61790 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 203 / Thursday, October 21, 2004 / Notices 

Dated: October 15, 2004. 

Jeffrey A. May, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration.

[FR Doc. E4–2792 Filed 10–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–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.

ACTION: Notice of final results of the first 

administrative review of automotive 

replacement glass windshields from the 

People’s Republic of China. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(‘‘the Department’’) published its 

preliminary results of administrative 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on automotive replacement glass 

windshields (‘‘ARG’’) from the People’s 

Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) on May 7, 

2004. See Automotive Replacement 

Glass Windshields from the People’s 

Republic of China: Preliminary Results 

of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review 69 FR 25545 (May 7, 2004) 

(‘‘Preliminary Results’’). The period of 

review (‘‘POR’’) is September 19, 2001, 

through March 31, 2003. 

Based on our analysis of the 

comments we received, we have made 

changes from the preliminary results of 

review. Therefore, the final results differ 

from the Preliminary Results with 

respect to the weighted-average 

dumping margins. The final weightedaverage dumping margin for the 

reviewed firms is listed below in the 

section entitled ‘‘Final Results of the 

Review.’’

DATES: Effective October 21, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Will 

Dickerson or Jon Freed, 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 May 21, 2003, the Department 

published in the Federal Register a 

notice of the initiation of the 

antidumping duty administrative review 

of ARG from the PRC for the period 

September 19, 2001, through March 31, 

2003. See Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Request for Revocation in 

Part, 68 FR 27781 (May 21, 2003). The 

respondents included Changchun 

Pilkington Safety Glass Company, Ltd., 

Shanghai Yaohua Pilkington Autoglass 

Company, Ltd., Wuhan Yaohua 

Pilkington Safety Glass Company, Ltd., 

Guilin Pilkington Safety Glass 

Company, Ltd. (collectively ‘‘Pilkington 

JVs’’), Dongguan Kongwan Automobile 

Glass Ltd. and Peaceful City, Ltd., 

(collectively ‘‘Peaceful City’’), Fuyao 

Glass Industry Group company, Ltd. 

(‘‘Fuyao’’), Shenzhen CSG Automotive 

Glass Co., Ltd. (formerly Shenzhen 

Benxun AutoGlass Co., Ltd.) 

(‘‘Shenzhen CSG’’), TCG International, 

Inc. (‘‘TCGI’’), and Xinyi Automotive 

Glass (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. (‘‘Xinyi’’). 

On September 8, 2003, the 

Department published a notice in the 

Federal Register rescinding the 

administrative reviews of TCGI, Xinyi, 

and Shenzhen CSG. See Certain 

Automotive Replacement Glass 

Windshields from the People’s Republic 

of China: Notice of Partial Rescission of 

the Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 68 FR 52893 (September 8, 

2003) (‘‘Notice of Rescission’’). 

In the Department’s original 

investigation, Shenzhen Benxun 

AutoGlass Co., Ltd. (‘‘Benxun’’) received 

a rate separate from the PRC-wide 

entity. When Shenzhen CSG requested 

an administrative review, it indicated it 

was the company known formerly as 

Benxun, but that it had undergone a 

name change since the Department’s 

orginal investigation. On July 8, 2003, 

Shenzhen CSG withdrew its request for 

an administrative review. Because 

Shenzhen CSG withdrew its request for 

administrative review, the Department 

did not have the information necessary 

to make a successor-in-interest 

determination. Therefore, the 

Department did not determine that 

Shenzhen CSG was entitled to receive 

the same antidumping rate accorded 

Benxun within the context of this 

administrative review. In a changedcircumstance review subsequent to the 

September 8, 2003, Notice of Rescission, 

the Department determined that entries 

of merchandise from Shenzhen CSG are 

eligible for Benxun’s cash-deposit rate. 

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). 

We invited parties to comment on our 

preliminary results of review. See 

Preliminary Results. On June 7, 2004, 

the Department received case briefs 

from PNA, Fuyao, and Shenzhen CSG. 

On June 9, 2004, the Department 

received an untimely filed case brief 

from Peaceful City, which it rejected in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.302(d). See

Letter to Peaceful City Rejecting Case 

Brief, dated July 9, 2004. We did not 

receive any rebuttal comments. We have 

now completed the administrative 

review in accordance with section 751 

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 

(‘‘the Act’’). 

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 

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. 

Facts Available 

In the instant review, for the 

preliminary results, the Department 

applied the petition rate as adverse facts 

available, in accordance with section 

776(a) of the Act, to Peaceful City 

because Peaceful City withheld certain 

information that had been requested by 

the Department, it failed to provide 

certain information by the Department’s 

statutory deadlines, it significantly 

impeded the Department’s investigation, 

and it failed to provide certain 

information that could be verified 

pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)/(A), (B), 

(C) and (D) of the Act. See Preliminary 

Results, 69 FR at 25550–25555. There is 

no argument on the record to cause us 

to reconsider our decision in the 

Preliminary Results. Therefore, we have 

determined that the application of facts 

available continues to be appropriate 

with respect to Peaceful City. 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 203 / Thursday, October 21, 2004 / Notices 61791

Corroboration of Adverse Facts 

Available 

We corroborated the adverse factsavailable rate we have applied to 

Peaceful City in the investigation and in 

the preliminary results of this 

administrative review. See Preliminary 

Results, 69 FR at 25555–25556, citing 

Memorandum from Jon Freed to Robert 

Bolling: Preliminary Results in the 

Antidumping Administrative Review of 

Automotive Replacement Glass 

Windshields from the People’s Republic 

of China: First Administrative Review 

Corroboration Memorandum, dated 

April 29, 2004 (‘‘First Review 

Corroboration Memo’’), with attached 

Memorandum from Edward Yang to 

Joseph Spetrini: Preliminary 

Determination in the Antidumping 

Investigation of Automotive 

Replacement Glass Windshields from 

the People’s Republic of China: Total 

Facts Available Corroboration 

Memorandum for All Others Rate, dated 

September 10, 2001 (‘‘Corroboration 

Memo’’). In the Preliminary Results, the 

Department found the facts-available 

rate of 124.5 percent to be both reliable 

and relevant. Id. The Department 

explained in its Preliminary Results that 

it would reexamine the relevancy of the 

petition rate to this administrative 

review by considering all margins on 

the record at the time of the final 

results. See 69 FR at 25556. 

To assess the relevancy of the total 

adverse facts-available rate it has 

chosen, the Department compared the 

final margin calculations of other 

respondents in this administrative 

review with the rate of 124.5 percent 

from the original petition. We find the 

rate is within the range of the highest 

margins we have determined in this 

administrative review. See 

Memorandum from Jon Freed to Robert 

Bolling: Final Results in the 

Antidumping Administrative Review of 

Automotive Replacement Glass 

Windshields from the People’s Republic 

of China: First Administrative Review 

Final Corroboration Memorandum,

dated October 14, 2004 (‘‘First Review 

Final Corroboration Memo’’). 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 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 for the purposes of 

this administrative review and may 

reasonably be applied to Peaceful City 

as a total adverse facts-available rate. 

Accordingly, we determine that the 

highest rate from any segment of this 

administrative proceeding (i.e., the 

calculated rate of 124.50 percent) is in 

accord with the requirement under 

section 776(c) of the Act that secondary 

information be corroborated (i.e., have 

probative value). 

Consequently, we are applying a 

single antidumping rate, the highest rate 

from any segment of this administrative 

proceeding, to Peaceful City’s exports 

based on Peaceful City’s failure to be 

reasonably prepared during the 

verification and its resulting failure to 

substantiate the majority of its factors of 

production, which were reported in its 

questionnaire responses. See, e.g., Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Synthetic Indigo from the 

People’s Republic of China, 65 FR 

25706, 25707 (May 3, 2000).

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in the case and 

rebuttal briefs by parties to this 

administrative review are addressed in 

the ‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum’’

(‘‘Decision Memorandum’’) from Jeffrey 

A. May, Deputy Assistant Secretary, for 

Import Administration, to James J. 

Jochum, Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, dated October 14, 2004, 

which is hereby adopted by this notice. 

A list of the issues which parties have 

raised and to which we have responded, 

all of which are in the Decision 

Memorandum, is attached to this notice 

as an Appendix. Parties can find a 

complete discussion of all issues raised 

in this review and the corresponding 

recommendations in the Decision 

Memorandum, which is on file in the 

Central Records Unit, Room B–099 of 

the main Department building. In 

addition, a complete version of the 

Decision Memorandum can be accessed 

directly on the Web at http://

ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/index.html. The paper 

copy and electronic version of the 

Decision Memorandum are identical in 

content. 

Changes Since the Preliminary Results 

Based on our analysis of comments 

received, we have made changes in the 

margin calculations for PNA. The 

specific calculation changes can be 

found in our Final Analysis Memo, 

dated October 14, 2004. The changes to 

the margin calculations are listed below: 

• For the calculation of imputed 

credit, inventory-carrying cost, and 

marine insurance, the Department used 

the net price (i.e., gross price—price-list 

discount) rather than gross price in 

order to base these adjustments on the 

amounts actually paid. See Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 7. 

• In the preliminary results, the 

Department inadvertently overstated the 

marine insurance value. For the final 

results, the Department reduced the 

marine insurance value by two decimal 

places. See Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 8. 

• In the preliminary results, the 

Department inadvertently valued metal 

clips with the surrogate value for labels. 

For the final results, the Department 

valued metal clips with the value listed 

on page 5 of the Factors Valuation 

Memorandum. See Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 9. 

• The Department double-counted 

two elements of the packing labor 

calculation of normal value in the 

preliminary results of review. For the 

final results, the Department corrected 

this inadvertent error. See Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 10. 

Final Results of Review 

We determine that the following 

percentage margins exist on exports of 

ARG windshields from the PRC for the 

period September 19, 2001, through 

March 31, 2003:

AUTOMOTIVE REPLACEMENT GLASS

WINDSHIELDS FROM THE PRC 

Producer/manufacturer/exporter 

Weightedaverage 

margin

(percent) 

Fuyao ........................................ *0.13 

Peaceful City/Dongguan 

Kongwan ............................... 124.50 

Pilkington .................................. 2.88 

*De minimis.

Assessment Rates 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.212(b)(1), we have calculated 

exporter/importer (or customer)-specific 

assessment rates for merchandise 

subject to this review. 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. We will direct 

CBP to assess the resulting assessment 

rates against the entered customs values 

for the subject merchandise on each of 

that importer’s entries under the 

relevant order during the review period. 

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 (or customer)-

specific ad valorem rates by aggregating 

the dumping margins calculated for all 

61792 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 203 / Thursday, October 21, 2004 / Notices 

1See Initiation of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews,

69 FR 24118 (May 3, 2004) (‘‘Notice of Initiation’’).

2 Gallatin, IPSCO, SDI, U.S. Steel and Ispat were 

petitioners in the original investigation.

U.S. sales to that importer (or customer) 

and dividing this amount by the total 

value of the sales to that importer (or 

customer). Where an importer (or 

customer)-specific ad valorem rate was 

greater than de minimis (i.e., 0.5%), we 

calculated a per unit assessment rate by 

aggregating the dumping margins 

calculated for all U.S. sales to that 

importer (or customer) and dividing this 

amount by the total quantity sold to that 

importer (or customer). Where an 

importer (or customer)-specific ad 

valorem rate was 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 

the rates shown above except that the 

Department shall require no deposit of 

estimated antidumping duties for firms 

whose weighted-average margins are 

less than 0.5% and therefore de 

minimis; (2) for previously reviewed or 

investigated companies not listed above, 

the cash deposit rate will continue to be 

the company-specific rate published for 

the most recent period; (3) if the 

exporter is not a firm covered in this 

review, a prior review, or the original 

less-than-fair-value (LTFV) 

investigation, but the manufacturer is, 

the cash deposit rate will be the rate 

established for the most recent period 

for the manufacturer of the 

merchandise; and (4) if neither the 

exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm 

covered in these or any previous 

reviews, the cash deposit rate will be 

the ‘‘all others’’ rate, which is 124.5 

percent. 

These deposit requirements 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 

antidumpting 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: October 14, 2004. 

Joseph A. Spetrini, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration.

Appendix 1—Issues in the Decision 

Memorandum 

Fuyao’s Comments 

Comment 1: Water as a Separate Component 

of Normal Value 

Comment 2: Certain Inputs as a Separate 

Component of Normal Value 

Shenzhen CSG’s Comments 

Comment 3: Liquidation Instructions for 

Shenzhen CSG’s Entries 

PNA’s Comments 

Comment 4: Proper Set of Sales as Basis for 

the Margin for PNA 

Comment 5: Rejection of Market Purchases 

from Indonesia, Thailand, and South Korea 

Comment 6: Surrogate Profit Ratio 

Comment 7: Allocation of Credit Expense, 

Inventory Carrying Cost, and Marine 

Insurance 

Comment 8: Market-Price Value for Marine 

Insurance 1

Comment 9: Surrogate Value for Metal Clips 

Comment 10: Double-Counting of Labor

[FR Doc. 04–23605 Filed 10–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration 

[A–588–846] 

Certain Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled CarbonQuality Steel Products From Japan; 

Final Results of the Expedited Sunset 

Review of Antidumping Duty Order

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of expedited sunset 

review of antidumping duty order on 

certain hot-rolled flat-rolled carbonquality steel products from Japan; Final 

results. 

SUMMARY: On May 3, 2004, the 

Department of Commerce (‘‘the 

Department’’) initiated a sunset review 

of the antidumping duty order of certain 

hot-rolled flat-rolled carbon-quality 

steel products (‘‘hot-rolled steel’’) from 

Japan.1 On the basis of the notice of 

intent to participate, adequate 

substantive comments filed on behalf of 

the domestic interested parties, and 

inadequate response from respondent 

interested parties, (in this case, no 

response) the Department conducted an 

expedited sunset review of the 

antidumping duty order pursuant to 

section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended, and section 

351.218(c)(1)(ii)(B) of the Department’s 

regulations. As a result of this sunset 

review, the Department determined that 

revocation of the antidumping duty 

order would likely lead to continuation 

or recurrence of dumping at the levels 

listed below in the section entitled 

‘‘Final Results of Review’’.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 21, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Martha V. Douthit, Office of Policy, 

Import Administration, International 

Trade Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–5050.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On May 3, 2004, the Department 

initiated a sunset review of the 

antidumping duty order on hot-rolled 

steel products from Japan in accordance 

with section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’). See 

Notice of Initiation, 69 FR 24118 (May 

3, 2004). 

The Department received Notices of 

Intent to Participate within the 

applicable deadline specified in section 

351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Department’s 

regulations on behalf of Nucor 

Corporation (‘‘Nucor’’), United States 

Steel Corporation (‘‘U.S. Steel’’), 

International Steel Group, Inc. (‘‘ISG’’), 

Gallatin Steel Company (‘‘Gallatin’’), 

IPSCO Steel Inc. (‘‘IPSCO’’), Steel 

Dynamics, Inc. (‘‘SDI’’), and Ispat Inland 

Inc. (‘‘Ispat’’), a division of Ispat Inland 

Flat Products, (collectively ‘‘domestic 

interested parties’’).2 The domestic