38102 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No.
126 / Friday, July 1, 2005 / Notices
regulations regarding format,
translation, service, and certification of
documents. These rules can be found at
19 CFR 351.303.
Because deadlines in a sunset review
can be very short, we urge interested
parties to apply for access to proprietary
information under administrative
protective order (‘‘APO’’) immediately
following publication in the Federal
Register of the notice of initiation of the
sunset review. The Department’s
regulations on submission of proprietary
information and eligibility to receive
access to business proprietary
information under APO can be found at
19 CFR 351.304–306.
Information Required from Interested
Parties
Domestic interested parties (defined
in section 771(9)(C), (D), (E), (F), and (G)
of the Act and 19 CFR 351.102(b))
wishing to participate in these sunset
reviews must respond not later than 15
days after the date of publication in the
Federal Register of the notice of
initiation by filing a notice of intent to
participate. The required contents of the
notice of intent to participate are set
forth at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(ii). In
accordance with the Department’s
regulations, if we do not receive a notice
of intent to participate from at least one
domestic interested party by the 15-day
deadline, the Department will
automatically revoke the orders without
further review. See 19 CFR
351.218(d)(1)(iii).
If we receive an order–specific notice
of intent to participate from a domestic
interested party, the Department’s
regulations provide that all parties
wishing to participate in the sunset
review must file complete substantive
responses not later than 30 days after
the date of publication in the Federal
Register of the notice of initiation. The
required contents of a substantive
response, on an order–specific basis, are
set forth at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3). Note
that certain information requirements
differ for respondent and domestic
parties. Also, note that the Department’s
information requirements are distinct
from the Commission’s information
requirements. Please consult the
Department’s regulations for
information regarding the Department’s
conduct of sunset reviews.1 Please
1 In comments made on the interim final sunset
regulations, a number of parties stated that the
proposed five-day period for rebuttals to
substantive responses to a notice of initiation was
insufficient. This requirement was retained in the
final sunset regulations at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(4). As
provided in 19 CFR 351.302(b), however, the
Department will consider individual requests for
extension of that five-day deadline based upon a
showing of good cause.
VerDate jul<14>2003 18:11 Jun 30, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000
consult the Department’s regulations at
19 CFR Part 351 for definitions of terms
and for other general information
concerning antidumping and
countervailing duty proceedings at the
Department.
This notice of initiation is being
published in accordance with section
751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(c).
Dated: June 22, 2005.
Holly A. Kuga,
Senior Office Director AD/CVD Operations,
Office 4 for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E5–3475 Filed 6–30–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
A–357–812
Notice of Extension of Time Limit for
Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Review: Honey from Argentina
AGENCY: Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 1, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Brian Sheba or Robert James, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 7, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–0145 and (202)
482–0469, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On December 30, 2004, the American
Honey Producers Association and the
Sioux Honey Association (collectively
petitioners) requested an administrative
review of the antidumping duty order
on honey from Argentina in response to
the Department of Commerce’s (the
Department) notice of opportunity to
request a review published in the
Federal Register. See Antidumping or
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or
Suspended Investigation: Opportunity
to Request Administrative Review, 69
FR 69889 (December 1, 2003). The
petitioners requested that the
Department conduct an administrative
review of entries of subject merchandise
made by twenty–four Argentine
producers/exporters. In addition, the
Department received requests for
reviews from three of the Argentine
exporters included in the petitioners’
request, plus a request for review by one
additional exporter, El Mana S.A. (El
Frm 00013 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\01JYN1.SGM
Mana). The Department initiated a
review on the above twenty–five
companies on January 31, 2005. See
Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews and Request for Revocation in
Part, 70 FR 4818 (January 31, 2005).
Subsequent to the Department’s
initiation of review, on February 22,
2005, the petitioners filed a withdrawal
of request for review for fifteen of the
companies. See letter from petitioners to
the Department, Honey From Argentina,
(February 22, 2005), on file in the
Central Records Unit (CRU), room B–
099 of the main Department building.
On February 24, 2005, both petitioners
and Nexco S.A. (Nexco) (an exporter)
submitted letters withdrawing their
individual requests for review of Nexco.
See letters from petitioners and from
Nexco to the Department, Honey From
Argentina, (February 24, 2005), on file
in the CRU. Also on February 24, 2005,
petitioner rescinded its withdrawal with
respect to Mielar S.A. (Mielar). See id.
On March 9, 2005, El Mana submitted
a letter withdrawing its request for
administrative review. See letter from El
Mana to the Department, Honey From
Argentina, (March 9, 2005), on file in
the CRU. On March 31, 2005, petitioners
submitted a withdrawal of request for
review of two additional companies:
Compania Apicola Argentina (CAA),
Mielar, and TransHoney S.A.
(TransHoney). See Letter from
petitioners to the Department, Honey
From Argentina, (March 31, 2005), on
file in the CRU. On April 15, 2005, the
Department rescinded its review for the
companies named in petitioners’ and
respondents’ withdrawals of request for
review. See Honey from Argentina:
Notice of Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 70 FR 19927 (April 15, 2005).
Notice of Extension
Pursuant to the time limits for
administrative reviews set forth in
section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (the Act), the current
deadlines are September 1, 2005, for the
preliminary results and December 30,
2005, for the final results of this
administrative review. The Department,
however, may extend the deadline for
completion of the preliminary results of
a review if it determines it is not
practicable to complete the preliminary
results within the statutory time limit.
See 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and section
351.213(h)(2) of the Department’s
regulations. In this case the Department
has determined it is not practicable to
complete this review within the
statutory time limit because of complex
issues involved in this review,
01JYN1
 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 126 / Friday, July 1, 2005 / Notices
including the requested partial
revocation of the dumping order with
respect to Asociación de Cooperativas
Argentinas.
Therefore, the Department is
extending the time limit for completion
of the preliminary results until
December 20, 2005, in accordance with
section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. The
deadline for the final results of this
review will continue to be 120 days
after publication of the preliminary
results.
Dated: June 27, 2005.
Barbara E. Tillman,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E5–3470 Filed 6–30–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–583–816]
Certain Stainless Steel Butt–Weld Pipe
Fittings from Taiwan: Notice of Court
Decision and Suspension of
Liquidation
AGENCY: Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On June 14, 2005, in Alloy
Piping Products, Inc., Flowline
Division, et al. v. United States, Slip Op.
05–69, (‘‘Alloy Piping II’’), the Court of
International Trade (‘‘CIT’’) affirmed the
Department of Commerce’s (the
‘‘Department’’) Final Results of
Determination Pursuant to Remand
(‘‘Remand Results’’), dated February 14,
2005. Consistent with the decision of
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit (‘‘CAFC’’) in Timken Co.
v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir.
1990) (‘‘Timken’’), the Department will
continue to order the suspension of
liquidation of the subject merchandise,
where appropriate, until there is a
‘‘conclusive’’ decision in this case. If the
case is not appealed, or if it is affirmed
on appeal, the Department will instruct
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(‘‘Customs’’) to liquidate all relevant
entries from Ta Chen Stainless Steel
Pipe, Ltd. (‘‘Ta Chen’’) and revise the
cash deposit rates as appropriate.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 1, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alex
Villanueva, AD/CVD Operations, Office
9, Import Administration, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department
of Commerce, 1401 Constitution
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230,
telephone 202–482–3208, fax 202–482–
9089.
VerDate jul<14>2003 18:11 Jun 30, 2005 Jkt 205001
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Following publication of the Final
Results, Alloy Piping Products, Inc.,
Flowline Division, Markovitz
Enterprises, Inc., Gerlin Inc., and Taylor
Forge Stainless Inc., (the ‘‘Petitioners’’)
and Ta Chen, filed a lawsuit with the
CIT challenging the Department’s
findings in Certain Stainless Steel Butt–
Weld Pipe Fittings From Taiwan and
Accompanying Issues and Decisions
Memorandum; Final Results of 1999–
2000 Administrative Review, 66 FR
65899, 65900 (December 21, 2001)
(‘‘Final Results’’). In Alloy Piping v.
United States, Slip Op. 04–134, (CIT
2004) (‘‘Alloy Piping I’’), the CIT
instructed the Department to (1) reopen
the record, seek additional relevant
information regarding employee
bonuses, and recalculate the general and
administrative (‘‘G&A’’) expenses of Ta
Chen; and (2) reconsider Ta Chen’s U.S.
indirect selling expenses and to account
for all of Ta Chen’s U.S. selling
expenses incurred during fiscal year
1999. Specifically, regarding employee
bonuses, the CIT instructed the
Department to consider employee
bonuses distributed directly from
shareholders’ equity, and paid by the
company to its employees and
management in its recalculation of the
G&A expenses;
The Draft Final Results Pursuant to
Remand (‘‘Draft Results’’) were released
to parties on January 27, 2005. The
Department received comments from
interested parties on the Draft Results
on February 1, 2005. There were no
substantive changes made to the
Remand Results as a result of comments
received on the Draft Results. On
February 14, 2005, the Department
responded to the CIT’s Order of Remand
by filing the Remand Results. In its
Remand Results, the Department
reopened the record, sought additional
relevant information regarding
employee bonuses and recalculated the
G&A expenses of Ta Chen to include
bonuses to both employees and
directors/supervisors. The Department
also reconsidered Ta Chen’s U.S.
indirect selling expenses and
determined that there was no need to
add financial interest expenses to Ta
Chen’s U.S. indirect selling expenses.
Thus, the Department did not change Ta
Chen’s U.S. indirect selling expenses.
As a result of the remand
determination, the antidumping duty
rate for Ta Chen was decreased from
6.11 to 6.10 percent. The CIT did not
receive comments from either the
Petitioners or Ta Chen.
PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\01JYN1.SGM
38103
On June 14, 2005, the CIT affirmed
the Department’s findings in the
Remand Results. Specifically, the CIT
upheld the Department reopening the
record, seeking additional relevant
information regarding employee
bonuses, and recalculating the G&A
expenses of Ta Chen and reconsidering
Ta Chen’s U.S. indirect selling
expenses. See Alloy Piping II.
The only revisions made to the Final
Results were revisions to the calculation
of Ta Chen’s G&A expenses, as noted
above. This revision resulted in a
change in Ta Chen’s margin.
Suspension of Liquidation
The CAFC, in Timken, 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 final determination or
results. Publication of this notice fulfills
that obligation. The CAFC also held that
the Department must suspend
liquidation of the subject merchandise
until there is a ‘‘conclusive’’ decision in
the case. Therefore, pursuant to Timken,
the Department must continue to
suspend liquidation pending the
expiration of the period to appeal the
CIT’s June 14, 2005, decision, or, if that
decision is appealed, pending a final
decision by the CAFC. The Department
will instruct Customs to revise cash
deposit rates, as appropriate, and to
liquidate relevant entries covering the
subject merchandise effective (insert
date of FR publication), in the event that
the CIT’s ruling is not appealed, or if
appealed and upheld by the CAFC.
Dated: June 24, 2005.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E5–3473 Filed 6–30–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
Renewable Energy Trade Mission
AGENCY: International Trade
Administration, Department of
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice to Renewable Energy
Trade Mission to Brazil, October 17–19,
2005.
SUMMARY: The United States Department
of Commerce, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Commercial
Service is organizing a Renewable
Energy Trade Mission to Brazil, October
17–19, 2005, to help U.S. firms find
business partners and sell renewable
01JYN1