[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 238 (Tuesday, December 13, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73726-73727]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-7275]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
A-533-810
Stainless Steel Bar from India: Notice of Court Decision Not in
Harmony and Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On October 20, 2005, in Slater Steels Corp. v. United States,
Consol. Court No. 02-00551, Slip Op. 05-137 (CIT October 20, 2005)
(``Slater III''), a lawsuit challenging the Department of Commerce's
(``the Department'') Notice of Amended Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Bar from India, 67 FR 53336
(August 15, 2002) (``Final Results'') and the accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum (July 5, 2002) (``Decision Memorandum''), the Court
of International Trade (``CIT'') affirmed the Department's third remand
determination and entered a judgment order. In the remand
determination, the Department did not collapse Viraj Alloys Limited
(``VAL'') with Viraj Impoexpo Limited (``VIL'') and Viraj Forgings
Limited (``VFL''). The Department calculated an individual antidumping
duty margin for VIL/VFL. The Department did not calculate an individual
antidumping duty margin for VAL because it did not export the subject
merchandise to the United States during the period of review. The
resulting antidumping duty margin for VIL/VFL is 0.84 percent.
Consistent with the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit (``Federal Circuit'') 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 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 the U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(``CBP'') to liquidate all relevant entries of subject merchandise for
VIL/VFL.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 30, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Williams, AD/CVD Enforcement
Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4619.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
In the underlying administrative review covering the period
February 1, 2000, though January 31, 2001, the Department collapsed
VAL, VIL, and VFL pursuant to 19 USC Sec. 1677(33) and 19 CFR Sec.
351.401(f) (2000). See Final Results; see also Decision Memorandum at
Comment 1. As a collapsed entity, VAL/VIL/VFL received a de minimis
dumping margin.
Based upon the record evidence, the Department found that VAL, VIL,
and VFL ``meet the regulations' collapsing requirements.'' Decision
Memorandum at Comment 1. First, the Department found that ``VAL and VIL
can produce subject merchandise (i.e., similar or identical products)
and can continue to do so, independently or under existing leasing
agreements, without substantial
[[Page 73727]]
retooling of their production facilities.'' Id. Second, the Department
found ``a significant potential for the manipulation of price and
production among VIL, VAL, and VFL.'' Id. Slater Steels Corporation,
Carpenter Technology Corporation, Electralloy Corporation, and Crucible
Specialty Metals Division of Crucible Materials Corporation
(collectively, the ``plaintiffs''/``defendant-intervenors'') challenged
this determination before the CIT, arguing that the Department
misapplied its collapsing regulation.
The CIT determined that the Department's decision to collapse VAL,
VIL, and VFL was not supported by substantial evidence on the record.
Therefore, the CIT remanded the Final Results to the Department to
reconsider its analysis of the collapsing issue and, if necessary,
revise the dumping margin calculation accordingly. See Slater Steels
Corp. v. United States, 279 F. Supp. 2d 1370 (CIT August 21, 2003)
(``Slater I''). Pursuant to the CIT's order in Slater I, the Department
filed its Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Remand (``Remand
I''). In Remand I, the Department determined that its decision to
collapse VAL, VIL, and VFL was supported by substantial evidence and in
accordance with the law, and therefore, the Department did not revise
its dumping margin calculations.
Upon review of Remand I, the CIT again remanded the Final Results
to the Department for further review of its collapsing determination,
citing certain issues for the Department to reexamine. See Slater
Steels Corp. v. United States, Court No. 02-00551, Slip Op. 04-22 (CIT
March 8, 2004) (``Slater II''). In response to the CIT's instructions
in Slater II, the Department filed its Final Results of Redetermination
Pursuant to Remand (``Remand II''). In Remand II, the Department
addressed the concerns raised by the CIT in Slater II and found that
the decision to collapse VAL, VIL, and VFL was supported by substantial
evidence and in accordance with the law, and therefore, the Department
did not revise its dumping margin calculations.
Upon review of Remand II, the CIT again remanded the Final Results
to the Department with specific instructions that the Department
calculate individual dumping margins. See Slater III Slip Op. 05-137 at
15. The CIT found that the Department's decision to collapse VAL, VIL,
and VFL in the Final Results was not consistent with the Department's
decision not to collapse VAL, VIL, and VFL in previous reviews. See
Slater III Slip Op. 05-137 at 15. In Final Results of Redetermination
Pursuant to Remand (``Remand III''), the Department did not collapse
VAL with VIL/VFL. See Remand III at 5-6. The Department collapsed VIL
and VFL because the plaintiffs agreed in the underlying review that VIL
and VFL should be collapsed. See Remand III at 5. VIL/VFL's resulting
antidumping duty margin is 0.84 percent. Id. at 26. The CIT affirmed
the Department's Remand III on October 20, 2005. See Slater III Slip
Op. 05-137 at 4-5.
Suspension of Liquidation
The Federal Circuit, in Timken, held that the Department must
publish notice of a decision of the CIT or the Federal Circuit which is
not ``in harmony'' with the Department's Final Results. Publication of
this notice fulfills that obligation. The Federal Circuit 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 October 20,
2005, decision or, if that decision is appealed, pending a final
decision by the Federal Circuit.
The Department will instruct CBP to liquidate relevant entries
covering the subject merchandise, in the event that the CIT's ruling is
not appealed, or if appealed and upheld by the Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit.
Dated: December 7, 2005.
Joesph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E5-7275 Filed 12-12-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S