You are on page 1of 5

44256 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No.

150 / Friday, August 4, 2006 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE administrative review of its sales and Fruit From Thailand: Notice of
entries of subject merchandise into the Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary
International Trade Administration United Stated during the POR. Results of Antidumping Duty
[A–549–813] Additionally, in accordance with 19 Administrative Review, 71 FR 14497
CFR § 351.213(b)(1), on July 29, 2005, (March 22, 2006)).
Canned Pineapple Fruit from Thailand: the petitioners requested that the The Department is conducting this
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Department conduct a review of administrative review in accordance
Duty Administrative Review Tropical Food Industries Co., Ltd. with section 751 of the Act.
(TROFCO), The Prachuab Fruit Canning Period of Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, Company (PRAFT), and Vita. On August
International Trade Administration, 29, 2005, the Department initiated an The POR is July 1, 2004, through June
Department of Commerce. administrative review of TROFCO, 30, 2005.
SUMMARY: In response to requests by PRAFT, and Vita. See Initiation of
certain producers/exporters of the Scope of the Order
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
subject merchandise and the Administrative Reviews and Requests The product covered by the order is
petitioners,1 the Department of for Revocation in Part, 70 FR 51009 canned pineapple fruit, defined as
Commerce (the Department) is (August 29, 2005). pineapple processed and/or prepared
conducting an administrative review of On August 5, 2005, the Department into various product forms, including
the antidumping duty order on canned issued its antidumping questionnaire to rings, pieces, chunks, tidbits, and
pineapple fruit (CPF) from Thailand. TROFCO, PRAFT, and Vita. On August crushed pineapple, that is packed and
This review covers two producers/ 10, 2005, PRAFT informed the cooked in metal cans with either
exporters of the subject merchandise. Department that it had no U.S. sales or pineapple juice or sugar syrup added.
The period of review (POR) is July 1, shipments of the subject merchandise Imports of canned pineapple fruit are
2004, through June 30, 2005. during the POR. In August and currently classifiable under subheadings
The Department has preliminarily September 2005, Vita responded to the 2008.20.0010 and 2008.20.0090 of the
determined that the companies subject Department’s antidumping Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
to this review made U.S. sales at prices questionnaire. Subsequently, the United States (HTSUS). HTSUS
less than normal value (NV). If these Department issued supplemental 2008.20.0010 covers canned pineapple
preliminary results are adopted in our questionnaires to Vita. Throughout this fruit packed in a sugar–based syrup;
final results of administrative review, administrative review, the petitioners HTSUS 2008.20.0090 covers CPF
we will instruct U.S. Customs and have submitted comments regarding packed without added sugar (i.e., juice–
Border Protection (CBP) to assess Vita’s questionnaire responses. In a packed). The HTSUS subheadings are
antidumping duties on all appropriate letter submitted to the Department on provided for convenience and customs
entries. Interested parties are invited to August 24, TROFCO requested an purposes. The written description of the
comment on these preliminary results of extension of time to respond to the merchandise covered by this order is
review. We will issue the final results of Department’s questionnaire. Based on dispositive.
review no later than 120 days from the TROFCO’s request, the Department Partial Preliminary Rescission of
date of publication of this notice. granted TROFCO an extension of time to Review
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 4, 2006. respond to section A of the
questionnaire until September 12, 2005, As noted above, PRAFT informed the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
and to sections B, C, and D of the Department that it had no shipments of
Magd Zalok or Howard Smith, AD/CVD
questionnaire until September 27, 2005. subject merchandise to the United
Operations, Office 4, Import
However, TROFCO did not respond to States during the POR. After receiving
Administration, International Trade
the Department’s questionnaire. On PRAFT’s ‘‘no shipments’’ claim, the
Administration, U.S. Department of
October 6, 2005, the Department issued Department examined CBP entry data
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
a letter to TROFCO requesting that it for the POR. These data support the
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230,
explain in writing whether it had no conclusion that there were no entries,
telephone: (202) 482–4162 and (202)
shipment or sales of CPF to the United exports, or sales of subject merchandise
482–5193, respectively.
States during the POR. In the letter, we from PRAFT during the POR. See
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: memorandum to the file from Magd
informed TROFCO that if it did not
Background respond to the Department’s letter by Zalok dated May 15, 2006. Further, on
October 13, 2005, the Department may May 22, 2006, the Department requested
On July 1, 2005, the Department
conclude that TROFCO decided not to that CBP notify it within 10 days if CBP
published in the Federal Register a
cooperate and may use facts available had evidence of exports of subject
notice of ‘‘Opportunity to Request
that are adverse to TROFCO’s interests merchandise from PRAFT during the
Administrative Review’’ of the
in determining the company’s dumping POR. CBP has not notified the
antidumping duty order on CPF from
margin. The Department did not receive Department of such exports. See the
Thailand. See Antidumping or
a response from TROFCO. memorandum to the file from Magd
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or
Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Zalok dated June 15, 2006. Therefore, in
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), accordance with 19 CFR § 351.213(d)(3),
To Request Administrative Review, 70
the Department may extend the and consistent with the Department’s
FR 38099 (July 1, 2005). In accordance
deadline for completion of an practice, we are preliminarily
with 19 CFR § 351.213(b)(2), on July 19,
administrative review if it determines rescinding our review of PRAFT. See,
2005, the producer/exporter, Vita Food
that it is not practicable to complete the e.g., Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing
gechino on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES

Factory (1989) Ltd. (Vita), requested that


review within the statutory time limit of Bars From Turkey; Final Results,
the Department conduct an
245 days. On March 16, 2006, the Rescission of Antidumping Duty
1 The petitioners are Maui Pineapple Company Department extended the time limit for Administrative Review in Part, and
Ltd. and the International Longshoreman’s and the preliminary results of review until Determination Not To Revoke in Part, 68
Warehouseman’s Union. July 31, 2006 (see Canned Pineapple FR 53127, 53128 (September 9, 2003).

VerDate Aug<31>2005 22:39 Aug 03, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04AUN1.SGM 04AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 2006 / Notices 44257

Use of Adverse Facts Available (AFA) that is adverse to the interests of that Secondary information is defined as
Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides party in selecting from among the facts ‘‘{i}nformation derived from the
that, if an interested party (A) otherwise available.’’ See also Statement petition that gave rise to the
Withholds information requested by the of Administrative Action (SAA) investigation or review, the final
Department, (B) fails to provide such accompanying the Uruguay Round determination concerning the subject
information by the deadline, or in the Agreements Act (URAA), H. Rep. No. merchandise, or any previous review
form or manner requested, (C) 103–316 at 870 (1994). Section 776(b) of under section 751 concerning the
the Act goes on to note that an adverse subject merchandise.’’ See SAA at 870
significantly impedes a proceeding, or
inference may include reliance on and 19 CFR § 351.308(c).
(D) provides information that cannot be
information derived from (1) the The SAA clarifies that ‘‘corroborate’’
verified, the Department shall use, means that the Department will satisfy
petition; (2) a final determination in the
subject to sections 782(d) and (e) of the itself that the secondary information to
investigation under this title; (3) any
Act, facts otherwise available in be used has probative value (see SAA at
previous review under section 751 or
reaching the applicable determination. 870). The SAA also states that
determination under section 753; or (4)
Section 782(d) of the Act provides independent sources used to corroborate
any other information on the record.
that, if the Department determines that such information may include, for
Adverse inferences are appropriate ‘‘to
a response to a request for information example, published price lists, official
ensure that the party does not obtain a
does not comply with the request, the import statistics and customs data, and
more favorable result by failing to
Department will inform the person information obtained from interested
cooperate than if it had cooperated
submitting the response of the nature of fully.’’ See SAA at 870. The Court of parties during the particular
the deficiency and shall, to the extent Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), investigation or review. Id. To
practicable, provide that person the in Nippon Steel Corporation v. United corroborate secondary information, the
opportunity to remedy or explain the States, 337 F.3d 1373, 1380 (Fed. Cir. Department will, to the extent
deficiency. If that person submits 2003), held that the Department need practicable, examine the reliability and
further information that continues to be not show intentional conduct existed on relevance of the information to be used.
unsatisfactory, or this information is not the part of the respondent, but merely However, unlike other types of
submitted within the applicable time that a ‘‘failure to cooperate to the best information, such as input costs or
limits, the Department may, subject to of a respondent’s ability’’ existed, i.e., selling expenses, there are no
section 782(e) of the Act, disregard all information was not provided ‘‘under independent sources to establish the
or part of the original and subsequent circumstances in which it is reasonable reliability of calculated dumping
responses, as appropriate. to conclude that less than full margins. Thus, in an administrative
The evidence on the record of this cooperation has been shown.’’ Id. review, if the Department chooses as
review establishes that, pursuant to The record shows that TROFCO failed total AFA a calculated dumping margin
section 776(a)(2)(A) and (C) of the Act, to cooperate to the best of its ability from a prior segment of the proceeding,
the use of total facts available is within the meaning of section 776(b) of it is not necessary to question the
warranted in determining the dumping the Act. As noted above, TROFCO failed reliability of the margin for that time
margin for TROFCO because this to provide any response to the period. With respect to the relevancy
company failed to provide requested Department’s requests for information. aspect of corroboration, however, the
information. Specifically, TROFCO As a general matter, it is reasonable for Department will consider information
failed to respond to the Department’s the Department to assume that TROFCO reasonably at its disposal as to whether
antidumping questionnaire. possessed the records necessary to there are circumstances that would
On October 6, 2005, the Department participate in this review. Thus, by not render a dumping margin inappropriate.
informed TROFCO by letter that failure supplying the information the Where circumstances indicate that the
to respond to the request for information Department requested, TROFCO failed selected dumping margin is not
by October 13, 2005, may result in the to cooperate to the best of its ability. As appropriate as AFA, the Department
use of AFA in determining its dumping TROFCO failed to cooperate to the best will disregard the margin and determine
margin. TROFCO, however, did not of its ability, we are applying an adverse an appropriate dumping margin. See,
respond to the Department’s October 6, inference in determining its dumping e.g., Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico;
2005, letter. Because TROFCO failed to margin pursuant to section 776(b) of the Final Results of Antidumping Duty
provide any of the necessary Act. As AFA, we have preliminarily Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812,
information requested by the assigned to TROFCO a dumping margin 6814 (February 22, 1996) (where the
Department and thus significantly of 51.16 percent, the highest margin Department disregarded the highest
impeded this segment of the proceeding, determined for any respondent during dumping margin as AFA because the
pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (C) any segment of this proceeding, margin was based on another company’s
of the Act, we have based the dumping consistent with section 776(b)(2) of the uncharacteristic business expense
margin for TROFCO on the facts Act. This rate was calculated for a resulting in an unusually high dumping
otherwise available (FA). respondent in the less than fair value margin). We have preliminarily
Use of Adverse Inferences investigation. See Notice of determined that the 51.16 percent rate is
Antidumping Duty Order and Amended appropriate because it was calculated
Section 776(b) of the Act states that if Final Determination: Canned Pineapple for another respondent in a prior
the Department ‘‘finds that an interested Fruit From Thailand, 60 FR 36775 (July segment of this proceeding, and it has
party has failed to cooperate by not 18, 1995). not been judicially invalidated. Thus,
acting to the best of its ability to comply we consider the calculated rate of 51.16
with a request for information from the Corroboration of Information
to be corroborated.
gechino on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES

administering authority or the Section 776(c) of the Act requires the


Commission, the administering Department, to the extent practicable, to Comparison Methodology
authority or the Commission ..., in corroborate secondary information used In order to determine whether Vita
reaching the applicable determination as FA based on independent sources sold CPF to the United States at prices
under this title, may use an inference that are reasonably at its disposal. less than NV, the Department compared

VerDate Aug<31>2005 22:39 Aug 03, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04AUN1.SGM 04AUN1
44258 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 2006 / Notices

the export price (EP) of individual U.S. Analysis Memorandum for Vita Food that there are reasonable grounds to
sales to the monthly weighted–average Factory (1989) Co., Ltd., (Vita Analysis believe or suspect that during the
NV of sales of the foreign like product Memorandum) dated concurrently with instant POR, Vita sold the foreign like
made in the ordinary course of trade this notice. We did not calculate EP product at prices below the cost of
(see section 777A(d)(2) of the Act; see using the post–sale, post–POR price producing the product. Thus, the
also section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act). adjustments reported by Vita because Department initiated a sales below cost
Section 771(16) of the Act defines Vita failed to demonstrate that it is inquiry with respect to Vita.
foreign like product as merchandise that entitled to these adjustments (the post–
1. Calculation of COP
is identical or similar to subject sale adjustments benefitted Vita, and
merchandise and produced by the same thus Vita bore the burden to In accordance with section 773(b)(3)
person and in the same country as the demonstrate that it is entitled to these of the Act, for each unique foreign like
subject merchandise. Thus, we adjustments). See Corus Engineering product sold by Vita during the POR, we
considered all products covered by the Steels Ltd. v. United States, Slip Op. calculated a weighted–average COP
scope of the order, that were produced 2003–110, 2003 CIT Lexis 110 at * 11 based on the sum of the respondent’s
by the same person and in the same (‘‘The burden of proof is upon the materials and fabrication costs, selling,
country as the subject merchandise, and claimant to prove entitlement.’’). See general and administrative (SG&A)
sold by Vita in the comparison market also Vita’s Post Sale Price Adjustment expenses, including interest expenses,
during the POR, to be foreign like Memorandum, dated concurrently with and packing costs. Consistent with the
products for the purpose of determining this notice. position taken by the Department in
appropriate product comparisons to CPF prior segments of this proceeding, for
Normal Value reporting purposes, Vita allocated joint
sold in the United States. The
Department compared U.S. sales to sales After testing home market viability product costs between solid and juice
made in the comparison market within and whether comparison market sales products using the net realizable value
the contemporaneous window period, were at below–cost prices, we of the products during the five-year
which extends from three months prior calculated NV for Vita as noted in the period 1990 through 1994. We relied on
to the month in which the U.S. sale was ‘‘Price–to-Price Comparisons’’ and the costs submitted by Vita without
made until two months after the month ‘‘Price–to-CV Comparisons’’ sections of exception.
in which the U.S. sale was made. Where this notice.
2. Test of Comparison Market Sales
there were no sales of identical A. Home Market Viability Prices
merchandise made in the comparison
market in the ordinary course of trade, In accordance with section In order to determine whether sales
the Department compared U.S. sales to 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act, in order to were made at prices below the COP, on
sales of the most similar foreign like determine whether there was a a product–specific basis we compared
product made in the ordinary course of sufficient volume of sales in the home the respondent’s weighted–average
trade. In making product comparisons, market to serve as a viable basis for COPs to the prices of its comparison
the Department selected identical and calculating NV (i.e., the aggregate market sales of foreign like product, as
most similar foreign like products based volume of home market sales of the required under section 773(b) of the Act.
on the physical characteristics reported foreign like product is greater than or In accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A)
by Vita in the following order of equal to five percent of the aggregate and (B) of the Act, in determining
importance: weight, form, variety, and volume of U.S. sales), we compared the whether to disregard comparison market
grade. Where there were no appropriate aggregate volume of Vita’s home market sales made at prices less than the COP,
sales of foreign like product to compare sales of the foreign like product to the we examined whether such sales were
to a U.S. sale, we compared the price of aggregate volume of its U.S. sales of made: (1) in substantial quantities
the U.S. sale to constructed value (CV), subject merchandise. Because the within an extended period of time; and
in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of aggregate volume of Vita’s home market (2) at prices which permitted the
the Act. sales of foreign like product is less than recovery of all costs within a reasonable
five percent of the aggregate volume of period of time. We compared the COP
Export Price its U.S. sales of subject merchandise, we to comparison market sales prices, less
The Department based the price of based NV on sales of the foreign like any applicable movement charges.
each of Vita’s U.S. sales of subject product in a country other than Vita’s
3. Results of the COP Test
merchandise on EP, as defined in home market. See section
section 772(a) of the Act, because the 773(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act. Specifically, Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the
merchandise was sold, prior to we based NV for Vita on sales of the Act, where less than 20 percent of a
importation, to unaffiliated purchasers foreign like product in the Netherlands, respondent’s sales of a given product
in the United States, or to unaffiliated the third–country market with the were made at prices less than the COP,
purchasers for exportation to the United greatest volume of foreign like product we did not disregard any below–cost
States and the use of constructed export sales. sales of that product because the below–
price was not otherwise warranted cost sales were not made in ‘‘substantial
based on the facts on the record. In B. Cost of Production (COP) Analysis quantities.’’ Where 20 percent or more
accordance with section 772 (a) and (c) In the most recently completed of a respondent’s sales of a given
of the Act, we calculated EP using the administrative review of the product were made at prices less than
prices Vita charged for packed subject antidumping duty order on CPF from the COP during the POR, we determined
merchandise, from which we made Thailand, the Department determined such sales to have been made in
deductions for movement expenses, that Vita sold foreign like product at ‘‘substantial quantities’’ and within an
gechino on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES

including, where applicable, charges for prices below the cost of producing the extended period of time (i.e., one year)
transportation, terminal handling, product and excluded such sales from pursuant to sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C)
container stuffing, bill of lading the calculation of NV. As a result, in of the Act. Based on our comparison of
preparation, Customs clearance, and accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) POR average costs to reported prices, we
legal and port fees documentation. See of the Act, the Department determined also determined, in accordance with

VerDate Aug<31>2005 22:39 Aug 03, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04AUN1.SGM 04AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 2006 / Notices 44259

section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act, that production and sale of the foreign like preliminarily determined that there is
these sales were not made at prices product, in the ordinary course of trade, one LOT in the United States and one
which would permit recovery of all for consumption in the Netherlands. We LOT in the Netherlands. Moreover,
costs within a reasonable period of time. based selling expenses on weighted– because Vita performed nearly identical
As a result, we disregarded these average actual comparison market direct selling functions for U.S. and Dutch
below–cost sales. and indirect selling expenses. sales (the only difference being that, at
times, Vita arranged the international
Price–to-Price Comparisons Level of Trade
shipping for Dutch sales, whereas it did
Where it was appropriate to base NV In accordance with section not provide this service for U.S. sales),
on prices, we used the prices at which 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent we have preliminarily determined that,
the foreign like product was first sold practicable, we determined NV based on during the POR, Vita sold the foreign
for consumption in the comparison sales in the comparison market at the like product and subject merchandise at
market, in the usual commercial same LOT as the EP. The NV LOT is the same LOT. Therefore, we have
quantities, in the ordinary course of based on the starting price of the sales determined that a LOT adjustment is not
trade, and, to the extent possible, at the in the comparison market or, when NV warranted.
same level of trade (LOT) as the is based on CV, the starting price of the
comparison U.S. sale. sales from which we derive SG&A Currency Conversion
We based NV on the prices of Vita’s expenses and profit. For EP sales, the Pursuant to section 773A(a) of the
sales to unaffiliated customers in the U.S. LOT is based on the starting price Act, we converted amounts expressed in
Netherlands. We made adjustments, of the sales to the U.S. market. foreign currencies into U.S. dollar
where appropriate, for physical To determine whether NV sales are at amounts based on the exchange rates in
differences in the merchandise in a different LOT than the EP sales, we effect on the dates of the U.S. sales, as
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) examine stages in the marketing process certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.
of the Act. In accordance with sections and selling functions along the chain of
773(a)(6)(A), (B), and (C) of the Act, distribution between the producer and Preliminary Results of Review
where appropriate, we deducted from the unaffiliated customer. If the As a result of this review, we
the starting price movement expenses, comparison market sales are at a preliminarily determined that the
including, where applicable, charges for different LOT, and the difference affects following weighted–average dumping
transportation, terminal handling, price comparability, as manifested in a margins exist for the period July 1, 2004,
container stuffing, bill of lading pattern of consistent price differences through June 30, 2005:
preparation, customs clearance, and between the sales on which NV is based
legal and port fees documentation. We and comparison–market sales at the Manufacturer/Exporter Margin (percent)
also made circumstance of sale LOT of the export transaction, we make
adjustments to account for differences a LOT adjustment under section Vita Food Factory
in packing, credit and other direct 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. In determining (1989) Ltd. ................. 16.14
Tropical Food Industries
selling expenses incurred in the whether separate LOTs exist, we Co., Ltd. .................... 51.16
comparison and U.S. markets. In obtained information from Vita
addition, where applicable, pursuant to regarding the marketing stages for the
Public Comment
19 CFR § 351.410 (e), we made a reported U.S. and comparison market
reasonable allowance for other selling sales, including a description of the Within 10 days of publicly
expenses where commissions were paid selling activities performed by Vita for announcing the preliminary results of
in only one of the markets under each channel of distribution. Generally, this review, we will disclose to
consideration. See Vita Analysis if the reported LOTs are the same, the interested parties, any calculations
Memorandum. In accordance with the functions and activities of the seller at performed in connection with the
Department’s practice, where all each level should be similar. preliminary results. See 19 CFR
contemporaneous matches to a U.S. sale Conversely, if a party reports that LOTs § 351.224(b). Any interested party may
resulted in difference–in-merchandise are different for different groups of request a hearing within 30 days of the
adjustments exceeding 20 percent of the sales, the selling functions and activities publication of this notice in the Federal
cost of manufacturing the product sold of the seller for each group should be Register. See 19 CFR § 351.310(c). If
in the United States, we based NV on dissimilar. requested, a hearing will be held 44
CV. Vita reported that it sold the days after the date of publication of this
merchandise under review to two types notice in the Federal Register, or the
Price–to-CV Comparisons of customers, sales agents and end first workday thereafter. Interested
In accordance with section 773(a)(4) users, in the United States and the parties are invited to comment on the
of the Act, we based NV on CV when Netherlands through one channel of preliminary results of this review. The
we were unable to compare the U.S. sale distribution in each market. See Vita’s Department will consider case briefs
to a comparison market sale of an September 22, 2005, and November 25, filed by interested parties within 30
identical or similar product. For each 2005, questionnaire responses at 18–24 days after the date of publication of this
unique CPF product sold by Vita in the and 11–13, respectively. In each notice in the Federal Register. Also,
United States during the POR, we channel of distribution, Vita engaged in interested parties may file rebuttal
calculated a weighted–average CV based the following selling activities for both briefs, limited to issues raised in the
on the sum of the respondent’s materials types of customers: order processing, case briefs. The Department will
and fabrication costs, SG&A expenses, packing, freight and delivery, and consider rebuttal briefs filed not later
including interest expenses, packing paying sales commissions. Because the than five days after the time limit for
gechino on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES

costs, and profit. In accordance with one sales channel in the United States filing case briefs. Parties who submit
section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based involves the same functions for all sales, arguments are requested to submit with
SG&A expenses and profit on the and the one sales channel in the each argument: (1) A statement of the
amounts incurred and realized by the Netherlands also involves the same issue, (2) a brief summary of the
respondent in connection with the functions for all sales, we have argument and (3) a table of authorities.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 22:39 Aug 03, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04AUN1.SGM 04AUN1
44260 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 2006 / Notices

Further, we request that parties no rate for the intermediate Dated: July 31, 2006.
submitting written comments provide company(ies) involved in the David M. Spooner,
the Department with a diskette transaction. For a full discussion of this Assistant Secretary for Import
containing an electronic copy of the clarification, see Antidumping and Administration.
public version of such comments. Countervailing Duty Proceedings: [FR Doc. E6–12654 Filed 8–3–06; 8:45 am]
Unless the deadline for issuing the final Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
results of review is extended, the FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).
Department will issue the final results
of this administrative review, including Cash Deposit Requirements DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
the results of its analysis of issues raised
in the written comments, within 120 The following cash deposit National Oceanic and Atmospheric
days of publication of the preliminary requirements will be effective for all Administration
results in the Federal Register. shipments of the subject merchandise
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, [I.D. 072806B]
Assessment Rates for consumption on or after the Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of
In accordance with 19 CFR publication date of the final results of Mexico, and South Atlantic; South
§ 351.212(b)(1), in these preliminary this administrative review, as provided Atlantic Snapper Grouper Fishery
results of review, we calculated by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The Management Plan; Amendment 15
importer/customer–specific assessment cash deposit rate for the reviewed
rates for Vita’s subject merchandise. companies will be the rate established AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries
Since Vita did not report the entered in the final results of this review (except Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
value for its sales, we calculated per– that if the rate for a particular company Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
unit assessment rates for its is de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent, Commerce.
merchandise by summing, on an ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare a
no cash deposit will be required for that
importer or customer–specific basis, the draft environmental impact statement;
company); (2) for previously
dumping margins calculated for all U.S. supplement; request for comments.
sales to the importer or customer, and investigated or reviewed companies not
dividing this amount by the total listed above, the cash deposit rate will SUMMARY: The South Atlantic Fishery
quantity of those sales. If the importer/ continue to be the company–specific Management Council (Council) is
customer–specific assessment rate is rate published for the most recent preparing a Draft Environmental Impact
above de minimis (i.e., 0.50 percent ad period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm Statement (DEIS) to assess the
valorem or greater), we will instruct covered in this review, a prior review, environmental impacts of a range of
CBP to assess the importer/customer– or the less–than-fair–value (LTFV) management actions proposed in its
specific rate uniformly, as appropriate, investigation, but the manufacturer is, draft Amendment 15 to the Snapper
on all entries of subject merchandise the cash deposit rate will be the rate Grouper Fishery Management Plan of
during the POR that were entered by the established for the most recent period the South Atlantic (FMP). This notice is
importer or sold to the customer. To for the manufacturer of the subject intended to supplement notices
determine whether the per–unit duty merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit published in January 2002, September
assessment rates were de minimis (i.e., rate for all other manufacturers or 2003, and July 2005, announcing the
less than 0.50 percent ad valorem), in exporters will continue to be the ‘‘all preparations of DEISs for FMP
accordance with the requirement set others’’ rate of 24.64 percent, which is Amendments 13, 13B, and 13C,
forth in 19 CFR § 351.106(c)(2), we the ‘‘all others’’ rate established in the respectively.
calculated importer/customer–specific LTFV investigation. These cash deposit DATES: Comments on the scope of the
ad valorem ratios based on the rates, when imposed, shall remain in DEIS will be accepted through
estimated entered value. For TROFCO, September 5, 2006.
effect until publication of the final
the respondent receiving a dumping ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to
results of the next administrative
margin based upon AFA, we will Jack McGovern, National Marine
instruct CBP to liquidate entries review.
Fisheries Service, Southeast Regional
according to the AFA ad valorem rate. Notification to Importers Office, 263 13th Avenue South, St.
Within 15 days of publication of the
This notice also serves as a Petersburg, FL 33701; Phone: 727–824–
final results of review, the Department
5311; Fax: 727–824–5308; email:
will issue instructions to CBP directing preliminary reminder to importers of
John.McGovern@noaa.gov.
it to assess the final importer/customer– their responsibility under 19 CFR
specific assessment rates (if above de 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim
minimis) uniformly on all entries of regarding the reimbursement of Iverson, Public Information Officer, toll
subject merchandise made by the antidumping and duties prior to free 1–866–SAFMC–10 or 843–571–
relevant importer during the POR. The liquidation of the relevant entries 4366; kim.iverson@safmc.net.
Department clarified its ‘‘automatic during this review period. Failure to SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
assessment’’ regulation on May 6, 2003 comply with this requirement could snapper grouper fishery operating in the
(68 FR 23954). This clarification applies result in the Secretary’s presumption South Atlantic exclusive economic zone
to POR entries of subject merchandise that reimbursement of antidumping is managed under the FMP. Following
produced by companies examined in Council preparation, this FMP was
duties occurred and the subsequent
this review (i.e., companies for which a approved and implemented by NMFS in
assessment of double antidumping
dumping margin was calculated) where March 1983, under the authority of the
gechino on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES

the companies did not know that their duties.


Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
merchandise was destined for the We are issuing and publishing this Conservation and Management Act
United States. In such instances, we will notice in accordance with sections (Magnuson-Stevens Act).
instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. The actions proposed in FMP
entries at the all–others rate if there is Amendment 15 originated from the

VerDate Aug<31>2005 22:39 Aug 03, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04AUN1.SGM 04AUN1

You might also like