Federal Register / Vol. 70, No.
177 / Wednesday, September 14, 2005 / Notices
accordance with the PRA, Title 44,
United States Code, Chapter 35, OMB
approved this survey under OMB
control number 0607–0195. We will
furnish report forms to organizations
included in the survey. Additional
copies are available on written request
to the Director, U.S. Census Bureau,
Washington, DC 20233–0101.
Based upon the foregoing, I have
directed that an annual survey be
conducted for the purpose of collecting
these data.
Dated: September 9, 2005.
Charles Louis Kincannon,
Director, Bureau of the Census.
[FR Doc. 05–18247 Filed 9–13–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–07–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Bureau of Economic Analysis
Bureau of Economic Analysis Advisory
Committee
AGENCY: Bureau of Economic Analysis,
Economics and Statistics
Administration.
ACTION: Notice of public meeting.
SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Public Law
92–463 as amended by Public Law 94–
409, Public Law 96–523, Public Law 97–
375 and Public Law 105–153), we are
giving notice of a meeting of the Bureau
of Economic Analysis Advisory
Committee. The meeting’s agenda is as
follows: 1. Director’s report/update; 2.
Communication of BEA data
methodologies and concepts; 3. NAICS,
NAPCS and time series continuity; 4.
International data needs; 5. Medical care
spending.
DATES: Friday, November 4, 2005, the
meeting will begin at 9 a.m. and adjourn
at approximately 4 p.m.
ADDRESSES: The meeting will take place
at the Bureau of Economic Analysis,
1441 L Street, NW., Washington, DC
20230.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
James J. Murphy, Public Affairs
Specialist, Bureau of Economic
Analysis, U.S. Department of
Commerce, Washington, DC 20230;
telephone number: (202) 606–2787.
Public Participation: This meeting is
open to the public. Because of security
procedures, anyone planning to attend
the meeting must contact James Murphy
of BEA at (202) 606–2787 in advance.
The meeting is physically accessible to
people with disabilities. Requests for
foreign language interpretation or other
auxiliary aids should be directed to
James Murphy at (202) 606–2787.
VerDate Aug<18>2005 16:17 Sep 13, 2005 Jkt 205001
54355
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Committee was established September
2, 1999, to advise the Bureau of
Economic Analysis (BEA) on matters
related to the development and
improvement of BEA’s regional
economic accounts and proposed
revisions to the International System of
National Accounts. This will be the
Committee’s ninth meeting.
Dated: September 7, 2005.
J. Steven Landefeld,
Director, Bureau of Economic Analysis.
[FR Doc. 05–18248 Filed 9–13–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–06–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–867]
Automotive Replacement Glass
Windshields From the People’s
Republic of China: Final Results of
Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(‘‘the Department’’) published its
preliminary results of administrative
review of the antidumping duty order
on automotive replacement glass
(‘‘ARG’’) windshields from the People’s
Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) on May 9,
2005. See Automotive Replacement
Glass Windshields from the People’s
Republic of China: Preliminary Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review 70 FR 24373 (May 9, 2005)
(‘‘Preliminary Results’’). The period of
review (‘‘POR’’) is April 1, 2003,
through March 31, 2004. We invited
interested parties to comment on our
preliminary results. Based on our
analysis of the comments received, we
have made certain changes to our
calculations. The final dumping margins
for this review are listed in the ‘‘Final
Results of Review’’ section below.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 14, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Will
Dickerson or Jon Freed, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 8, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–1778 and (202)
482–3818, respectively.
Background
On April 4, 2002, the Department
published in the Federal Register the
antidumping duty order on ARG
windshields from the PRC. See
PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703
Antidumping Duty Order: Automotive
Replacement Glass Windshields from
the People’s Republic of China, 67 FR
16087 (April 4, 2002). On April 1, 2004,
the Department published a notice of
opportunity to request an administrative
review of the antidumping duty order
on ARG windshields from the PRC for
the period April 1, 2003, through March
31, 2004. See Antidumping or
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or
Suspended Investigation: Opportunity
to Request Administrative Review, 69
FR 17129 (April 1, 2004). On April 21,
2004, Pilkington North America, Inc.
(‘‘PNA’’), an importer of subject
merchandise during the POR, requested
an administrative review of Changchun
Pilkington Safety Glass Company
Limited and Wuhan Yaohua Pilkington
Safety Glass Company Limited
(collectively ‘‘the Pilkington JVs’’),
producers from which it imported the
subject merchandise (with PNA,
collectively ‘‘Pilkington’’). On April 24,
2004, Dongguan Kongwan Automobile
Glass, Ltd. (‘‘Dongguan Kongwan’’) and
Peaceful City, Ltd. (‘‘Peaceful City’’)
requested an administrative review of
their sales to the United States during
the POR. On April 26, 2004, Fuyao
Glass Industry Group Company, Ltd.
(‘‘Fuyao’’) requested an administrative
review of its sales to the United States
during the POR. On April 29, 2004,
Shenzhen CSG Automotive Glass Co.,
Ltd. (‘‘CSG’’) requested an
administrative review of its sales to the
United States during the POR.1 No other
interested parties submitted requests for
review. On May 27, 2004, the
Department published in the Federal
Register a notice of the initiation of the
antidumping duty administrative review
of ARG windshields from the PRC for
the period April 1, 2003, through March
31, 2004. See Initiation of Antidumping
and Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews and Request for Revocation in
1 CSG also listed the following variations of the
company names that may have been used to
represent it during the POR: Shenzhen CSG
Automotive Glass Co., Ltd.; Shenzhen Benxun
AutoGlass Co., Ltd.; Shenzhen Benxun Automotive
Glass Co., Ltd.; Shenzhen Benxun Automotive Co.,
Ltd.; Shenzhen Benxun AutoGlass Co., Ltd., d/b/a
Shenzhen CSG Automotive Glass Co., Ltd.;
Shenzhen CSG Automotive Glass Co., Ltd.
(Shenzhen Benxun Automotive Co., Ltd.); and
Shenzhen CSG Automotive Glass Co., Ltd.
(Shenzhen Benxun Automotive Glass Co., Ltd.).
Subsequent to CSG’s request for an administrative
review, the Department determined that CSG is a
successor-in-interest to Shenzhen Benxun
Automotive Glass Co., Ltd., which received a
separate rate in the investigation of this proceeding.
See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Changed Circumstances Review: Automotive
Replacement Glass Windshields From the People’s
Republic of China, 69 FR 43388 (July 20, 2004).
E:\FR\FM\14SEN1.SGM 14SEN1
 54356 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 14, 2005 / Notices
Part, 69 FR 30282 (May 27, 2004)
(‘‘Initiation Notice’’).
On October 12, 2004, the Department
published a notice of partial rescission,
which rescinded the administrative
review with regard to the following
companies: Dongguan Kongwan, Fuyao,
and Peaceful City. See Certain
Automotive Replacement Glass
Windshields From the People’s Republic
of China: Notice of Partial Rescission of
the Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 69 FR 60612 (October 12, 2004).
On December 3, 2004, the Department
published a notice in the Federal
Register extending the time limit for the
preliminary results of review from
December 31, 2004, to March 31, 2005.
See Extension of Time Limit for the
Preliminary Results of the Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review:
Automotive Replacement Glass
Windshields from the People’s Republic
of China, 69 FR 70224 (December 3,
2004). Additionally, on March 22, 2005,
the Department published a notice in
the Federal Register further extending
the time limit for the preliminary results
of review to May 2, 2005. See Extension
of Time Limit for the Preliminary
Results of the Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Automotive
Replacement Glass Windshields from
the People’s Republic of China, 70 FR
14445 (March 22, 2005).The Department
published the preliminary results on
May 9, 2005. See Preliminary Results,
70 FR at 24373.
We invited parties to comment on our
preliminary results. See Preliminary
Results, 70 FR at 24381. On June 8,
2005, the Department received a case
brief from CSG. We did not receive a
case brief from PNA or any other
interested party. In addition, we did not
receive any rebuttal comments. On
August 18, 2005, we issued a
memorandum to all interested parties
requesting comments regarding a change
in the Department’s calculated
regression-based wage rate
methodology. See Memorandum from
Will Dickerson to the File: Automotive
Replacement Glass Windshields from
the People’s Republic of China—New
Non-Market Economy Wage Rates
(August 18, 2005). No parties provided
comments. We have conducted this
administrative review in accordance
with Section 751 of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’), and 19
CFR 351.213.
Scope of Order
The products covered by this order
are ARG windshields, and parts thereof,
whether clear or tinted, whether coated
or not, and whether or not they include
antennas, ceramics, mirror buttons or
VerDate Aug<18>2005 16:17 Sep 13, 2005 Jkt 205001
VIN notches, and whether or not they
are encapsulated. ARG windshields are
laminated safety glass (i.e., two layers of
(typically float) glass with a sheet of
clear or tinted plastic in between
(usually polyvinyl butyral)), which are
produced and sold for use by
automotive glass installation shops to
replace windshields in automotive
vehicles (e.g., passenger cars, light
trucks, vans, sport utility vehicles, etc.)
that are cracked, broken or otherwise
damaged.
ARG windshields subject to this order
are currently classifiable under
subheading 7007.21.10.10 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedules of the
United States (HTSUS). Specifically
excluded from the scope of the order are
laminated automotive windshields sold
for use in original assembly of vehicles.
While HTSUS subheadings are provided
for convenience and customs purposes,
our written description of the scope of
the order is dispositive.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the post-
preliminary comments by parties in this
review are addressed in the Issues and
Decision Memorandum, dated
September 6, 2005, (‘‘Decision Memo’’)
which is hereby adopted by this notice.
A list of the issues which parties raised
and to which we responded in the
Decision Memo is attached to this notice
as an appendix. The Decision Memo is
a public document which is on file in
the Central Records Unit (‘‘CRU’’) in
room B–099 in the main Department
building, and is accessible on the Web
at http://www.ia.ita.doc.gov/. The paper
copy and electronic version of the
memorandum are identical in content.
Partial Facts—Available
In the preliminary results, the
Department used facts otherwise
available in conducting its analysis of
certain U.S. sales which were not
reported by CSG. Sections 776(a)(2)(A)
and 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act provide that
the Department shall use facts available
when an interested party withholds
information that has been requested by
the Department or when an interested
party fails to provide the information
requested in a timely manner and in the
form requested. During verification, the
Department discovered that CSG had
failed to provide information regarding
certain U.S. sales of subject
merchandise by the deadline for
submitting such information. See
Preliminary Results, 70 FR at 24377.
Consequently, the Department lacked
information necessary to conduct a
complete and accurate analysis of these
U.S. sales of subject merchandise and
PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14SEN1.SGM
determined to use facts otherwise
available for the U.S. sales which were
not reported by CSG. See sections
776(a)(1) and 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act.
Section 776(b) of the Act provides
that the Department may use adverse
inferences when an interested party has
failed to cooperate by not acting to the
best of its ability to comply with the
Department’s request for information. In
applying facts available to the
unreported sales, the Department
determined that adverse inferences were
warranted because CSG failed to
cooperate by not acting to the best of its
ability to comply with the Department’s
requests to report all U.S. sales in a
timely manner. CSG had numerous
opportunities to present complete and
accurate information regarding its U.S.
sales but failed to do so. See Preliminary
Results, 70 FR at 24377. Because the
administrative record was incomplete
with regard to these unreported U.S.
sales, the Department applied the PRC-
wide rate from the petition as adverse
facts available (‘‘AFA’’), in accordance
with Section 776(b) of the Act. See
Preliminary Results, 70 FR at 24377.
There have been no arguments
submitted to cause us to reconsider our
decision in the preliminary results in
this respect. Therefore, we have
determined that the application of
partial facts available continues to be
appropriate for certain U.S. sales which
were not reported by CSG.
Corroboration of Adverse Facts
Available
Section 776(c) of the Act provides
that, when the Department relies on
secondary information rather than on
information obtained in the course of an
investigation or review as facts
available, it must, to the extent
practicable, corroborate that information
from independent sources reasonably at
its disposal. Secondary information is
defined in the Statement of
Administrative Action (‘‘SAA’’) as
‘‘information derived from the petition
that gave rise to the investigation or
review, the final determination
concerning the subject merchandise, or
any previous review under section 751
concerning the subject merchandise.’’
See SAA at 870. The SAA provides that
to ‘‘corroborate’’ means simply that the
Department will satisfy itself that the
secondary information to be used has
probative value. See SAA at 870. The
SAA also states that independent
sources used to corroborate may
include, for example, published price
lists, official import statistics and
customs data, and information obtained
from interested parties during the
particular investigation or review. See
14SEN1
 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 14, 2005 / Notices
SAA at 870. As noted in Tapered Roller
Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished
and Unfinished, from Japan, and
Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or
Less in Outside Diameter, and
Components Thereof, from Japan;
Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Reviews and
Partial Termination of Administrative
Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 (November
6, 1996), to corroborate secondary
information, the Department will, to the
extent practicable, examine the
reliability and relevance of the
information used.
In the preliminary results, we
corroborated the petition rate that was
applied as AFA to CSG’s unreported
sales. See Preliminary Results, 70 FR at
24378; see also Memorandum from Will
Dickerson to Robert Bolling:
Corroboration of the PRC-Wide Adverse
Facts-Available Rate, dated May 2, 2005
(‘‘Second Review Preliminary
Corroboration Memo’’). The Department
explained that the reliability of the
petition rate was determined in the
investigation and that no information in
the current review was presented that
challenges the reliability of this
information. See Second Review
Preliminary Corroboration Memo at 2.
Since the preliminary results, no parties
have placed arguments on the record to
cause us to reconsider the reliability of
the petition rate. Thus, the Department
continues to find that the information is
reliable.
In the preliminary results, the
Department found the petition rate to be
relevant because the record of this
administrative review contained
margins within the range of the petition
margin, although we stated that we
would reexamine its relevancy by
considering all margins on the record at
the time of the final results. See
Preliminary Results, 70 FR at 24378. In
these final results, the Department
compared the final margin calculations
in this administrative review with the
rate of 124.5 percent from the original
petition to assess the relevancy of the
partial AFA rate it has chosen. We find
that the highest dumping margins for
both CSG and PNA exceed the petition
rate of 124.5 percent. See Memorandum
from Will Dickerson to Robert Bolling:
Corroboration of the PRC-Wide Adverse
Facts—Available Rate, dated September
6, 2005, at Attachment 1. Therefore, the
PRC-wide rate continues to be within
the range of the highest margins we
have determined in this administrative
review. Since the record of this
administrative review contains margins
within the range of the petition margin,
we determine that the rate from the
petition continues to be relevant for use
VerDate Aug<18>2005 16:17 Sep 13, 2005 Jkt 205001
in this administrative review. Further,
the rate used is currently applicable to
all exporters subject to the PRC-wide
rate.
As the petition rate is both reliable
and relevant, we determine that it has
probative value. As a result, the
Department determines that the petition
rate is corroborated, to the extent
practicable, for the purposes of this
administrative review and may
reasonably be applied to CSG as a
partial AFA rate. Accordingly, we
determine that the highest rate from any
segment of this administrative
proceeding (i.e., the rate of 124.5
percent) is corroborated in accordance
with the requirement under section
776(c) of the Act (i.e., has probative
value), and we have assigned this rate
to CSG’s unreported sales.
Changes Since the Preliminary Results
Based on our analysis of comments
received, we have made changes in the
margin calculations for CSG. See
Decision Memo at 6. In the preliminary
results, the Department inadvertently
made a currency conversion error with
respect to certain unreported sales of
CSG. For the final results, the
Department corrected the currency
conversion error.
Additionally, for these final results,
the Department has modified its
regression-based PRC wage rate. The
specific calculation changes can be
found in CSG Final Analysis Memo and
Final Results of Review of the Order on
Automotive Replacement Glass
Windshields from the People’s Republic
of China: Pilkington North America
Program Analysis for the Final Results
of Review Memorandum from Will
Dickerson, Case Analyst, through Robert
Bolling, Program Manager, Office VIII to
the File, dated September 6, 2005 (‘‘PNA
Final Analysis Memo’’).
Final Results of Review
We determine that the following
percentage margins exist on exports of
ARG windshields from the PRC for the
period April 1, 2003, through March 31,
2004:
AUTOMOTIVE REPLACEMENT GLASS
WINDSHIELDS FROM THE PRC
Producer/Manufacturer/
Exporter
CSG ......................................
Pilkington ..............................
PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703
54357
Assessment Rates
The Department will issue
appraisement instructions directly to
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(‘‘CBP’’) within 15 days of publication
of these final results of administrative
review. In accordance with 19 CFR
351.212(b)(1), we have calculated
importer-specific assessment rates for
merchandise subject to this review. For
CSG, we divided the total dumping
margins of its reviewed sales by the total
entered value of its reviewed sales for
each applicable importer to calculate
ad-valorem assessment rates. Because
Pilkington did not report entered value,
we divided the total dumping margins
of its reviewed sales by the total
quantity (measured in square meters) of
subject merchandise sold to each
applicable importer during the POR to
calculate a per-unit assessment amount.
We will direct CBP to assess the
resulting assessment rates against the
entered customs values for the subject
merchandise on each importer’s entries
under the relevant order during the
POR.
To determine whether the duty
assessment rates were de minimis, in
accordance with the requirement set
forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we
calculated importer-specific ad valorem
rates. For CSG, we aggregated the
dumping margins calculated for all U.S.
sales to each importer and divided this
amount by the entered value of the sales
to each importer. For further details see
CSG Final Analysis Memo. For
Pilkington, we divided the total
dumping margins for each importer by
a constructed entered value of the sales
to each importer, as Pilkington did not
report entered value. For further details
see PNA Final Analysis Memo. Where
an importer-specific ad valorem rate is
de minimis, we will order CBP to
liquidate appropriate entries without
regard to antidumping duties.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following deposit requirements
will be effective upon publication of
this notice of final results of
administrative review for all shipments
of ARG windshields from the PRC
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption on or after the date of
publication, as provided by Section
751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit
rates for the reviewed companies will be
Weighted- the rates shown above, except that the
average Department shall require no deposit of
margin estimated antidumping duties for firms
percent) whose weighted-average margins are
0.93
less than 0.5 percent and therefore de
0.91
minimis; (2) for previously reviewed or
investigated companies not listed above
E:\FR\FM\14SEN1.SGM 14SEN1
 54358 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 14, 2005 / Notices
that have separate rate, the cash deposit
rate will continue to be the company-
specific rate published for the most
recent period; (3) the cash deposit rate
for all other PRC exporters will be 124.5
percent, the current PRC-wide rate; and
(4) the cash deposit rate for all non-PRC
exporters will be the rate applicable to
the PRC exporter that supplied that
exporter. These deposit requirements,
when imposed, shall remain in effect
until publication of the final results of
the next administrative review.
Notification of Interested Parties
This notice also 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. Failure to comply with
this requirement could result in the
Secretary’s presumption that
reimbursement of the antidumping
duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping
duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder
to parties subject to administrative
protective orders (‘‘APOs’’) of their
responsibility concerning the return or
destruction of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues
to govern business proprietary
information in this segment of the
proceeding. 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 terms of an APO is a violation
which is subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing this
determination and notice in accordance
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of
the Act.
Dated: September 6, 2005.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
Appendix 1—Issues in the Decision
Memorandum
Shenzhen CSG’s Comments
Comment 1: Currency Used to Value Certain
Unreported Sales of CSG
Comment 2: Treatment of the By-Product
Offset in Normal Value
[FR Doc. 05–18175 Filed 9–13–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
VerDate Aug<18>2005 16:17 Sep 13, 2005 Jkt 205001
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–831]
Fresh Garlic From the People’s
Republic of China: Rescission of
Antidumping Duty New Shipper
Review
AGENCY: Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Rescission of antidumping duty
new shipper review.
SUMMARY: On June 30, 2005, the
Department of Commerce (‘‘the
Department’’) initiated a new shipper
review of the antidumping duty order
on fresh garlic from the People’s
Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) covering the
period November 1, 2004, through April
30, 2005. See Fresh Garlic from the
People’s Republic of China: Notice of
Initiation of New Shipper Antidumping
Duty Review, 70 FR 39733 (July 11,
2005) (‘‘Initiation Notice’’). This new
shipper review covered three exporters,
Shandong Chenshun Farm Produce
Trading Company, Ltd., Shenzhen
Fanhui Import and Export Co., Ltd., and
Xi’an XiongLi Foodstuff Co., Ltd. (‘‘Xian
XiongLi’’). For the reasons discussed
below, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(f)(1),
we are rescinding the review of Xian
XiongLi.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 14, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ryan Douglas or Brian Ledgerwood at
AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–1277 and (202)
482–3836, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On May 26, 2005, the Department
received a timely request for a new
shipper review of the antidumping duty
order on fresh garlic from the PRC from
Xian XiongLi, an exporter of subject
merchandise sold to the United States.
On June 30, 2005, the Department
initiated this new shipper review
covering the period November 1, 2004,
through April 30, 2005. On August 9,
2005, the Department received a timely
request from Xian XiongLi to withdraw
its request for this review. See Letter
from Xian XiongLi Foodstuff Co., Ltd. to
the Department, August 9, 2005.
Scope of the Antidumping Duty Order
The products subject to this
antidumping duty order are all grades of
PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703
garlic, whole or separated into
constituent cloves, whether or not
peeled, fresh, chilled, frozen,
provisionally preserved, or packed in
water or other neutral substance, but not
prepared or preserved by the addition of
other ingredients or heat processing.
The differences between grades are
based on color, size, sheathing, and
level of decay.
The scope of this order does not
include (a) garlic that has been
mechanically harvested and that is
primarily, but not exclusively, destined
for non-fresh use or (b) garlic that has
been specially prepared and cultivated
prior to planting and then harvested and
otherwise prepared for use as seed.
The subject merchandise is used
principally as a food product and for
seasoning. The subject garlic is
currently classifiable under subheadings
0703.20.0000, 0710.80.7060,
0710.80.9750, 0711.90.6000, and
2005.90.9500 of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States
(‘‘HTSUS’’). Although the HTSUS
subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, the
written description of the scope of this
proceeding is dispositive.
In order to be excluded from
antidumping duties, garlic entered
under the HTSUS subheadings listed
above that is (1) mechanically harvested
and primarily, but not exclusively,
destined for non-fresh use, or (2)
specially prepared and cultivated prior
to planting and then harvested and
otherwise prepared for use as seed, must
be accompanied by declarations to the
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(‘‘CBP’’) to that effect.
Rescission of New Shipper Review
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(f)(1), the
Department will rescind a new shipper
review if a party that requested a review
withdraws its request not later than 60
days after the date of publication of the
notice of initiation of the requested
review. Xian XiongLi; withdrew its
request for a new shipper review on
August 09, 2005, before the expiration
of the 60-day deadline. No other party
requested a new shipper review of Xian
XiongLi, therefore, we are rescinding
the new shipper review of the
antidumping duty order on fresh garlic
from the PRC with respect to Xian
XiongLi in accordance with 19 CFR
351.214(f)(1).
Cash Deposits
The Department will issue
appropriate cash deposit instructions to
CBP for shipments from Xian XiongLi of
fresh garlic from the PRC entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for
E:\FR\FM\14SEN1.SGM 14SEN1