42392 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No.
148 / Thursday, August 2, 2007 / Notices
category’’), and the level of selling
expenses for each sale.
Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of
the Act, in identifying levels of trade for
EP and comparison market sales, we
consider the starting prices before any
adjustments. See Micron Technology,
Inc. v. United States, et. al., 243 F. 3d
1301, 1314–1315 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
(affirming this methodology).
When the Department is unable to
match U.S. EP sales to sales of the
foreign like product in the comparison
market at the same LOT as the EP, the
Department may compare the U.S. sale
to sales at a different LOT in the
comparison market. In comparing EP
sales to a different LOT in the
comparison market, where available
data make it practical, we make a LOT
adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of
the Act.
IRCT reported one LOT in the home
market and one LOT in the U.S. market.
IRCT reported making sales only to end-
users in the home market. In the United
States, IRCT reported that it made sales
only to a trading company. We
examined the information IRCT
reported regarding its marketing process
for making the reported comparison
market and U.S. sales, including the
type and level of selling activities
performed and customer categories.
Specifically, we considered the extent to
which the sales process, freight services,
warehouse/inventory maintenance, and
warranty services varied with respect to
the different customer categories (i.e.,
distributors and end-users). Based on
our analysis, we found that the single
LOT in the United States is identical to
the single LOT in the comparison
market. Thus, we preliminarily find that
a LOT adjustment for IRCT is not
warranted.
C. Calculation of Normal Value Based
on Comparison Market Prices
We calculated NV based on the
delivered prices to unaffiliated
customers. In accordance with section
773(a)(6)(b)(ii) of the Act, we made
deductions for inland freight and inland
insurance. Furthermore, where
appropriate, we made adjustments for
differences in circumstances of sale
(‘‘COS’’) in accordance with section
773(a)(6)(c)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.410 by deducting direct selling
expenses incurred on comparison
market sales (credit expenses), and
adding U.S. direct selling expenses
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
(credit expenses). We deducted
inventory carrying costs incurred on
comparison market sales, and added
freight and delivery, inventory and warehousing,
and quality assurance/warranty services.
VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:42 Aug 01, 2007 Jkt 211001
U.S. inventory carrying cost. We
deducted home market packing costs
and added U.S. packing costs in
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A)
and (B) of the Act.
Preliminary Results of the Review
We preliminarily find that the
following dumping margin exists for the
period July 1, 2005, through May 3,
2006.
Manufacturer/Exporter
Indorama Chemicals (Thai-
land) Ltd. ...........................
* This is a de minimis rate.
Assessment Rates
Upon completion of this
administrative review, the Department
will determine, and U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) shall assess,
antidumping duties on all appropriate
entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b),
the Department calculates an
assessment rate for each importer (or
customer) of the subject merchandise.
Upon issuance of the final results of this
administrative review, if any importer
(or customer)-specific assessment rates
calculated in the final results are above
de minimis (i.e., at or above 0.5 percent),
the Department will issue appraisement
instructions directly to CBP to assess
antidumping duties on appropriate
entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR
351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to
liquidate without regard to antidumping
duties any entries for which the
assessment rate is de minimis (i.e., less
than 0.50 percent).
The Department intends to issue
appropriate assessment instructions
directly to CBP 15 days after the date of
publication of the final results of this
administrative review.
Cash Deposit Rates
On March 5, 2006, pursuant to section
751(d)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.222(i)(1)(ii), the Department
revoked the antidumping duty order on
furfuryl alcohol from Thailand (see
Furfuryl Alcohol from Thailand; Final
Results of the Second Sunset Review of
the Antidumping Duty Order and
Revocation of the Order, 72 FR 9729
(March 5, 2006)). The effective date of
the revocation is May 4, 2007. As a
result of this action, we do not intend
to issue cash deposit instructions.
Public Comment
Any interested party may request a
hearing within 30 days of publication of
this notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). A
PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703
hearing, if requested, will be 44 days
after the publication of this notice, or
the first business day thereafter. Issues
raised in the hearing will be limited to
those raised in the case and rebuttal
briefs. Interested parties may submit
case briefs and/or written comments no
later than 30 days after the date of
publication of these preliminary results.
See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal
briefs and rebuttals to written
comments, limited to issues raised in
Weighted-Av- such briefs or comments, may be filed
erage Margin
(Percentage) no later than five days after submission
of case briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(d).
Parties who submit arguments are
* 0.39 requested to submit with the argument
(1) A statement of the issue, (2) a brief
summary of the argument, and (3) a
table of authorities.
The Department will issue the final
results of this administrative review,
including the results of its analysis of
issues raised in any such written briefs
or hearing, no later than 120 days after
publication of these preliminary results.
Notification to Interested Parties
This notice also serves as a
preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR
351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding
the reimbursement of antidumping
duties prior to liquidation of the
relevant entries during this review
period. Failure to comply with this
requirement could result in the
Secretary’s presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties
occurred and the subsequent assessment
of double antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing these
results in accordance with sections
751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: July 25, 2007.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. 07–3764 Filed 8–1–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–891]
Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof
From the People’s Republic of China:
Initiation of New Shipper Review
AGENCY: Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce
DATES: Effective Date: August 2, 2007.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(the ‘‘Department’’) has determined that
the request for a new shipper review of
E:\FR\FM\02AUN1.SGM 02AUN1
 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 148 / Thursday, August 2, 2007 / Notices
the antidumping duty order on hand
trucks and certain parts thereof (‘‘Hand
Trucks’’) from the People’s Republic of
China (‘‘PRC’’), received July 2, 2007,
meets the statutory and regulatory
requirements for initiation. The period
of review (‘‘POR’’) of this new shipper
review is December 1, 2006, through
May 31, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Matthew Quigley or Robert Bolling, 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) 482–4551 or (202) 482–
3434, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The notice announcing the
antidumping duty order on hand trucks
from the PRC was published on
December 2, 2004. See Antidumping
Duty Order: Hand Trucks and Certain
Parts Thereof From the People’s
Republic of China, 69 FR 70122
(December 2, 2004). On July 2, 2007, we
received a new shipper review request
from New-Tec Integration (Xiamen) Co.,
Ltd. (‘‘New-Tec’’). New-Tec certified
that it is both the producer and exporter
of the subject merchandise upon which
the respective request for a new shipper
review is based.
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(i)(I) of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the
‘‘Act’’), and 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(i),
New-Tec certified that it did not export
hand trucks to the United States during
the period of investigation (‘‘POI’’). In
addition, pursuant to section
751(a)(2)(B)(i)(II) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.214(b)(2)(iii)(A), New-Tec certified
that, since the initiation of the
investigation, it has never been affiliated
with any exporter or producer who
exported hand trucks to the United
States during the POI, including those
not individually examined during the
investigation. As required by 19 CFR
351.214(b)(2)(iii)(B), New-Tec also
certified that its export activities were
not controlled by the central
government of the PRC.
In addition to the certifications
described above, New-Tec submitted
documentation establishing the
following: (1) The date on which it first
shipped hand trucks for export to the
United States; (2) the volume of its first
shipment; and (3) the date of its first
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
sale to an unaffiliated customer in the
United States.
Initiation of New Shipper Review
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B) of the
Act and 19 CFR 351.214(d)(1), we find
VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:42 Aug 01, 2007 Jkt 211001
that the request submitted by New-Tec
meets the threshold requirements for
initiation of a new shipper review for
shipments of hand trucks from the PRC
produced and exported by New-Tec.
The POR is December 1, 2006,
through May 31, 2007. See 19 CFR
351.214(g)(1)(i)(B). We intend to issue
preliminary results of this review no
later than 180 days from the date of
initiation, and final results no later than
90 days from the date the preliminary
results are issued. See section
751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act.
It is the Department’s usual practice,
in cases involving non-market
economies, to require that a company
seeking to establish eligibility for an
antidumping duty rate separate from the
country-wide rate provide evidence of
de jure and de facto absence of
government control over the company’s
export activities. Accordingly, we will
issue a questionnaire to New-Tec,
including a separate-rate section. The
review will proceed if the response
provides sufficient indication that New-
Tec is not subject to either de jure or de
facto government control with respect to
its exports of hand trucks. However, if
New-Tec does not demonstrate its
eligibility for a separate rate, it will be
deemed not separate from other
companies that exported during the POI,
and its new shipper review will be
rescinded.
On August 17, 2006, the Pension
Protection Act of 2006 (H.R. 4) was
signed into law. Section 1632 of H.R. 4
temporarily suspends the authority of
the Department to instruct U.S. Customs
and Border Protection to collect a bond
or other security in lieu of a cash
deposit in a new shipper review.
Therefore, the posting of a bond or other
security under section 751(a)(2)(B)(iii)
of the Act in lieu of a cash deposit is
not available in this case. Importers of
hand trucks produced by and exported
by New-Tec must continue to post cash
deposits of estimated antidumping
duties on each entry of subject
merchandise (i.e., hand trucks) at the
PRC-wide entity rate of 383.6 percent.
Interested parties that need access to
proprietary information in this new
shipper review should submit
applications for disclosure under
administrative protective order in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 and
351.306.
This initiation and notice are in
accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of
the Act and 19 CFR 351.214 and
351.221(c)(1)(i).
PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\02AUN1.SGM
42393
Dated: July 26, 2007.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E7–14923 Filed 8–1–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–533–823, A–834–807, A–307–820]
Silicomanganese from India,
Kazakhstan, and Venezuela: Final
Results of Expedited Five-year
(‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews of the
Antidumping Duty Orders
AGENCY: Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On April 2, 2007, the
Department of Commerce (‘‘the
Department’’) published in the Federal
Register the notice of initiation of the
first five-year sunset reviews of the
antidumping duty orders on
silicomanganese from India,
Kazakhstan, and Venezuela, pursuant to
section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930,
as amended (‘‘the Act’’). See Initiation
of Five-year (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews, 72 FR
15652 (April 2, 2007) (‘‘Notice of
Initiation’’). On the basis of notices of
intent to participate and adequate
substantive responses filed on behalf of
domestic interested parties, and
inadequate responses from respondent
interested parties, the Department has
conducted expedited sunset reviews of
these orders pursuant to section
751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C). As a result of these
sunset reviews, the Department finds
that revocation of the antidumping duty
orders is likely to lead to continuation
or recurrence of dumping at the levels
indicated in the ‘‘Final Results of
Review’’ section of this notice.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 2, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Martha Douthit or Dara Iserson, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 6, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Ave., NW., Washington, DC. 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–5050, or (202)
482–4052, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The antidumping duty orders on
silicomanganese from India,
Kazakhstan, and Venezuela were
published in the Federal Register on
May 23, 2002. See Notice of Amended
02AUN1