduct an administrative review. For both antidumping and countervailing duty reviews, the interested party must specify the individual producers or exporters covered by an antidumping finding or an antidumping or countervailing duty order or suspension agreement for which it is requesting a review, and the requesting party must state why it desires the Secretary to review those particular producers or exporters. 2 If the interested party intends for the Secretary to review sales of merchandise by an exporter (or a producer if that producer also exports merchandise from other suppliers) which were produced in more than one country of origin and each country of origin is subject to a separate order, then the interested party must state specifically, on an order-by-order basis, which exporter(s) the request is intended to cover. 2 If the review request involves a non-market economy and the parties subject to the review request do not qualify for separate rates, all other exporters of subject merchandise from the non-market economy country who do not have a separate rate will be covered by the review as part of the single entity of which the named firms are a part. As explained in *Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties* , 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003), the Department has clarified its practice with respect to the collection of final antidumping duties on imports of merchandise where intermediate firms are involved. The public should be aware of this clarification in determining whether to request an administrative review of merchandise subject to antidumping findings and orders. See also the Import Administration Web site at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov.* Six copies of the request should be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Room 1870, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. The Department also asks parties to serve a copy of their requests to the Office of Antidumping/Countervailing Operations, Attention: Sheila Forbes, in room 3065 of the main Commerce Building. Further, in accordance with section 351.303(f)(l)(i) of the regulations, a copy of each request must be served on every party on the Department's service list. The Department will publish in the **Federal Register** a notice of “Initiation of Administrative Review of Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation” for requests received by the last day of August 2007. If the Department does not receive, by the last day of August 2007, a request for review of entries covered by an order, finding, or suspended investigation listed in this notice and for the period identified above, the Department will instruct the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to assess antidumping or countervailing duties on those entries at a rate equal to the cash deposit of (or bond for) estimated antidumping or countervailing duties required on those entries at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption and to continue to collect the cash deposit previously ordered. This notice is not required by statute but is published as a service to the international trading community. Dated: July 23, 2007. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary, for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-14948 Filed 8-1-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-357-812, A-570-863, C-357-813] Continuation of Antidumping Duty Orders on Honey From Argentina and the People's Republic of China, and Continuation of Countervailing Duty Order on Honey From Argentina AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: As a result of the determinations by the Department of Commerce (the Department) and the International Trade Commission (the Commission) that revocation of the antidumping duty

(AD)orders on honey from Argentina and the People's Republic of China

(PRC)would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping; that revocation of the countervailing duty

(CVD)order on honey from Argentina would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy; and, that revocation of these AD and CVD orders would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States, the Department is publishing this notice of continuation of these AD and CVD orders. DATES: *Effective Date:* August 2, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deborah Scott (AD orders), Elfi Blum (CVD order), or Dana Mermelstein, AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-2657,

(202)482-0197, or

(202)482-1391, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On November 1, 2006, the Department initiated and the Commission instituted sunset reviews of the AD orders on honey from Argentina and the PRC and the CVD order on honey from Argentina, pursuant to sections 751(c) and 752 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), respectively. *See Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Reviews,* 71 FR 64242 (November 1, 2006) and *Honey From Argentina and China,* 71 FR 64292 (November 1, 2006). As a result of its reviews, the Department found that revocation of the AD orders would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping, and that revocation of the CVD order would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of subsidization, and notified the Commission of the dumping margins and the countervailable subsidy rates likely to prevail if the orders were revoked. *See Honey From Argentina and the People's Republic of China; Final Results of the Expedited Five-Year (“Sunset”) Reviews of Antidumping Duty Orders,* 72 FR 10150 (March 7, 2007), and *Honey from Argentina: Final Results of Full Sunset Review of the Countervailing Duty Order,* 72 FR 32078 (June 11, 2007). On June 14, 2007, the Commission determined that revocation of the AD orders on honey from Argentina and the PRC and the CVD order on honey from Argentina would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. *See Honey from Argentina and China,* 72 FR 39445 (July 18, 2007), and USITC Publication 3929 (June 2007) (Inv. Nos. 701-TA-402 and 731-TA-892 and 893 (Review)). Scope of the AD Orders For purposes of these orders, the products covered are natural honey, artificial honey containing more than 50 percent natural honey by weight, preparations of natural honey containing more than 50 percent natural honey by weight, and flavored honey. The subject merchandise includes all grades and colors of honey whether in liquid, creamed, comb, cut comb, or chunk form, and whether packaged for retail or in bulk form. The merchandise covered by these orders is currently classifiable under subheadings 0409.00.00, 1702.90.90, and 2106.90.99 of the *Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States* (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the Department's written description of the merchandise under this order is dispositive. Scope of the CVD Order The merchandise subject to this order is natural honey, artificial honey containing more than 50 percent natural honey by weight, preparations of natural honey containing more than 50 percent natural honey by weight, and flavored honey. The subject merchandise includes all grades and colors of honey whether in liquid, creamed, combs, cut comb, or chunk form, and whether packaged for retail or in bulk form. The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable under subheadings 0409.00.00, 1702.90.90, and 2106.90.99 of the HTSUS. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the Department's written description of the merchandise covered by this order is dispositive. Determination As a result of the determinations by the Department and the Commission that revocation of these AD and CVD orders would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping or a countervailable subsidy and continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States, pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act, the Department hereby orders the continuation of the AD orders on honey from Argentina and the PRC and the CVD order on honey from Argentina. U.S. Customs and Border Protection will continue to collect cash deposits at the rates in effect at the time of entry for all imports of subject merchandise. The effective date of continuation of these orders is the date of publication in the **Federal Register** of this notice of continuation. Pursuant to section 751(c)(2) of the Act, the Department intends to initiate the next five-year review of these orders not later than 30 days prior to the fifth anniversary of the effective date of continuation. This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order

(APO)of their responsibility concerning the return/destruction or conversion to judicial protective order of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Failure to comply is a violation of the APO which may be subject to sanctions. These five-year (“Sunset”) reviews and this continuation notice are in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act. This notice is published pursuant to 777(i) of the Act. Dated: July 24, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary, for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-14918 Filed 8-1-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-428-801] Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from Germany: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On June 29, 2007, the United States Court of International Trade affirmed the Department of Commerce's redetermination on remand of the final results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on ball bearings and parts thereof from Germany. See *Paul Mueller Industrie GmbH & Co. v. United States* , Court No. 04-00522, slip op. 07-100 (CIT 2007) ( *Paul Mueller* ). The Department is now issuing this notice of court decision not in harmony with the Department's determination. EFFECTIVE DATE: August 2, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Dirstine or Richard Rimlinger, AD/CVD Operations, Office 5, Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-4033 or

(202)482-4477, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On September 15, 2004, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the final results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on ball bearings and parts thereof from Germany for the period May 1, 2002, through April 30, 2003. See *Antifriction Bearings and Parts Thereof From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Singapore, and the United Kingdom: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, Rescission of Administrative Reviews in Part, and Determination To Revoke Order in Part* , 69 FR 55574 (September 15, 2004) ( *Final Results* ). The *Final Results* were amended in *Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from Germany; Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 69 FR 63507 (November 2, 2004) ( *Amended Final Results* ). Paul Mueller Industrie GmbH (Paul Mueller) and Timken US Corporation (Timken) filed lawsuits challenging the *Final Results* as amended by the *Amended Final Results* . The Department requested a voluntary remand on two issues. On May 26, 2006, the United States Court of International Trade

(CIT)granted the Department's request and ordered the Department to address two items:

(1)correct a ministerial error involving a billing adjustment reported by Paul Mueller for one home-market transaction and to recalculate its antidumping margin accordingly;

(2)explain its treatment of Paul Mueller's inventory carrying costs. In accordance with the CIT's remand order in *Paul Mueller v. United States* , 435 F. Supp. 2d at 1241, 1246-1247 (CIT 2006), the Department filed its redetermination on remand of the final results (remand results) on September 13, 2006. In its redetermination, the Department corrected the ministerial error and made a change to its treatment of the inventory carrying costs to ensure that home-market and U.S. inventory carrying costs were calculated on a consistent basis. On June 29, 2007, the CIT affirmed the Department's remand results. The CIT's decision was not made publicly available until July 17, 2007, when the Court entered its judgment. See *Paul Mueller* , slip op. 07-100. Decision Not in Harmony By affirming the remand results, the CIT recognized that the Department had made a ministerial error in its calculation of a billing adjustment for Paul Mueller and that its initial calculations of inventory carrying costs for Paul Mueller's home-market and U.S. inventory carrying costs were not made on a consistent basis. The changes to our calculations with respect to Paul Mueller resulted in a change in the weighted-average margin for ball bearings and parts thereof from 0.44 percent to 0.46 percent for the period of review. Accordingly, absent an appeal or, if appealed, upon a final and conclusive court decision in this action, we will amend our final results of this review to reflect the recalculation of the margin for Paul Mueller. Suspension of Liquidation The United States Court of Appeals for Federal Circuit

(CAFC)held that the Department must publish notice of a decision of the CIT or the CAFC which is not in harmony with the Department's determination. See *The Timken Company v. United States* , 893 F.2d 337, 341 (CAFC 1990). Publication of this notice fulfills that obligation. The CAFC also held that, in such a case, the Department must suspend liquidation until there is a “conclusive” decision in the action. *Id* . Therefore, the Department must suspend liquidation pending the expiration of the period to appeal the CIT's June 29, 2007, decision or, if appealed, pending a final and conclusive court decision. Because entries of ball bearings and parts thereof from Germany produced and exported to the United States by Paul Mueller are currently being suspended pursuant to the court's injunction order in effect, the Department does not need to order U.S. Customs and Border Protection to suspend liquidation of affected entries. The Department will not order the lifting of the suspension of liquidation on entries of ball bearings and parts thereof made during the review period before a court decision in this lawsuit becomes final and conclusive. We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with section 516A(c)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. Dated: July 24, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-15031 Filed 8-1-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-DS DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-846] Brake Rotors From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative and New Shipper Reviews and Partial Rescission of the 2005-2006 Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On February 15, 2007, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) published *Brake Rotors From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of the 2005 2006 Administrative and New Shipper Reviews and Partial Rescission of the 2005 2006 Administrative Review* , 72 FR 7405 (February 15, 2007) (“ *Preliminary Results* ”). The period of review (“POR”) is April 1, 2005, through March 31, 2006. The administrative review covers three mandatory respondents and 12 separate-rate respondents. The new shipper review covers one new shipper. We invited interested parties to comment on our *Preliminary Results* . Based on our analysis of the comments received, we made certain changes to our calculations. The final dumping margins for the administrative and new shipper reviews are listed in the “Final Results of the Reviews” section, below. EFFECTIVE DATE: August 2, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Moats for Longkou Haimeng Machinery Co., Ltd. and Qingdao Golrich Autoparts Co., Ltd., or Frances Veith for Yantai Winhere Auto-Part Manufacturing Co., Ltd. and Qingdao Meita Automotive, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202-482-5047 and 202-482-4295, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On February 15, 2007, the Department published the Preliminary Results of the administrative and new shipper reviews of the antidumping duty order on brake rotors from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). On March 6, 2007, the Department issued a letter to all interested parties granting a 28-day extension of time to submit publicly available information to value the factors of production for the final results of these reviews and postponed the briefing schedule pending the Department's release of the Shandong Huanri Group General Co., Laizhou Huanri Automobile Parts Co., Ltd, and Shandong Huanri Group Co., Ltd. (collectively, “Huanri”) verification report. From March 20 through March 22, 2007, the Department conducted a verification of Huanri and released its verification report of Huanri on May 4, 2007. 1 On May 9, 2007, the Department issued a memorandum stating that it would revise the surrogate value for steel strap to include Indian import data from Ukraine for February and March 2006 for the final results. 2 *See* “Surrogate Value” section below. On May 10, 2007, the Department revised the deadline for submission of case and rebuttal briefs to May 21 and May 29, 2007, respectively. On May 15, 2007, in response to a request filed by the Coalition for the Preservation of American Brake Drum and Rotor Aftermarket Manufacturers (“the petitioner”), the Department extended the deadline for submission of rebuttal briefs until June 5, 2007. On May 21, 2007, the Department received case briefs from Laizhou Auto Brake Equipment Company (“LABEC”), Yantai Winhere Auto-Part Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (“Winhere”), Longkou Haimeng Machinery Co., Ltd. (“Haimeng”), Laizhou Luqi Machinery Co., Ltd. (“Luqi”), Laizhou Hongda Auto Replacement Co., Ltd. (“Hongda”), Qindgdao Meita Automotive Industry Co., Ltd. (“Meita”) (collectively, “the Trade Pacific respondents”), and the petitioner. On May 21, 2007, the Department placed the supporting documentation regarding the Department's calculation of the surrogate wage rate used in respondents' margin calculations on the record of these reviews. 3 On June 5, 2007, we received rebuttal briefs from the petitioner and the Trade Pacific respondents. 1 *See* Memorandum from Eugene Degnan, Senior International Trade Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, and Paul Stolz, International Trade Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, through Robert Bolling, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8 and Wendy J. Frankel, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, to the File entitled, “Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China: Verification of Section A and Quantity and Value Response of Shandong Huanri Group Co., Ltd., Laizhou Huanri Automobile Parts Co., Ltd., and Shandong Huanri Group General Co.,” dated May 4, 2007 (“ *Huanri Verification Report* ”). 2 *See* Memorandum from Ann Fornaro, International Trade Compliance Analyst, to the File entitled, “2005-2006 Antidumping Duty Administrative and New Shipper Reviews of Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China - Surrogate Value Change for Final Results,” dated May 9, 2007 (“ *Surrogate Value Change Memo* ”). 3 *See* Memorandum from Ann Fornaro, International Trade Compliance Analyst, to the File entitled, “2005-2006 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China - Expected Wages of Selected Non-Market Economy Countries,” dated May 21, 2007. On June 11, 2007, the Department published a notice extending the time limit for the completion of the final results of these reviews until July 31, 2007. *See Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China: Extension of Time Limit for the Final Results of the 2005-2006 Administrative and New Shipper Reviews* , 72 FR 32071 (June 11, 2007). We conducted these reviews in accordance with sections 751 and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), and sections 19 CFR 351.213 and 19 CFR 351.221 of the agency's regulations. Period of Review The POR is April 1, 2005, through March 31, 2006. Scope of the Order The products covered by this order are brake rotors made of gray cast iron, whether finished, semifinished, or unfinished, ranging in diameter from 8 to 16 inches (20.32 to 40.64 centimeters) and in weight from 8 to 45 pounds (3.63 to 20.41 kilograms). The size parameters (weight and dimension) of the brake rotors limit their use to the following types of motor vehicles: automobiles, all-terrain vehicles, vans and recreational vehicles under “one ton and a half,” and light trucks designated as “one ton and a half.” Finished brake rotors are those that are ready for sale and installation without any further operations. Semi-finished rotors are those on which the surface is not entirely smooth, and have undergone some drilling. Unfinished rotors are those which have undergone some grinding or turning. These brake rotors are for motor vehicles, and do not contain in the casting a logo of an original equipment manufacturer (“OEM”) which produces vehicles sold in the United States. ( *e.g.* , General Motors, Ford, Chrysler, Honda, Toyota, Volvo). Brake rotors covered in this order are not certified by OEM producers of vehicles sold in the United States. The scope also includes composite brake rotors that are made of gray cast iron, which contain a steel plate, but otherwise meet the above criteria. Excluded from the scope of this order are brake rotors made of gray cast iron, whether finished, semifinished, or unfinished, with a diameter less than 8 inches or greater than 16 inches (less than 20.32 centimeters or greater than 40.64 centimeters) and a weight less than 8 pounds or greater than 45 pounds (less than 3.63 kilograms or greater than 20.41 kilograms). 4 4 On January 17, 2007, the Department determined the brake rotors produced by Federal-Mogul and certified by the Ford Motor Company to be excluded from the scope of the order. *See* Memorandum from Blanche Ziv, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, through Wendy J. Frankel, Office Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, to Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, entitled, “Scope Ruling of the Antidumping Duty Order on Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China; Federal-Mogul Corporation,” dated January 17, 2007. Brake rotors are currently classifiable under subheadings 8708.39.5010, 8708.39.5030, and 8708.30.5030 of the *Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States* (“HTSUS”). 5 Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. 5 As of January 1, 2005, the HTS classification for brake rotors (discs) changed from 8708.39.5010 to 8708.39.5030. As of January 1, 2007, the HTS classification for brake rotors (discs) changed from 8708.39.5030 to 8708.30.5030. *See Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2005)* , available at <www.usitc.gov>. *See also* Memorandum from Ann Fornaro, International Trade Compliance Analyst, through Blanche Ziv, Program Manager, to the File entitled, “Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China: Change in HTS Code for Subject Merchandise,” dated February 6, 2007. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs filed by parties in these reviews are addressed in the Memorandum from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the 2005-2006 Administrative and New Shipper Reviews of Brake Rotors From the People's Republic of China,” dated July 27, 2007 (“ *Issues and Decision Memo* ”), which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues that parties raised and to which we responded in the *Issues and Decision Memo* follows as an appendix to this notice. The *Issues and Decision Memo* is a public document which is on file in the Central Records Unit (“CRU”) in room B-099 of the main Department building, and is also accessible on the Web at <http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/>. The paper copy and electronic version of the *Issues and Decision Memo* are identical in content. Verification In the *Preliminary Results* , we stated that we intended to verify the information reported to the Department by Huanri in its separate-rate application. 6 From March 20 through March 22, 2007, the Department conducted a verification of Huanri at Huanri's headquarters in Panjia Village, Laizhou, China. We used standard verification procedures, including on-site inspection of the company's facilities and examination of relevant sales and financial records to verify Section A, and quantity and value information submitted by Huanri on the record of the administrative review. The Department issued the results of the verification on May 4, 2007. For further details on the verification, *see* the *Huanri Verification Report* . 6 *See Preliminary Results* , 72 FR at 7408. Partial Rescission of Administrative Review In the *Preliminary Results* , the Department issued a notice of intent to rescind the administrative review with respect to Hongfa Machinery (Dalian) Co., Ltd. (“Hongfa”), Laizhou Wally Automobile Co., Ltd. (“Wally”), Xianghe Xumingyuan Auto Parts Co. (“Xumingyuan”), China National Automotive Industry Import & Export Corporation (“CAIEC”), Shandong Laizhou CAPCO Industry (“CAPCO”), Laizhou Luyuan Automobile Fittings Co. (“Luyuan”), and Shenyang Honbase Machinery Co., Ltd. (“Honbase”), in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), because we found no evidence that any of these companies made shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. *See Preliminary Results* , 72 FR at 7409. The Department received no comments on this issue, and we did not receive any further information since the issuance of the *Preliminary Results* that provides a basis for reconsideration of this determination. Therefore, the Department is rescinding this administrative review with respect to Hongfa, Wally, Xumingyuan, CAIEC, CAPCO, Luyuan, and Honbase. Separate Rates In our *Preliminary Results* , we determined that Qingdao Rotec Auto Parts Co., Ltd. (“Rotec”) and Xiangfen Hengtai Brake System Co., Ltd. (“Hengtai”) did not qualify for a separate rate and, therefore, are deemed to be included in the PRC-wide entity, and subject to the PRC-wide rate. *See Preliminary Results* , 72 FR at 7410. The Department received no comments on this issue, and we did not receive any further information since the issuance of the *Preliminary Results* that provides a basis for reconsideration of these determinations for the final results. We also determined that the three mandatory ( *i.e.* , Haimeng, Meita, and Winhere) and 12 separate-rate respondents ( *i.e.* , non-selected respondents) 7 met the criteria for the assignment of a separate rate. Based on the results of Huanri's verification and the Department's careful consideration of comments placed on the record by parties, we have determined that Huanri is eligible for a separate rate in the final results of the administrative review. *See Issues and Decision Memo* at Comment 11. 7 The non-selected respondents are as follows: China National Industrial Machinery Import & Export Corporation (“CNIM”), LABEC, Qingdao Gren Co. (“Gren”), Zibo Luzhou Automobile Parts Co., Ltd. (“ZLAP”), Hongda, Longkou TLC Machinery Co., Ltd. (“Longkou TLC”), Zibo Golden Harvest Machinery Limited Company (“ZGOLD”), Luqi, Shenyang Yinghao Machinery Co., Longkou Jinzheng Machinery Co. (“Jinzheng”), Shanxi Zhongding Auto Parts Co., Ltd. (“SZAP”), and Huanri. The PRC-Wide Rate and Use of Facts Otherwise Available In the *Preliminary Results* , we determined that the PRC-wide entity (including Hengtai and Rotec) received copies of the Department's questionnaire but did not respond and, therefore, failed to cooperate to the best of their ability in the administrative review. *See Preliminary Results* , 72 FR at 7410-12. Accordingly, we determined that the use of facts otherwise available in reaching our determination is appropriate pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and

(B)of the Act, and that the use of an adverse inference in selecting from the facts available is appropriate pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act. *See Preliminary Results* , 72 FR at 7410. In accordance with section 776(b)(1) of the Act, as adverse facts available, we assigned to the PRC-entity (including Hengtai and Rotec) the PRC-wide rate of 43.32 percent. For detailed information on the Department's corroboration of this rate, *see Preliminary Results* , 72 FR at 7411, and Memorandum from Ann Fornaro, International Trade Analyst, through Blanche Ziv, Program Manager, AD/CVD Enforcement Office 8, and Wendy J. Frankel, Office Director, AD/CVD Enforcement Office 8, to the File, entitled, “Corroboration of the PRC-Wide Adverse Facts-Available Rate,” dated February 9, 2007. Changes Since the Preliminary Results Based on our analysis of comments received from interested parties and information on the record of these reviews, we made changes to the margin calculations as noted below. For the final results, we have corrected the calculation of freight values for Golrich's carton and steel buckle inputs by multiplying the distance from the domestic supplier to the factory by the surrogate value for truck freight, instead of adding those two values. For further details, *see* the *Issues and Decision Memo* at Comment 13, and Memorandum from Ann Fornaro, International Trade Analyst, through Blanche Ziv, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations Office 8, to the File, entitled, “Analysis for the Final Results of the 2005-2006 New Shipper Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China: Qingdao Golrich Autoparts Co., Ltd.,” dated July 27, 2007 (“ *Golrich Analysis Memo* ”). For further details on company-specific calculations, *see* the company-specific analysis memoranda. 8 8 Memorandum from Jennifer Moats, Senior International Trade Analyst, through Blanche Ziv, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations Office 8, to the File, entitled, “Analysis for the Final Results of the 2005-2006 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China: Longkou Haimeng Machinery Co., Ltd.,” dated July 27, 2007; Memorandum from Frances Veith, International Trade Compliance Analyst, through Blanche Ziv, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations Office 8, to the File, entitled, “Analysis for the Final Results of the 2005-2006 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China: Qingdao Meita Automotive Industry Co., Ltd.,” dated July 27, 2007; Memorandum from Frances Veith, International Trade Compliance Analyst, through Blanche Ziv, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations Office 8, to the File, entitled, “Analysis for the Final Results of the 2005-2006 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China: Yantai Winhere Auto-Part Manufacturing Co., Ltd.,” dated July 27, 2007; and the *Golrich Analysis Memo* . We have made certain changes to the financial ratio calculations for the final results. For further details, *see* the *Issues and Decision Memo* at Comment 3. We determined that we inadvertently excluded Ukraine import data for February and March 2006 in the calculation of the surrogate value for steel strap in the *Preliminary Results* . Therefore, we recalculated the surrogate value for steel strap to include the Ukraine data for those two months for the final results. 9 For further information on the calculation of this value, *see* Memorandum from Ann Fornaro, Trade Compliance Analyst, through Blanche Ziv, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations Office 8, to the File entitled, “2005-2006 Administration and New Shipper Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Order of Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China Surrogate Values for the Final Results,” dated July 27, 2007 (“ *Final Surrogate Value Memo* ”). 9 *See Surrogate Value Change Memo* . We have also made changes to the surrogate values for cartons. For further details, see the *Issues and Decision Memo* at Comment 9 and *Final Surrogate Value Memo* . Final Results of the Reviews We determine that the following final dumping margins exist for the period April 1, 2005, through March 31, 2006: Individually Reviewed Exporters 2005-2006 Administrative Review Weighted-Average Percent Margin Longkou Haimeng Machinery Co., Ltd. 4.22 Yantai Winhere Auto-Part Manufacturing Co., Ltd. 0.03 ( *de minimis* ) Qingdao Meita Automotive Industry Co., Ltd. 0.00 Separate-Rate Applicant Exporters 2005-2006 Administrative Review Weighted-Average Percent Margin China National Industrial Machinery I & E Co. 10 4.22 Laizhou Auto Brake Equipment Co., Ltd. 4.22 Qingdao Gren (Group) Co. 11 4.22 Zibo Luzhou Automobile Parts Co., Ltd. 4.22 Laizhou Hongda Auto Replacement Parts Co., Ltd. 4.22 Longkou TLC Machinery Co., Ltd. 4.22 Zibo Golden Harvest Machinery Limited Company 4.22 Laizhou City Luqi Machinery Co., Ltd. 4.22 Shenyang Yinghao Machinery Co. 4.22 Longkou Jinzheng Machinery Co., Ltd. 4.22 Shanxi Zhongding Auto Parts Co., Ltd. 4.22 Shandong Huanri Group Co., Ltd. 4.22 10 This company is also known as China National Industrial Machinery Import & Export Corporation. 11 This company is also known as Qingdao Gren Co. and Gren Group (Qingdao) Co. 2005-2006 New Shipper Review Weighted-Average Percent Margin Qingdao Golrich Autoparts Co., Ltd. 0.00 PRC-Wide Rate Margin (Percent) PRC-Wide Rate* 43.32 * This includes Rotec and Hengtai. The Department will disclose calculations performed for the final results to the parties within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Assessment Rates The Department has determined, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by these reviews. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication date of the final results of the reviews. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), for Winhere, Meita, Haimeng, and Golrich, we calculated an exporter/importer (or customer)-specific assessment rate for the merchandise subject to these reviews. Where the respondent has reported reliable entered values, we calculated importer (or customer)-specific *ad valorem* rates by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to each importer (or customer) and dividing this amount by the total entered value of the sales to each importer (or customer). *See* 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). Where an importer (or customer)-specific *ad valorem* rate is greater than *de minimis* , we will apply the assessment rate to the entered value of the importer's/customer's entries during the review period. *See* 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). Where we do not have entered values for all U.S. sales, we calculated a per-unit assessment rate by aggregating the antidumping duties due for all U.S. sales to each importer (or customer) and dividing this amount by the total quantity sold to that importer (or customer). *See* 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). To determine whether the duty assessment rates are *de minimis* , in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer (or customer)-specific *ad valorem* ratios based on the estimated entered value. Where an importer (or customer)-specific *ad valorem* rate is zero or *de minimis* , we will instruct CBP to liquidate appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties. *See* 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2). For the companies receiving a separate rate that were not selected for individual review ( *i.e.* , CNIM, LABEC, Gren, ZLAP, Hongda, Longkou TLC, ZGOLD, Luqi, Shenyang Yinghao Machinery Co., Jinzheng, SZAP, and Huanri), we will calculate an assessment rate based on the weighted average of the cash deposit rates calculated for the companies selected for individual review excluding any that are zero, *de minimis* , or based entirely on AFA pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act. Cash-Deposit Requirements The following cash deposit rates will be effective upon publication of this notice of final results for all shipments of subject merchandise from Golrich entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after publication date:

(1)zero cash deposit will be required for subject merchandise manufactured and exported by Golrich; 12 and

(2)for subject merchandise exported by Golrich but not manufactured by Golrich, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 43.32 percent. 12 Due to an inadvertent typographical error, we incorrectly stated Golrich's cash deposit rate as “2.15 percent” instead of 0.78 percent in the *Preliminary Results* . See *Preliminary Results* , 72 FR at 7416. * See also* the Memorandum from Ann Fornaro, Trade Compliance Analyst through Blanche Ziv, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, and Wendy J. Frankel, Office Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, to the File, entitled, “2005-2006 Antidumping Duty Administrative and New Shipper Reviews of Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”),” dated February 13, 2007. The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of this notice of final results for all shipments of brake rotors from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:

(1)the cash deposit rates for CNIM, LABEC, GREN, Winhere, Haimeng, ZLAP, Hongda, Meita, TLC, ZGOLD, Luqi Yinghao, Longkou Jinzheng, Zhongding and Huanri will be the company-specific rate indicated above (except that if a rate is *de minimis* , *i.e.* , less than 0.50 percent, zero cash deposit will be required);

(2)the cash deposit rate for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters who received a separate rate in a prior segment of the proceeding (which were not reviewed in this segment of the proceeding) will continue to be the rate assigned in that segment of the proceeding;

(3)the cash deposit rate for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate (including Rotec and Hengtai) will be the PRC-wide rate of 43.32 percent; and

(4)the cash deposit rate for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These requirements shall remain in effect until further notice. Notification to Interested Parties This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.402(f)(3), failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties. This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 and as explained in the APO itself. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. This notice of final results of the administrative and new shipper reviews is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: July 27, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix List of Comments and Issues in the Issues and Decisions Memorandum *Comment 1* Valuation of Pig Iron *Comment 2* Selection of Financial Statements *Comment 3* Financial Ratios: Calculation of Factory Overhead, Selling, General, and Administrative Expenses and Profit *Comment 4* Revocation Eligibility of Non-selected Respondents *Comment 5* Cash Deposit Rates of Non-selected Respondents *Comment 6* Voluntary Responses of Non-selected Respondents *Comment 7* Incorporation of Zeroing for Mandatory Respondents *Comment 8* Incorporation of Zeroing for Non-selected Respondents *Comment 9* Valuation of Cartons *Comment 10* Rescission of Review: Shanxi Zhongding *Comment 11* Separate Rate: Huanri Group *Comment 12* Respondent Selection Methodology *Comment 13* Clerical Error Freight Expenses for Golrich's Buckles and Cartons *Comment 14* Clerical Error Valuation of Steel Strap [FR Doc. E7-15037 Filed 8-1-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-831] Fresh Garlic From the People's Republic of China: Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of the 12th Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce DATES: *Effective Date:* August 2, 2007, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julia Hancock or Matthew Renkey, 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)482-1394 and

(202)482-2312, respectively. Background On December 27, 2006, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) published a notice of initiation of an administrative review of fresh garlic from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”), covering the period November 1, 2005, through October 31, 2006. *See Notice of Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part,* 71 FR 77720 (December 27, 2006). On April 11, 2007, after receiving quantity and value and separate rate responses, the Department selected the mandatory respondents for this review. Between May 14, 2007, and June 11, 2007, the Department received the initial section A, C and D questionnaire responses from the mandatory respondents. The preliminary results of this administrative review are currently due on August 2, 2007. Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results The Department determines that completion of the preliminary results of this review within the statutory time period is not practicable, given the extraordinarily complicated nature of the proceeding. The 12th administrative review covers 19 companies (three mandatory respondents and 16 separate rate respondents), requiring the Department to gather and analyze a significant amount of information pertaining to each company's corporate structure and ownership, sales practices, and manufacturing methods. The Department requires more time within which to complete its analysis. Furthermore, this review involves the extraordinarily complicated intermediate input methodology issue. Lastly, the Department requires additional time to analyze the questionnaire responses and to issue supplemental questionnaires. Therefore, given the number and complexity of issues in this case, and in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), we are extending the time period for issuing the preliminary results of review by 120 days until November 30, 2007. The final results continue to be due 120 days after the publication of the preliminary results. This notice is published pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2). Dated: July 23, 2007. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-14919 Filed 8-1-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-549-812] Furfuryl Alcohol from Thailand: Preliminary Results of the 2005-2006 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commence is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on furfuryl alcohol from Thailand. The period of review is July 1, 2005, through May 3, 2006. This review covers imports of furfuryl alcohol from one producer/exporter. We preliminarily determine that sales of subject merchandise have not been made at less than normal value. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to liquidate entries of furfuryl alcohol from Indorama Chemicals (Thailand) Ltd. without regard to antidumping duties. We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results. We will issue the final results not later than 120 days from the date of publication of this notice. DATES: *Effective Date:* August 2, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Damian Felton or Brandon Farlander, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-0133 and

(202)482-0182, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On July 25, 1995, the Department published an antidumping duty order on furfuryl alcohol from Thailand. *See Furfuryl Alcohol from Thailand: Notice of Amended Final Antidumping Duty Determinant and Order,* 60 FR 38035 (July 25, 1995). On July 3, 2006, the Department published its *Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review,* 71 FR 37890 (July 3, 2006). On July 28, 2006, Penn Specialty Chemicals, Inc. (“petitioner”) requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of Indorama Chemicals (Thailand), Ltd. (“IRCT”), a producer and exporter of furfuryl alcohol from Thailand. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(1), we published a notice of initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review on August 30, 2006. *See Notice of Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews,* 71 FR 51573 (August 30, 2006) (“ *Furfuryl Alcohol Initiation* ”). An antidumping duty questionnaire was sent to IRCT on September 6, 2006. We received timely responses to the questionnaire from IRCT on September 27, 2006, and October 27, 2006. On April 3, 2007, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), we published a notice extending the time limit for the completion of the preliminary results in this case by 120 days ( *i.e.,* until no later than July 31, 2007). * See Furfuryl Alcohol from Thailand: Notice of Extension for Time Limit for Preliminary Results of the 2005-2006 Antidumping Administrative Review, * 72 FR 15863 (April 3, 2007). We issued a supplemental questionnaire regarding IRCT's responses to sections A, B, and C of the Department's original questionnaire on May 3, 2007, and received a timely response from IRCT on May 25, 2007. We issued an additional supplemental questionnaire on June 18, 2007, and received a timely response to the second supplemental questionnaire on June 22, 2007. Period of Review The period of review (“POR”) covers July 1, 2005, through May 3, 2006. 1 1 On August 30, 2006, the Department published a notice of initiation for this administrative review covering the period July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006. *See Furfuryl Alcohol Initiation* . However, since the initiation, the Department has revoked this order effective May 4, 2006. *See Furfuryl Alcohol from Thailand; Final Results of the Second Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order and Revocation of the Order* , 72 FR 9729 (March 5, 2006). Therefore, the revised POR is now July 1, 2005 through May 3, 2006. Scope of the Order The merchandise covered by this order is furfuryl alcohol (C 4 H 3 OCH 2 OH). Furfuryl alcohol is a primary alcohol, and is colorless or pale yellow in appearance. It is used in the manufacture of resins and as a wetting agent and solvent for coating resins, nitrocellulose, cellulose acetate, and other soluble dyes. The product subject to this order is classifiable under subheading 2932.13.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive. Fair Value Comparisons To determine whether sales of furfuryl alcohol by IRCT to the United States were made at less than normal value (“NV”), we compared the export price (“EP”) to NV, as described in the “Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice, below. Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared the EPs of individual U.S. transactions to the weighted-average sales prices of the foreign like product, where there were sales made in the ordinary course of trade, as discussed in the “Normal Value” section of this notice. Product Comparisons In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all products produced by IRCT covered by the description in the “Scope of the Order” section, above, to be foreign like products for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. In making product comparisons, consistent with the *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol from Thailand: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value,* 60 FR 22557 (May 8, 1995) and *Furfuryl Alcohol from Thailand: Notice of Amended Final Antidumping Duty Determination and Order,* 60 FR 38035 (July 25, 1995) (collectively “LTFV Final”), we matched foreign like products based on the physical characteristics reported by IRCT. Export Price We calculated EP in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act because the merchandise was sold to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation by the exporter or producer and constructed export price methodology was not otherwise warranted. We based EP on the packed delivered, freight-on-board, cash-in-freight, or the delivery-duty paid price to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made deductions from the starting price for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These deductions included foreign inland freight, country of manufacture inland insurance, brokerage and handling, international freight, and marine insurance. We also made adjustments to the starting price for duty drawback in accordance with section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act. It is normally the Department's practice to confirm that the duty drawback adjustment claimed by the respondent meets the Department's two-pronged criteria for determining whether the duty drawback adjustment is appropriate. *See Rajinder Pipes, Ltd.* v. *United States* , 70 F. Supp. 2d 1350, 1358 (CIT 1999); *see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from Turkey* , 69 FR 53675 (September 2, 2004) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1; and *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Determination of Critical Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the Republic of Korea* , 71 FR 29310 (May 22, 2006) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 49. We have determined that only one of the reported inputs used in the projection of furfuryl alcohol meets the two-pronged criteria. Therefore, we made an adjustment to the starting price for duty drawback to account for import duties paid on the importation of a single input used in the production of the subject merchandise. for an in-depth explanation of these changes, *see* Memorandum from Case Analyst to File, “Preliminary Results Calculation Memorandum for Indorama Chemicals (Thailand) Ltd.,” (“ *Prelim Calc Memo* ”) dated July 25, 2007, available in the Department's CRU. Normal Value A. Home Market Viability In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we compared the volume of IRCT's home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of its U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C)(ii) of the Act. Because IRCT's aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales for the subject merchandise, we determined that the home market was viable. Level of Trade Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act states that, to the extent practicable, the Department will calculate NV based on sales at the same level of trade (“LOT”) as the EP. Sales are made at different LOTs if they are made at different marketing stages (or their equivalent). *See* 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). Substantial differences in selling activities are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for determining that there is a difference in the stages of marketing. *Id.* ; *see also 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). In order to determine whether the comparison sales were at different stages in the marketing process than the U.S. sales, we reviewed the distribution system in each market ( *i.e.* , the “chain of distribution”), 2 including selling functions, 3 class of customer (“customer category”), and the level of selling expenses for each sale. 2 The marketing process in the United States and comparison market begins with the producer and extends to the sale to the final user or consumer. The chain of distribution between the two may have many or few links, and the respondent's sales occur somewhere along this chain. 3 Selling functions associated with a particular chain of distribution helps us to evaluate the level(s) of trade in a particular market. For purposes of these preliminary results, we have organized the common selling functions into four major categories: sales process and marketing support, freight and delivery, inventory and warehousing, and quality assurance/warranty services. Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, in identifying levels of trade for EP and comparison market sales, we consider the starting prices before any adjustments. *See Micron Technology, Inc.* v. *United States, et. al.* , 243 F. 3d 1301, 1314-1315 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (affirming this methodology). When the Department is unable to match U.S. EP sales to sales of the foreign like product in the comparison market at the same LOT as the EP, the Department may compare the U.S. sale to sales at a different LOT in the comparison market. In comparing EP sales to a different LOT in the comparison market, where available data make it practical, we make a LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. IRCT reported one LOT in the home market and one LOT in the U.S. market. IRCT reported making sales only to end-users in the home market. In the United States, IRCT reported that it made sales only to a trading company. We examined the information IRCT reported regarding its marketing process for making the reported comparison market and U.S. sales, including the type and level of selling activities performed and customer categories. Specifically, we considered the extent to which the sales process, freight services, warehouse/inventory maintenance, and warranty services varied with respect to the different customer categories ( *i.e.* , distributors and end-users). Based on our analysis, we found that the single LOT in the United States is identical to the single LOT in the comparison market. Thus, we preliminarily find that a LOT adjustment for IRCT is not warranted. C. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices We calculated NV based on the delivered prices to unaffiliated customers. In accordance with section 773(a)(6)(b)(ii) of the Act, we made deductions for inland freight and inland insurance. Furthermore, where appropriate, we made adjustments for differences in circumstances of sale (“COS”) in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(c)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410 by deducting direct selling expenses incurred on comparison market sales (credit expenses), and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (credit expenses). We deducted inventory carrying costs incurred on comparison market sales, and added U.S. inventory carrying cost. We deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A) and

(B)of the Act. Preliminary Results of the Review We preliminarily find that the following dumping margin exists for the period July 1, 2005, through May 3, 2006. Manufacturer/Exporter Weighted-Average Margin (Percentage) Indorama Chemicals (Thailand) Ltd. * 0.39 * This is a *de minimis* rate. Assessment Rates Upon completion of this administrative review, the Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department calculates an assessment rate for each importer (or customer) of the subject merchandise. Upon issuance of the final results of this administrative review, if any importer (or customer)-specific assessment rates calculated in the final results are above *de minimis* ( *i.e.* , at or above 0.5 percent), the Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to CBP to assess antidumping duties on appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to liquidate without regard to antidumping duties any entries for which the assessment rate is *de minimis* ( *i.e.* , less than 0.50 percent). The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of this administrative review. Cash Deposit Rates On March 5, 2006, pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.222(i)(1)(ii), the Department revoked the antidumping duty order on furfuryl alcohol from Thailand ( *see Furfuryl Alcohol from Thailand; Final Results of the Second Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order and Revocation of the Order,* 72 FR 9729 (March 5, 2006)). The effective date of the revocation is May 4, 2007. As a result of this action, we do not intend to issue cash deposit instructions. Public Comment Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice. *See* 19 CFR 351.310(c). A hearing, if requested, will be 44 days after the publication of this notice, or the first business day thereafter. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the case and rebuttal briefs. Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results. *See* 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in such briefs or comments, may be filed no later than five days after submission of case briefs. *See* 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with the argument

(1)A statement of the issue,

(2)a brief summary of the argument, and

(3)a table of authorities. The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such written briefs or hearing, no later than 120 days after publication of these preliminary results. Notification to Interested Parties This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: July 25, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. 07-3764 Filed 8-1-07; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 12

Traces to 12 documents

CFR