Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2011 / Notices 20317 

1See Memorandum to the File, from James C. 

Doyle, Office Director, through Gary Taverman, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Operations, Preliminary 

Intent to Rescind the New Shipper Review of 

Pujiang Talent Diamond Tools Co., Ltd., dated 

March 9, 2011 (‘‘Preliminary Intent to Rescind’’). 

2See Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from 

the People’s Republic of China: Initiation of 

Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 75 FR 

36632 (June 28, 2010). 

3Certain business proprietary information (‘‘BPI’’) 

regarding the rescission of this NSR has been 

addressed in a public manner in this notice. For an 

explanation of the BPI relied upon, see 

Memorandum to the File, from Alan Ray, Case 

Analyst, Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof 

from the People’s Republic of China: BPI 

Referenced in Final Rescission, dated concurrently 

with this notice. 

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 this 

notice in accordance with sections 

751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.221(b)(4). 

Dated: April 4, 2011. 

Paul Piquado, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2011–8741 Filed 4–11–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–900] 

Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof 

From the People’s Republic of China: 

Final Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

New Shipper Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On March 9, 2011, the 

Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) issued its preliminary 

intent to rescind the new shipper review 

(‘‘NSR’’) of Pujiang Talent Diamond 

Tools Co., Ltd. (‘‘PTDT’’).1 We gave 

interested parties an opportunity to 

comment on the Preliminary Intent to 

Rescind and, based upon our analysis of 

the comments and rebuttal comments 

received, we continue to determine that 

PTDT has failed to meet the minimum 

requirements for entitlement to an NSR. 

DATES: Effective Date: April 12, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Alan Ray, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, 

Import Administration, International 

Trade Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, 14th Street and 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–5403. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Case History 

The Department received a timely 

request from PTDT, in what at the time 

appeared to be in accordance with 19 

CFR 351.214(c), for an NSR of the 

antidumping duty order on diamond 

sawblades and parts thereof from the 

People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). On 

June 28, 2010, the Department 

published the initiation of the NSR with 

a January 23, 2009, through April 30, 

2010 period of review (‘‘POR’’).2

On March 9, 2011, the Department 

issued its preliminary intent to rescind 

this NSR based on the sale of subject 

merchandise to the United States during 

the POR that had been produced by a 

company that had exported subject 

merchandise to the United States during 

the period of investigation (‘‘POI’’). See 

Preliminary Intent to Rescind. 

On March 16, 2011, the Department 

received affirmative comments from 

PTDT, requesting that the Department 

not terminate the NSR. The Department 

received rebuttal comments from 

Petitioners, the Diamond Sawblades 

Manufacturers Coalition, on March 23, 

2011, requesting that the Department 

terminate the NSR. 

Scope of the Order 

The products covered by the order are 

all finished circular sawblades, whether 

slotted or not, with a working part that 

is comprised of a diamond segment or 

segments, and parts thereof, regardless 

of specification or size, except as 

specifically excluded below. Within the 

scope of the order are semifinished 

diamond sawblades, including diamond 

sawblade cores and diamond sawblade 

segments. Diamond sawblade cores are 

circular steel plates, whether or not 

attached to non-steel plates, with slots. 

Diamond sawblade cores are 

manufactured principally, but not 

exclusively, from alloy steel. A diamond 

sawblade segment consists of a mixture 

of diamonds (whether natural or 

synthetic, and regardless of the quantity 

of diamonds) and metal powders 

(including, but not limited to, iron, 

cobalt, nickel, tungsten carbide) that are 

formed together into a solid shape (from 

generally, but not limited to, a heating 

and pressing process). 

Sawblades with diamonds directly 

attached to the core with a resin or 

electroplated bond, which thereby do 

not contain a diamond segment, are not 

included within the scope of the order. 

Diamond sawblades and/or sawblade 

cores with a thickness of less than 0.025 

inches, or with a thickness greater than 

1.1 inches, are excluded from the scope 

of the order. Circular steel plates that 

have a cutting edge of non-diamond 

material, such as external teeth that 

protrude from the outer diameter of the 

plate, whether or not finished, are 

excluded from the scope of the order. 

Diamond sawblade cores with a 

Rockwell C hardness of less than 25 are 

excluded from the scope of the order. 

Diamond sawblades and/or diamond 

segment(s) with diamonds that 

predominantly have a mesh size number 

greater than 240 (such as 250 or 260) are 

excluded from the scope of the order. 

Merchandise subject to the order is 

typically imported under heading 

8202.39.00.00 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’’). When packaged together as 

a set for retail sale with an item that is 

separately classified under headings 

8202 to 8205 of the HTSUS, diamond 

sawblades or parts thereof may be 

imported under heading 8206.00.00.00 

of the HTSUS. The tariff classification is 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes; however, the written 

description of the scope of the order is 

dispositive. 

Summary of Comments Received 3

On March 16, 2011, PTDT submitted 

comments regarding the Department’s 

Preliminary Intent to Rescind. PTDT 

raised four main arguments. First, the 

purpose of the NSR is to determine if 

PTDT was dumping subject 

merchandise and then to calculate its 

antidumping duty margin. To rescind 

the NSR based on an isolated incident, 

representing such a low volume, places 

too much weight on the insignificant 

incident at issue. To rescind the review 

would now be a significant waste of 

already spent time and resources. 

Second, PTDT exported subject 

merchandise produced by another 

company to fill a customer’s order, not 

in an effort to assist that company in 

circumventing payment of antidumping 

duties. Third, the Department should 

exercise its discretion and overlook this 

technical violation by applying the same 

kind of logic it employs when it extends 

the POR of an NSR so as to capture nonentered sales, or the same logic 

employed in the application of the de 

minimis provision for antidumping duty 

margins of less than 0.5 percent. Finally, 

PTDT argues that if the Department 

determines that rescission is 

appropriate, it should instead consider 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
20318 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2011 / Notices 

4We note that the deadline for submitting 

rebuttal comments was March 21, 2011. However, 

according to Petitioners, although PTDT certified as 

to service, Petitioners still had not received a 

service copy of PTDT’s submission as of March 23, 

2011. Therefore, we find good cause under 19 CFR 

351.302(b) to extend the time limit to submit 

rebuttal comments and, accordingly, accept 

Petitioners’ submission. Moreover, because PTDT 

certified that it served Petitioners with its 

submission and subsequently submitted a letter 

confirming service, we have not rejected PTDT’s 

submission, as requested by Petitioners. 

5See 19 CFR 351.214(f)(2)(ii). 6See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1). 

conducting this NSR concurrently with 

the first administrative review. 

On March 23, 2011, Petitioners 

submitted rebuttal comments.4 With 

respect to PTDT’s argument that the 

rescission would render significant time 

and effort a nullity, Petitioners note that 

this NSR was undertaken at PTDT’s 

request and certification. PTDT’s 

certification at the time of the request 

for the NSR did not state that PTDT had 

exported a low volume of subject 

merchandise produced by a company 

that exported during the POI. With 

respect to PTDT’s argument that the 

Department should exercise its 

discretion and overlook this technical 

violation, Petitioners note that 19 CFR 

351.214(b)(2)(ii) requires in cases where 

an exporter is not the producer of all 

merchandise it ships to the United 

States, a secondary certification that the 

supplier did not export subject 

merchandise to the United States during 

the POI. Petitioners further note that as 

the Department already stated, the 

regulations do not require the 

consideration of relative volumes 

sourced from a company that exported 

to the United States during the POI, 

with respect to the secondary 

certification requirement. Therefore, 

Petitioners argue, PTDT is not entitled 

to an NSR. 

Final Rescission of Review 

As stated in the Preliminary Intent to 

Rescind, the Department has 

determined that PTDT does not meet the 

minimum requirements for establishing 

its qualification for an NSR under 19 

CFR 351.214(b)(2)(ii)(B) because PTDT 

sold and exported subject merchandise 

to the United States during the POR that 

had been produced by a company that 

had exported to the United States 

during the POI. Because PTDT could not 

produce a certification that none of the 

merchandise it exported during the POR 

had been produced by a company that 

had exported during the POI, PTDT 

does not meet the minimum 

requirements for establishing 

qualification for an NSR. Furthermore, 

we note that the regulations provide a 

basis for extending the POR of NSRs 5

and applying the de minimis provision 

for margins of less than 0.5 percent,6 but 

there is no basis for overlooking the 

requirements set forth in 19 CFR 

351.214(b)(2)(ii)(B). Accordingly, we are 

rescinding this NSR. As the Department 

is rescinding this NSR, we are not 

calculating a company-specific rate for 

PTDT, and PTDT will remain part of the 

PRC-wide entity subject to the PRCwide rate. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of this final rescission of 

this NSR for all shipments of subject 

merchandise by PTDT, entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the publication 

date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) 

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 

(‘‘Act’’): (1) For subject merchandise 

produced and exported by PTDT, as part 

of the PRC-wide entity the cash deposit 

rate will be 164.09 percent; (2) for 

subject merchandise exported by PTDT, 

but not manufactured by PTDT, as part 

of the PRC-wide entity the cash deposit 

rate will continue to be the PRC-wide 

rate of 164.09 percent; and (3) for 

subject merchandise manufactured by 

PTDT, but exported by any party other 

than PTDT, the cash deposit rate will be 

the rate applicable to the exporter. 

These cash deposit requirements will 

remain in effect until further notice. 

Administrative Protective Orders 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to parties subject to administrative 

protective order (‘‘APO’’) 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 in accordance with 

sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i) of the 

Act, and 19 CFR 351.214(h) and 

351.221(b)(5). 

Dated: April 6, 2011. 

Gary Taverman, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2011–8742 Filed 4–11–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–552–802] 

Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam: 

Initiation and Preliminary Results of 

Changed Circumstances Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In response to a petition for 

a changed circumstances review (‘‘CCR’’) 

of Grobest & I–Mei Industrial (Vietnam) 

Co., Ltd. (‘‘Grobest & I–Mei’’), the 

Department of Commerce (the 

‘‘Department’’) is initiating a CCR of the 

antidumping duty order on frozen 

warmwater shrimp from the Socialist 

Republic of Vietnam (‘‘Vietnam’’). We 

have preliminarily concluded that Viet 

I–Mei Frozen Foods Co., Ltd. (‘‘Viet I– 

Mei’’) is the successor-in-interest to 

Grobest & I–Mei, and, as a result, should 

be accorded the same treatment 

previously accorded to Grobest & I–Mei, 

with regard to the antidumping duty 

order on frozen warmwater shrimp from 

Vietnam. Interested parties are invited 

to comment on these preliminary 

results. 

DATES: Effective Date: April 12, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Toni 

Dach at (202) 482–1655, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 9, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Department published the 

antidumping duty order on certain 

frozen warmwater shrimp from Vietnam 

on February 1, 2005. See Notice of 

Amended Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value and 

Antidumping Duty Order: Certain 

Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 70 FR 

5152 (February 1, 2005) (‘‘VN Shrimp 

Order’’). Grobest & I–Mei participated in 

a new shipper review; the second, third, 

fourth, and fifth administrative reviews 

of the VN Shrimp Order; and requested 

an administrative review for the sixth 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES