64926 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No.

214 / Monday, November 6, 2006 / Notices

Weighted–Average results of reviews for which the Dated: October 31, 2006.
Producer
reviewed companies did not know that
Margin (Percentage) David M. Spooner,
the merchandise it sold to the Assistant Secretary for Import
Ivaco ......................... 2.75 intermediary (e.g., a reseller, trading Administration.
company, or exporter) was destined for [FR Doc. E6–18664 Filed 11–3–06; 8:45 am]
In accordance with 19 CFR
351.224(b), the Department will disclose the United States. In such instances, we BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S

calculations performed within 5 days of will instruct CBP to liquidate

publication of this notice. Interested
parties may submit case briefs and/or
written comments no later than 30 days involved in the transaction. See
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. results of this administrative review for
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. Further, the parties
submitting written comments should
provide the Department with an
additional copy of the public version of
any such comments on diskette. An
interested party may request a hearing
within 30 days of publication of these
preliminary results. See 19 CFR
351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested,
will be held 44 days after the date of
publication, or the first working day
thereafter. The Department will issue
the final results of this administrative
review, which will include the results of
its analysis of issues raised in any such
comments, within 120 days of
publication of these preliminary results. recent period for the manufacturer of
Assessment
Upon completion of this
administrative review, pursuant to 19
CFR 351.212(b), the Department will
calculate an assessment rate on all
appropriate entries. We will calculate
importer–specific duty assessment rates requirements, when imposed, shall
on the basis of the ratio of the total
amount of antidumping duties
calculated for the examined sales to the
total volume of the examined sales for
that importer. Where the assessment
rate is above de minimis, pursuant to 19 responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)
CFR 356.8(a), the Department intends to to file a certificate regarding the
issue appropriate assessment
instructions directly to CBP on or after
41 days following the publication of the
final results of review.
The Department clarified its
‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on
May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
unreviewed entries at the all–others rate
if there is no rate for the intermediary
Assessment Policy Notice for a full
discussion of this clarification.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following deposit rates will be
effective upon publication of the final
all shipments of steel wire rod from
Canada 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 Ivaco will be the rates
established in the final results of this
review, except if a rate is less than 0.5
percent, and therefore de minimis, the
cash deposit will be zero; (2) for
previously reviewed or investigated
companies not listed above, the cash
deposit rate will continue to be the
company–specific rate published for the
most recent period; (3) if the exporter is
not a firm covered in this review, a prior
review, or the less–than-fair–value
(‘‘LTFV’’) investigation, but the
manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate
will be the rate established for the most
the merchandise; and (4) if neither the
exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm
covered in this or any previous review
conducted by the Department, the cash
deposit rate will be 8.11 percent, the
‘‘All Others’’ rate established in the
LTFV investigation. These cash deposit
remain in effect until publication of the
final results of the next administrative
review.
This notice serves as a preliminary
reminder to importers of their
reimbursement of antidumping duties
prior to liquidation of the relevant
entities 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
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
A–570–848
Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the
People’s Republic of China: Notice of
Amended Final Results and Amended
Order Pursuant to Final Court Decision
AGENCY: Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On April 3, 2006, the Court of
International Trade (‘‘CIT’’) affirmed the
Department’s remand determination and
entered judgment in Hontex Enterprises
Inc., d/b/a Louisiana Packing Co. v.
United States, Ct. No. 02–00223, Slip
Op. 06–42 (Ct. Int’l Trade April 3, 2006)
(‘‘Hontex Judgment’’), which challenged
certain aspects of the Department of
Commerce’s (‘‘the Department’’)
Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the
People’s Republic of China: Final
Results of Administrative Antidumping
Duty and New Shipper Reviews, and
Final Rescission of New Shipper Review,
65 FR 20948 (April 19, 2000) (‘‘Final
Results’’) and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum for the
Administrative Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order on Freshwater
Crawfish Tail Meat from the People’s
Republic of China From Edward C. Yang
to Joseph A. Spetrini (‘‘Decision
Memo’’), dated April 19, 2000. As
explained below, in accordance with the
order contained in the CIT’s April 3,
2006, Hontex Judgment, the Department
is amending the Final Results to treat
Huaiyin Foreign Trade Corporation (5)
(‘‘HFTC5’’) and Ningbo Nanlian Frozen
Foods Company, Ltd. (‘‘Ningbo
Nanlian’’) as unaffiliated, non–collapsed
entities.
EFFECTIVE DATE: November 6, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scot
T. Fullerton or Christopher D. Riker,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW., Room 4003, Washington,
DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–1386 or
(202) 482–3441, respectively.

FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (‘‘Assessment antidumping duties.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Policy Notice’’). This clarification will These preliminary results are issued
apply to entries of subject merchandise and published in accordance with Background
during the period of review produced by sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) f the On April 19, 2000, the Department
companies included in these final Act. completed its Final Results, in which it

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:31 Nov 03, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\06NON1.SGM 06NON1
 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 214 / Monday, November 6, 2006 / Notices
collapsed Ningbo Nanlian and HFTC5
in the 1997–1998 administrative review.
See Final Results, and accompanying
Decision Memo at Comment 20. On
February 13, 2003, and on May 21,
2004, the CIT issued orders remanding
the case to the Department and ordering
the Department to further explain why
its findings warranted the collapsing of
HFTC5 and Ningbo Nanlian. See Hontex
Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a/ Louisiana
Packing Co. v. United States, 248 F.
Supp. 2d 1323 (CIT 2003), and Hontex
Enterprises Inc. d/b/a Louisiana Packing
Company v. United States of America,
342 F. Supp. 2d 1225 (CIT 2004). The
Department submitted its remand
redeterminations on August 12, 2003,
and October 18, 2004 (‘‘Remand Results
II’’), respectively.
On August 31, 2005, the CIT issued its
ruling on the Department’s Remand
Results II, again remanding the case to
the Department. See Hontex Enterprises,
Inc., d/b/a/ Louisiana Packing Co., v.
United States, Slip Op. 05–116, Court
No. 00–00223 (Ct. Int’l Trade August 31,
2005). Specifically, the CIT remanded
the case for the Department to: (1) (a)
find that Mr. Edward Lee, the owner of
Louisiana Packing Co. (Louisiana
Packing), an importer of crawfish tail
meat from the People’s Republic of
China (PRC) and one of the joint venture
owners of Ningbo Nanlian Frozen Foods
Company, Ltd. (Ningbo Nanlian), did
not control another respondent, Huaiyin
Foreign Trade Corporation (5) (HFTC5),
within the meaning of 19 U.S.C.
§ 1677(33)(F) and (G), and (b) find that
HFTC5 and Ningbo Nanlian were not
affiliated, and (c) find that HFTC5 and
Ningbo Nanlian should not be collapsed
and given a single antidumping margin,
and (d) find that Ningbo Nanlian is
entitled to a separate company–specific
antidumping margin and calculate that
margin using the verified information
on the record; or (2) (a) reopen the
record in order to gather additional
evidence of Mr. Lee’s control
relationship with HFTC5 during the
period of review, (b) place such
additional information on the record,
and (c) conduct an analysis that takes
into account any such new evidence,
including the temporal aspect of any
such new evidence. See CPA Remand II.
The Department submitted the Final
Results of Remand to the CIT on
December 9, 2005. In its Final Results of
Remand, in accordance with the CIT’s
August 31, 2005, order, the Department
found (1) that Mr. Lee did not control
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
HFTC5 within the meaning of 19 U.S.C.
§ 1677(33)(F) and (G), (2) that HFTC5
and Ningbo Nanlian were not affiliated,
(3) that HFTC5 and Ningbo Nanlian
should not be collapsed and given a
VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:31 Nov 03, 2006 Jkt 211001
single antidumping margin, and (4) that
Ningbo Nanlian is entitled to a separate
company–specific antidumping margin.
On April 3, 2006, the CIT sustained
the final remand determination made by
the Department. See Hontex Judgment.
The Department filed its appeal with the
United States Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit (‘‘CAFC’’) on May 31,
2006. The CAFC granted the
Department’s motion to dismiss the
appeal and dismissed the case on
September 21, 2006.
Amendment to the Final Determination
Because there is now a final and
conclusive court decision, effective as of initiation of the reconsideration of the
the publication date of this notice, we
are amending the 97/98 Final Results
and revising the weighted–average
dumping margins for both companies,
for purposes of the 97/98 period of
review:
Weighted–Average
Manufacturer/Exporter
Margin (Percent)
Ningbo Nanlian Frozen
Foods Company, Ltd.
Huaiyin Foreign Trade
Corporation (5) ..........
We have calculated Ningbo Nanlian’s reconsideration of the sunset review, the
company–specific antidumping margin
as 2.16 percent. See the Memorandum
to the File from Maureen A. Flannery,
‘‘Analysis for the Draft Results of
Determination Pursuant to Court
Remand for Freshwater Crawfish Tail
Meat from the People’s Republic of
China: Ningbo Nanlian Frozen Foods
Co., Ltd.,’’ dated November 22, 2005.
There have been no changes to this
analysis for these amended final results. David Goldberger, Kate Johnson, or
Additionally, we are determining
HFTC5’s margin based on its own
performance in the administrative
review. Therefore, HFTC5’s
antidumping duty margin will remain
201.63 percent. The Department will
issue appropriate assessment
instructions directly to U.S. Customs
and Border Protection within 15 days of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
publication of the final results of this
review.
This notice is issued and published in revoked the antidumping duty order on
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and
777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended.
Dated: October 30, 2006.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E6–18686 Filed 11–3–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703
64927
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
A–588–837
Large Newspaper Printing Presses and
Components Thereof, Whether
Assembled or Unassembled, from
Japan: Preliminary Results of
Reconsideration of Sunset Review
Import Administration,
AGENCY:
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On April 13, 2006, the
Department of Commerce (‘‘the
Department’’) published the notice of
sunset review of the antidumping duty
order on large newspaper printing
presses and components thereof,
whether assembled or unassembled
(LNPP), from Japan. On the basis of the
notice of intent to participate, as well as
adequate substantive responses and
rebuttal comments filed on behalf of the
domestic and respondent interested
parties, the Department is conducting a
full sunset review of the antidumping
2.16 duty order, following the requirements
of section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of
201.63 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’) and 19
CFR 351.218(e)(2)(i). As a result of this
Department preliminarily finds that
revocation of the order on LNPP from
Japan after the original sunset review
period of 1996–2001 would have likely
led to the continuation or recurrence of
dumping at the levels listed below in
the section entitled ‘‘Preliminary
Results of Review.’’
EFFECTIVE DATE: November 6, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Brandon Farlander, AD/CVD
Operations, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street & Constitution Avenue, NW,
Washington, DC, 20230; telephone: 202–
482–4136, 202–482–4929, or 202–482–
0182, respectively.
Background
On February 25, 2002, the Department
LNPP from Japan under a five-year
sunset review pursuant to section
751(c)(3)(A) of the Act, because the only
domestic interested party in the sunset
review, Goss Graphics Corporation (now
known as Goss International
Corporation (‘‘Goss’’)), withdrew its
participation, and, thus, its interest in
the review. See Large Newspaper
Printing Presses and Components
E:\FR\FM\06NON1.SGM 06NON1