Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2011 / Notices 14917 

61See, e.g., Tapered Roller Bearings at Comment 

1. 

have also provided evidence to 

demonstrate that finishing processes in 

the United Kingdom may add little 

value to the merchandise imported into 

the United Kingdom, as exported to the 

United States. Though UKCG provides 

rebuttal evidence to demonstrate that 

the processes performed in the United 

Kingdom are, indeed, sophisticated and 

contend that Petitioners’ arguments are 

based on the incorrect conclusion that 

the SDGE component inputs sourced 

from the PRC are in-scope (citing to the 

U.K. Customs and CBP rulings noted 

above), we do not find that their 

arguments are sufficient to deter the 

Department from initiating an anticircumvention inquiry to attain more 

information regarding the concerns 

raised by Petitioners. As a result, our 

subsequent analysis will focus on 

UKCG’s machining and finishing 

operations in the United Kingdom (in 

addition to information regarding 

pattern of trade, as discussed below) 

and we will closely examine the nature 

of the materials sourced from the PRC 

and whether those materials are subject 

to the scope of the SDGE Order. 

With respect to the value of the 

merchandise produced in the PRC 

pursuant to section 781(b)(1)(D) of the 

Act, Petitioners rely on their ‘‘minor or 

insignificant processing’’ arguments 

summarized above, as well as certain 

proprietary cost information provided in 

the initial Petition, to indicate that the 

value of the unfinished SDGE 

components may be significant relative 

to the total value of a the finished SDGE 

exported to the United States. We find 

that the information, as discussed 

above, adequately meets the 

requirements for initiation pursuant to 

section 781(b)(1)(D) of the Act. 

Regarding whether action is needed to 

prevent evasion of the SDGE Order, 

pursuant to section 781(b)(1)(E) of the 

Act, Petitioners do not address this 

issue directly, instead addressing this 

criterion in their arguments regarding 

‘‘pattern of trade’’ pursuant to section 

781(b)(3) of the Act. Specifically, they 

rebut UKCG’s reliance on the BOI ruling 

and the CBP ruling as support for either 

the appropriateness of the HTS 3801 

sub-classification for the unfinished 

components or confirmation of U.K. 

origin of the finished merchandise in 

question. Petitioners conclude that 

neither ruling is relevant for the 

purposes of the issues present in the 

instant proceeding. Conversely, UKCG 

emphasizes the weight of these 

determinations and implores the 

Department to consider them in its 

analysis on the issue of proper 

classification of the unfinished SDGE 

components for the purposes of this 

initiation determination. We will seek 

more information regarding the proper 

country of origin classification for the 

finished SDGE imported into the United 

States; however, we note that Petitioners 

are correct to point out that neither the 

BOI nor the CBP ruling are legally 

binding for the purposes of antidumping 

proceedings in the United States.61

While we will give each document due 

consideration for the purposes of our 

ultimate anti-circumvention 

determination, we do not find the 

content of either document sufficient to 

compel the Department to decline to 

initiate such a proceeding. 

Finally, we find that Petitioners have 

provided sufficient evidence, in both 

their Initiation Request and SQR, to 

fulfill the additional initiation criteria 

specified in section 781(b)(3) of the Act. 

Though Petitioners do not show that 

UKCG is affiliated with any PRC 

producer of subject merchandise, they 

demonstrate that the company has a 

business relationship with PRC 

producers of subject merchandise. 

Furthermore, information provided by 

Petitioners regarding imports and 

exports under HTS 3801 and 8545, 

suggests that (a) U.K. importers are 

sourcing PRC-produced unfinished 

SDGE components in increasing 

quantities, and (b) exports of finished 

SDGE from the United Kingdom have 

increased since the beginning of the 

initial SDGE investigation. Although 

UKCG provides evidence to demonstrate 

that Petitioners’ information may be 

distorted or misstated due to certain 

factors, the Department intends to seek 

further information on this pattern of 

trade issue during the course of this 

inquiry, and will request greater detail 

as to the nature of UKCG’s relationship 

with PRC producers of subject 

merchandise and timing of sales and 

sourcing. As such, though we recognize 

UKCG’s concerns regarding the 

conclusions reached by Petitioners in 

their analysis of the pattern of trade data 

placed on the record, we do not agree 

with UKCG that the Department should 

conclude that such concerns are 

sufficient to refrain from further inquiry. 

Therefore, for the reasons stated 

above, we have determined that 

Petitioners have provided sufficient 

basis for the Department to initiate a 

formal anti-circumvention inquiry 

concerning the SDGE Order, pursuant to 

section 781(b) of the Act. In accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.225(l)(2), if the 

Department issues a preliminary 

affirmative determination, we will then 

instruct CBP to suspend liquidation and 

require a cash deposit of estimated 

duties on the merchandise. 

This anti-circumvention inquiry 

covers UKCG only. If, within sufficient 

time, the Department receives a formal 

request from an interested party 

regarding potential circumvention of the 

SDGE Order by other companies in the 

United Kingdom, we will consider 

conducting additional inquiries 

concurrently. 

The Department will, following 

consultation with interested parties, 

establish a schedule for questionnaires 

and comments on the issues. The 

Department intends to issue its final 

determination within 300 days of the 

date of publication of this initiation 

pursuant to section 781(f) of the Act. 

This notice is published in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.225(f). 

Dated: February 17, 2011. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2011–6451 Filed 3–17–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

North American Free-Trade Agreement 

(NAFTA), Article 1904 Binational Panel 

Reviews 

AGENCY: NAFTA Secretariat, United 

States Section, International Trade 

Administration, Department of 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of decision of panel. 

SUMMARY: On March 10, 2011, the 

binational panel issued its decision in 

the review of the determination on 

remand made by the International Trade 

Commission, respecting Light-Walled 

Rectangular Pipe and Tube from 

Mexico: Final Determination of Material 

Injury to a U.S. Industry (NAFTA 

Secretariat File Number USA–MEX– 

2008–1904–04). The binational panel 

affirmed the International Trade 

Commission’s determination on 

remand. Copies of the panel’s order are 

available from the U.S. Section of the 

NAFTA Secretariat. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Valerie Dees, United States Secretary, 

NAFTA Secretariat, Suite 2061,14th and 

Constitution Avenue, Washington, DC 

20230, (202) 482–5438. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Chapter 

19 of the North American Free-Trade 

Agreement (‘‘Agreement’’) establishes a 

mechanism to replace domestic judicial 

review of final determinations in 

antidumping and countervailing duty 


Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
14918 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2011 / Notices 

1These 87 companies are: Angang Clothes Rack 

Manufacture Company Limited; Bazhou Sanqiang 

Furniture Co., Ltd.; Bestallied International Corp.; 

Bestluck Enterprise Limited; Blue Mountain Imp 

Exp Co Ltd.; Bon Voyage Logistics Inc.; Butler 

Courtesy (Guilin) Inc.; C Import And Export 

(HongKong) Co., Ltd.; Century Distribution System 

(Shenzhen) Ltd.; Changzhou Fortune Handicraft 

Co., Ltd.; Changzhou MC Imp. & Exp. Co. Ltd. a/ 

k/a Changzhou MC I E Co., Ltd.; China Fujian 

Minhou Shenghua Handicrafts Co., Ltd.; China 

Ningbo Wahfay Industrial (Group) Co., Ltd.; CTN 

Limited Company; CTO International Co. Ltd.; 

Eagle Brand Holdings Limited Ecocom Crafts Co., 

Ltd. a/k/a/Hangzhou Ecocom Crafts Co., Ltd.; Eisho 

Co., Ltd. a/k/a Eisho Hanger Co., Ltd.; Fujian 

Pucheng Breeze Home Products, Inc.; Good Wonder 

Ltd.; Guangdong Machinery Imp. & Exp. Co.; 

Guangdong Provincial Taoyue Manufacturing Co., 

Ltd.; Guangxi Yikai Industry and Trade Co., Ltd. ; 

Guangzhou Haojin Motorcycle Company; 

Guangzhou Zhuocheng Plastic Co., Ltd.; Guilin 

Betterall Household Articles Co., Ltd.; Guilin 

Harvest Co., Ltd.; Guilin Jinlai Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd.; 

Guilin Yusense Home Collection Co., Ltd.; Haimen 

Jinhang Business Trading Co.; Haiyan Lianxiang 

Hardware Products Co.; Hangzhou Dunli Import & 

Export Co.; Hanji Metals and Plastics Crafts Co.; Hd 

Supply Shenzhen; Hezhou City Yaolong Trade Co 

Ltd.; Jiahe International Trading Co.; Jiangmen 

Masters Hardware Products; Jiangsu Y and S Inc.; 

Jiangyin Hongji Metal Products Co., Ltd.; K.O.D 

Solutions Limited Dongguan Office; Kingtex Imp & 

Exp Co., Ltd.; Laidlaw Company LLC; Mainfreight 

Int’l Logistics (Shanghai) Co. Ltd.; Maxplus 

Industries Co., Ltd.; Nanjing Feisike Import & 

Export Trading Co. Ltd.; Ningbo Beilun Huafa Metal 

Products; Ningbo Everun International Limited; 

Ningbo First Rank International Co.; Ningbo Homedollar Imp. & Exp. Corp.; Ningbo Hongdi Measuring 

Tape Co., Ltd.; Ningbo Municipal Xinyu Imp. & 

Exp. Co.; Ningbo Wellway Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd.; 

Overseas Int’l Group Corp.; Plastic Intercon Co., 

Ltd.; Quyky Yanglei International Co., Ltd., a/k/a/ 

Quyky Group; Shandong Autjinrong Foundassemble Co., Ltd.; Shanghai Cheertie Display 

Fixture; Shanghai Electric Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd.; 

Shanghai Hua Yue Packaging Products; Shanghai 

International Trade Transportation Co., Ltd.; 

Shanghai International Trade Yee Da Imp. & Ex. Co. 

Ltd.; Shanghai New Union Textra Import & Export 

Co., Ltd.; Shanghai Overseas Enterprises Co.Ltd.; 

Shanghai Textile Raw Materials; Shanghai Wintex 

Import & Export Co., Ltd.; Shaoxing Amazon Prime 

Trade Co., Ltd.; Shaoxing Dingli Metal Clotheshorse 

Co., Ltd.; Shaoxing Kinglaw Metal Products Co., 

Ltd.; Shenzhen He Zhenglong Imp. & Exp. Co. Ltd., 

a/k/a Shenzhen He Zhong Long Imxp; Shenzhen 

SED Industry Co., Ltd. a/k/a/Shenzhen Sed 

Electronics Co.; Sunny Metal Inc.; Taishan Jinji 

Hangers Co., Ltd.; Taizhou Huasheng Wooden Co., 

Ltd.; Tianjin Tailai Imp & Exp Co., Ltd.; Transtek 

Automotive Products Co. Ltd.; Tri-star Trading Co.; 

Uasha Group International Shanghai Ltd.; Universal 

Houseware (Dongguan); Wenzhou N.& A. foreign 

Trade Corp.; Wenzhou Pan Pacific Foreign Trade 

Co., Ltd.; Wesken International (Kunshan) Co., Ltd.; 

World Trading Service Limited; X&Y Papa-fix 

Industry Limited; Zhangjiagang Maohua Coating & 

Adorn Zhejiang Arts and Crafts Import; Zhejiang 

Huamao International Co., Ltd.; and Zhejiang 

Wenzhou Packaging Imp. & Exp. 

cases involving imports from a NAFTA 

country with review by independent 

binational panels. When a Request for 

Panel Review is filed, a panel is 

established to act in place of national 

courts to review expeditiously the final 

determination to determine whether it 

conforms with the antidumping or 

countervailing duty law of the country 

that made the determination. 

Under Article 1904 of the Agreement, 

which came into force on January 1, 

1994, the Government of the United 

States, the Government of Canada and 

the Government of Mexico established 

Rules of Procedure for Article 1904 

Binational Panel Reviews (‘‘Rules’’). 

These Rules were published in the 

Federal Register on February 23, 1994 

(59 FR 8686). The panel review in this 

matter has been conducted in 

accordance with these Rules. 

Panel Decision: The panel affirmed 

the International Trade Commission’s 

determination on remand respecting 

Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube 

from Mexico: Final Determination of 

Material Injury to a U.S. Industry. 

Dated: March 14, 2011. 

Valarie Dees, 

U.S. Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat. 

[FR Doc. 2011–6311 Filed 3–17–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–GT–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–918] 

Steel Wire Garment Hangers From the 

People’s Republic of China: Partial 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: March 18, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert Palmer, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 9, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington DC 20230; (202) 482–6905. 

Background 

On November 29, 2010, the 

Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) published in the Federal 

Register a notice of initiation of an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on steel wire 

garment hangers from the People’s 

Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) covering the 

period October 1, 2009, through 

September 30, 2010. See Initiation of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Reviews 75 FR 73036 

(November 29, 2010) (‘‘Initiation 

Notice’’). On December 23, 2010, the 

M&B Metal Products Inc. (‘‘Petitioner’’) 

withdrew its request for an 

administrative review of 87 1 companies 

out of the 102 companies upon which 

we initiated the administrative review. 

Petitioner was the only party to request 

a review of these 87 companies. 

Partial Rescission 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the 

Secretary will rescind an administrative 

review, in whole or in part, if a party 

who requested the review withdraws 

the request within 90 days of the date 

of publication of notice of initiation of 

the requested review. Petitioner’s 

request was submitted within the 90 day 

period and, thus, is timely. Because 

Petitioner’s withdrawal of its request for 

review is timely and because no other 

party requested a review of the 

aforementioned companies, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), 

we are partially rescinding this review 

with respect to the 87 companies listed 

above. 

Assessment Rates 

The Department will instruct U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) 

to assess antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries. For those 

companies for which this review has 

been rescinded and which have a 

separate rate, antidumping duties shall 

be assessed at rates equal to the cash 

deposit of estimated antidumping duties 

required at the time of entry, or 

withdrawal from warehouse, for 

consumption, in accordance with 19 

CFR 351.212(c)(2). The Department 

intends to issue appropriate assessment 

instructions directly to CBP 15 days 

after publication of this notice for those 

companies with a separate rate. 

For the above companies that are part 

of the PRC-wide entity, the Department 

cannot order liquidation at this time 

because although they are no longer 

under review as a separate entity, they 

may still be under review as part of the 

PRC-wide entity. Therefore, the 

Department cannot order liquidation 

instructions at this time because their 

respective entries may be under review 

in the ongoing administrative review. 

The Department intends to issue 

assessment instructions for the PRCwide entity, 15 days after publication of 

the final results of the ongoing 

administrative review. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice serves as a final reminder 

to importers for whom this review is 

being rescinded, as of the publication 

date of this notice, 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 


Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES