Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 204 / Friday, October 22, 2004 / Notices 62023

2 In the initiation notice that published on September 22, 2004 (69 FR 56745) the following footnote for frozen fish fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam was inadvertently omitted—‘‘If one of the above named companies does not qualify for a separate rate, all other exporters of 

frozen fish fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam who have not qualified for a separate rate are deemed to be covered by this review as 

part of the single Vietnam entity of which the named exporters are a part. 3 If one of the above named companies does not qualify for a separate rate, all other exporters of freshwater crawfish tail meat from the People’s Republic of China who have not qualified for a separate rate are deemed to be covered by this review as part of the single PRC entity of 

which the named exporters are a part. 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings 

None. 

Suspension Agreements 

None. 

During any administrative review 

covering all or part of a period falling 

between the first and second or third 

and fourth anniversary of the 

publication of an antidumping duty 

order under section 351.211 or a 

determination under section 

351.218(f)(4) to continue an order or 

suspended investigation (after sunset 

review), the Secretary, if requested by a 

domestic interested party within 30 

days of the date of publication of the 

notice of initiation of the review, will 

determine, consistent with FAG Italia v. 

United States, 291 F.3d 806 (Fed. Cir. 

202), as appropriate, whether 

antidumping duties have been absorbed 

by an exporter or producer subject to the 

review if the subject merchandise is 

sold in the United States through an 

importer that is affiliated with such 

exporter or producer. The request must 

include the name(s) of the exporter or 

producer for which the inquiry is 

requested. 

Interested parties must submit 

applications for disclosure under 

administrative protective orders in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. 

These initiations and this notice are 

in accordance with section 751(a) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 

U.S.C. 1675(a)) and 19 CFR 

351.221(c)(1)(I).

Dated: October 18, 2004. 

Holly A. Kuga, 

Senior Office Director, Office 4 for Import 

Administration.

[FR Doc. E4–2802 Filed 10–21–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–427–801, A–428–801, A–475–801, A–401–

801, A–412–801]

Antifriction Bearings (Other Than 

Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts 

Thereof From France, Germany, Italy, 

Sweden, and the United Kingdom; 

Amended Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Reviews

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of amended final results 

of antidumping duty administrative 

reviews.

SUMMARY: On April 26, 2004, and May 

4, 2004, the United States Court of 

Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

dismissed appeals and lifted the stay of 

proceedings against the United States 

Court of International Trade’s 

affirmations of the Department of 

Commerce’s final remand results 

affecting final assessment rates for the 

administrative reviews of the 

antidumping duty orders on antifriction 

bearings (other than tapered roller 

bearings) and parts thereof from Italy, 

Sweden, and the United Kingdom for 

the period of review May 1, 1995, 

through April 30, 1996, and from 

France, Germany, Italy, and Sweden for 

the period of review May 1, 1997, 

through April 30, 1998, respectively. 

The classes or kinds of merchandise 

covered by these reviews are ball 

bearings and parts thereof, cylindrical 

roller bearings and parts thereof, and 

spherical plain bearings and parts 

thereof. As there are now final and 

conclusive court decisions in these 

actions, we are amending our final 

results of reviews and we will instruct 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection to 

liquidate entries subject to these 

reviews.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 22, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Yang Jin Chun or Richard Rimlinger, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 5, Import 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–5760 or (202) 482–

4477, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On October 17, 1997, the Department 

of Commerce (the Department) 

published Antifriction Bearings (Other 

Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and 

Parts Thereof from France, Germany, 

Italy, Japan, Romania, Singapore, 

Sweden, and the United Kingdom: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Reviews, 62 FR 54043, as 

amended by Antifriction Bearings 

(Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) 

and Parts Thereof from France, 

Germany, Italy, Japan, Romania, 

Singapore, Sweden, and the United 

Kingdom: Amended Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 62 FR 61963 (November 20, 

1997) (collectively AFBs 7), which 

covered the period of review (POR) May 

1, 1995, through April 30, 1996. On July 

1, 1999, the Department published 

Antifriction Bearings (Other Than 

Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts 

Thereof from France, Germany, Italy, 

Japan, Romania, Sweden, and the 

United Kingdom: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Reviews, 64 FR 35590, as amended by 

Antifriction Bearings (Other Than 

Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts 

Thereof from Italy and Japan: Notice of 

Amended Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Reviews, 64 FR 

47764 (September 1, 1999) (collectively 

AFBs 9), which covered the POR May 1, 

1997, through April 30, 1998. The 

classes or kinds of merchandise covered 

by these reviews are ball bearings and 

parts thereof (BBs), cylindrical roller 

bearings and parts thereof (CRBs), and 

spherical plain bearings and parts 

thereof (SPBs).

In FAG Italia S.p.A. v. United States, 

24 CIT 587 (2000) (FAG), SKF USA Inc. 

and SKF Sverige AB v. United States, 24 

CIT 349 (2000) (SKF), RHP Bearings Ltd. 

v. United States, 110 F. Supp. 2d 1043 

(CIT 2000) (RHP I), and RHP Bearings 

Ltd. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 

1097 (CIT 2001) (RHP II), the United 

States Court of International Trade (CIT) 

ordered remands for AFBs 7. In SKF 

USA Inc., SKF France S.A. and Sarma 

v. United States, 116 F. Supp. 2d 1257 

(CIT 2000) (SKF France), SKF USA Inc. 

and SKF GmbH v. United States, 94 F. 

Supp. 2d 1351 (CIT 2000) (SKF 

Germany), SKF USA Inc. and SKF 

62024 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 204 / Friday, October 22, 2004 / Notices 

1SKF USA Inc., SKF France S.A. and Sarma v. 

United States, No. 99-08-00475, slip op. 01-12 (CIT 

2001).

2SKF USA Inc. and SKF Sverige AB v. United 

States, No 99-08-00470, slip op. 01-11 (CIT 2001).

3SKF USA Inc. and SKF GmbH v. United States, 

126 F. Supp. 2d. 567 (CIT 2000).

4SKF USA Inc. and SKF Industrie S.p.A. v. 

United States, 24 CIT 1393 (2000).

Industrie S.p.A. v. United States, 24 CIT 

583 (2000) (SKF Italy), and SKF USA 

Inc. and SKF Sverige AB v. United 

States, 24 CIT 836 (2000) (SKF Sweden), 

the CIT ordered remands for AFBs 9.

As there are now final and conclusive 

court decisions with respect to 

companies affected by these remand 

orders directly, we are amending our 

final results of review for these 

companies and we will subsequently 

instruct U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) to liquidate the 

relevant entries subject to these reviews.

1. Remands for AFBs 7

a. FAG

In FAG, the CIT remanded AFBs 7 to 

the Department to address the following 

instructions: (1) annul all findings and 

conclusions made pursuant to the duty–

absorption inquiry conducted for the 

subject reviews and (2) attempt to match 

U.S. sales to non–identical but similar 

home–market sales before resorting to 

constructed value when sales of 

identical merchandise have been found 

to be outside the ordinary course of 

trade. This remand affected FAG Italia 

S.p.A. and FAG Bearings Corporation 

(collectively FAG Italy) and SKF 

Industrie, RIV–SKF Officina de Villar 

Perosa, SKF Cuscinetti Specialti, SKF 

Cuscinetti, and RFT (collectively SKF 

Italy) directly with respect to the 

antidumping duty order on BBs from 

Italy for the POR May 1, 1995, through 

April 30, 1996.

On October 11, 2000, the Department 

filed its Remand Results with the CIT. 

On May 24, 2002, the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) 

remanded for further explanation the 

Department’s use of different definitions 

of ‘‘foreign like product’’ in its normal 

value calculations; the CAFC affirmed 

the CIT’s decision with respect to duty 

absorption. See FAG Italia S.p.A. v. 

United States, 291 F.3d 806 (CAFC 

2002). On November 7, 2002, the 

Department filed its second remand 

determination explaining the definitions 

of ‘‘foreign like product’’ used in 

calculating normal value. On January 

30, 2003, the CIT affirmed the remand 

results in their entirety. See FAG Italia 

S.p.A. v. United States, Consol. No. 97–

11–01984, slip op. 03–12 (CIT 2003). 

FAG Italy and SKF Italy appealed the 

CIT’s remand affirmation but later filed 

with the CAFC motions to sever and 

dismiss their appeals voluntarily. On 

February 17, 2004, the CAFC granted 

FAG Italy’s unopposed motion to 

dismiss. On April 26, 2004, the CAFC 

granted SKF Italy’s unopposed motion 

to dismiss and lifted the stay of 

proceedings.

b. SKF

In SKF, the CIT remanded AFBs 7 to 

the Department to annul all findings 

and conclusions made pursuant to the 

duty–absorption inquiry conducted for 

the subject review. This remand affected 

SKF USA Inc. and SKF Sverige AB 

(collectively SKF Sweden) directly with 

respect to the antidumping duty order 

on BBs from Sweden for the POR May 

1, 1995, through April 30, 1996.

On August 23, 2000, the Department 

filed its Remand Results with the CIT. 

On November 17, 2000, the CIT affirmed 

the Department’s Remand Results in 

their entirety. See SKF USA, Inc. and 

SKF Sverige AB v. United States, 24 CIT 

1310 (2000). SKF Sweden and the 

United States appealed the CIT’s 

remand affirmation but later filed with 

the CAFC motions to sever and dismiss 

their appeals voluntarily. On April 26, 

2004, the CAFC granted the United 

States’ and SKF Sweden’s unopposed 

motions to dismiss and lifted the stay of 

proceedings.

c. RHP I and RHP II

In RHP I, the CIT remanded AFBs 7

to the Department to address the 

following instructions: (1) annul all 

findings and conclusions made 

pursuant to the duty–absorption inquiry 

conducted for the subject reviews; (2) 

attempt to match U.S. sales to non–

identical but similar home–market sales 

before resorting to constructed value 

when sales of identical merchandise 

have been found to be outside the 

ordinary course of trade; and (3) 

recalculate Barden’s dumping margin 

without regard to the results of the 

below–cost test. This remand affected 

the Barden Corporation (U.K.) Ltd., the 

Barden Corporation, and FAG Bearing 

Corporation (collectively Barden) and 

RHP Bearings Ltd., NSK Bearings 

Europe Ltd., and NSK Corporation 

(collectively NSK/RHP) directly with 

respect to the antidumping duty orders 

on BBs and CRBs from the United 

Kingdom for the POR May 1, 1995, 

through April 30, 1996.

On October 20, 2000, the Department 

filed its Remand Results with the CIT. 

On February 23, 2001, the CIT in RHP 

II affirmed the Department’s Remand 

Results partially and remanded AFBs 7

to the Department again with a new 

order to clarify the reasons behind its 

decision to conduct the below–cost test 

and to take any further action that it 

deems appropriate. On May 18, 2001, 

the Department filed its Remand Results 

with the CIT pursuant to the remand 

order in RHP II. On August 20, 2001, the 

CIT affirmed the Department’s Remand 

Results in their entirety. See RHP 

Bearings Ltd. v. United States, Consol. 

No. 97–11–01983, slip op. 01–106 (CIT 

2001). Barden, NSK/RHP, Timken US 

Corporation (Timken), and the United 

States appealed the CIT’s remand 

affirmation but later filed with the 

CAFC motions to sever and dismiss 

their appeals voluntarily. On February 

17, 2004, the CAFC granted Barden’s, 

NSK/RHP’s, and Timken’s motions to 

dismiss. On April 26, 2004, the CAFC 

granted the United States’ motion to 

dismiss and lifted the stay of 

proceedings.

2. Remands for AFBs 9

In SKF France, SKF Germany, SKF 

Italy, and SKF Sweden, the CIT 

remanded AFBs 9 to the Department to 

annul all findings and conclusions 

made pursuant to the duty–absorption 

inquiry conducted for the subject 

reviews. These four remand orders 

affected, in the respective order, SKF 

Compagnie d’Applications Mecaniques, 

S.A. (Clamart), ADR, and SARMA 

(collectively SKF France), SKF GmbH, 

SKF Service GmbH, and Steyr Walzlager 

(collectively SKF Germany), SKF Italy, 

and SKF Sweden directly with respect 

to the antidumping duty orders on 

antifriction bearings and parts thereof 

from France, Germany, Italy, and 

Sweden for the POR May 1, 1997, 

through April 30, 1998.

The Department filed its Remand 

Results for SKF France and SKF Sweden

on November 22, 2000, SKF Germany on 

June 20, 2000, and SKF Italy on October 

10, 2000, with the CIT. The CIT affirmed 

the Department’s Remand Results for 

SKF France1 and SKF Sweden2 on 

January 30, 2001, SKF Germany3 on 

August 18, 2000, and SKF Italy4 on 

December 15, 2000, in their entirety.

The CIT’s remand affirmations in SKF 

France, SKF Germany, SKF Italy, and 

SKF Sweden were appealed by the 

plaintiffs, i.e., SKF France, SKF 

Germany, SKF Italy, and SKF Sweden, 

respectively. Timken and the United 

States appealed in all four cases. All 

parties later filed with the CAFC 

motions to sever and dismiss their 

appeals voluntarily. On February 17, 

2004, the CAFC granted SKF France’s, 

SKF Italy’s, SKF Sweden’s, and 

Timken’s motions to dismiss appeals in 

SKF France, SKF Italy, and SKF Sweden. 

On February 18, 2004, the CAFC granted 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 204 / Friday, October 22, 2004 / Notices 62025

SKF Germany’s and Timken’s motions 

to dismiss appeals in SKF Germany. On 

April 26, 2004, the CAFC granted the 

United States’ motion to dismiss 

appeals in all four cases and lifted the 

stay of proceedings.

Assessment of Duties

The remands for AFBs 7 had no effect 

on weighted–average margins or duty–

assessment rates for FAG Italy, SKF 

Italy, SKF Sweden, Barden, and NSK/

RHP. The remands for AFBs 9 had no 

effect on weighted–average margins or 

duty–assessment rates for SKF France, 

SKF Germany, SKF Italy, and SKF 

Sweden.

Accordingly, the Department will 

determine and CBP will assess 

appropriate antidumping duties on 

entries of the subject merchandise 

produced by the affected companies. 

Individual differences between U.S. 

price and foreign market value may vary 

from the percentages published. The 

Department has disclosed or will 

disclose assessment instructions to the 

parties in advance. The Department will 

issue assessment instructions to CBP 

within 15 days of publication of these 

amended final results of reviews.

The CIT remanded AFBs 7 and AFBs 

9 to the Department to annul all 

findings and conclusions made 

pursuant to the duty–absorption 

inquiries it conducted in both segments 

of proceeding. The Department hereby 

complies with the remand as directed 

by the CIT and annuls all findings and 

conclusions made pursuant to its duty–

absorption inquiries conducted for the 

subject reviews with respect to the 

following companies:

Segments Country Company Class or Kind of Merchandise 

AFBs 7 ..................................................................... Italy FAG Italy BBs

.................................................................................. ........................................ SKF Italy BBs

.................................................................................. Sweden SKF Sweden BBs

.................................................................................. United Kingdom Barden BBs

.................................................................................. ........................................ NSK/RHP BBs, CRBs

AFBs 9 ..................................................................... France SKF France BBs

.................................................................................. Germany SKF Germany BBs, CRBs, SPBs

.................................................................................. Italy SKF Italy BBs

.................................................................................. Sweden SKF Sweden BBs, CRBs

We are issuing and publishing these 

determinations in accordance with 

sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.

Dated: October 15, 2004.

James J. Jochum,

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration.

[FR Doc. 04–23719 Filed 10–21–04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–853] 

Bulk Aspirin From the People’s 

Republic of China: Amended Notice of 

Court Decision and Suspension of 

Liquidation

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: On August 24, 2004, the 

United States Court of International 

Trade issued an amendment to its order, 

clarifying a June 29, 2004, decision 

regarding liquidation of entries of bulk 

aspirin from the People’s Republic of 

China. Consistent with the decision of 

the United States Court of Appeals for 

the Federal Circuit in Timken Co. v. 

United States, 893 F.2nd 337 (Fed. Cir. 

1990) (‘‘Timken’’), the Department is 

notifying the public of the Court’s 

amendment.

DATES: Effective October 22, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Scott Holland, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–1279.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On June 29, 2004, the United States 

Court of International Trade (‘‘CIT’’) 

issued its decision to invalidate certain 

sets of liquidation instructions issued by 

the Department of Commerce (‘‘the 

Department’’) in the antidumping 

proceeding covering entries of bulk 

aspirin from the People’s Republic of 

China (‘‘PRC’’). See Jilin Henghe 

Pharmaceutical Co. and Jilin 

Pharmaceutical USA v. United States,

Consol. Court No. 04–00151, Slip. Op. 

04–77 (CIT 2004) (‘‘Jilin Henghe’’). 

Pursuant to Timken, on July 9, 2004, 

the Department published a notice of 

the CIT’s decision in the Federal 

Register. See Bulk Aspirin from the 

People’s Republic of China: Notice of 

Court Decision and Suspension of 

Liquidation, 69 FR 41458 (July 9, 2004). 

On August 24, 2004, the CIT issued an 

amendment to its order to clarify that 

entries of bulk aspirin that (1) were 

manufactured and exported to the 

United States by Jilin Henghe 

Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. (‘‘Jilin’’) and 

imported by Jilin Pharmaceutical USA 

(‘‘Jilin USA’’); and (2) were entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption during the time period of 

July 1, 2002, through September 29, 

2002, or entered pursuant to Customs 

number D09–0929517–8, shall be 

liquidated in accordance with the 

Court’s decision in Rhodia Inc. v. 

United States, 240 F. Supp. 2d 1247 

(CIT 2002). 

Timken Notice 

In its decision in Timken, the Federal 

Circuit held that, pursuant to section 

516A(c)(1) and (e) of the Tariff Act of 

1930 (‘‘the Act’’), the Department must 

publish notice of a decision of the CIT 

which is not in harmony with the 

Department’s determination. The CIT’s 

decision in Jilin Henghe was not in 

harmony with the Department’s Notice 

of Amended Final Determination and 

Amended Order Pursuant to Final Court 

Decision: Bulk Aspirin from the People’s 

Republic of China, 68 FR 75208 

(December 30, 2003), Notice of 

Amended Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review: Bulk 

Aspirin from the People’s Republic of 

China, 68 FR 12036 (March 13, 2003), or 

Notice of Amended Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review: Bulk Aspirin from the People’s 

Republic of China, 68 FR 54890 

(September 19, 2003). Therefore, 

publication of this notice fulfills the 

statutory obligation. 

Suspension of Liquidation 

This notice will serve to continue the 

suspension of liquidation pending a 

final decision by the Federal Circuit. 

The Department will instruct Customs 

and Border Protection to continue to