62436 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2004 / Notices 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration 

University of Pennsylvania; Notice of 

Decision on Application for Duty-Free 

Entry of Electron Microscope 

This decision is made pursuant to 

section 6(c) of the Educational, 

Scientific, and Cultural Materials 

Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89–

651, 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301). 

Related records can be viewed between 

8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. in Suite 4100W, 

Franklin Court Building, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, 1099 14th 

Street, NW., Washington, DC. 

Docket Number: 04–017. Applicant:

University of Pennsylvania, 

Philadelphia, PA. Instrument: Electron 

Microscope, Model Technai G2 TWIN 

bioTWIN. Manufacturer: FEI Company, 

Japan. Intended Use: See notice at FR 

69, 60395, October 8,2004. Order Date:

January 20, 2004. 

Comments: None received. Decision:

Approved. No instrument of equivalent 

scientific value to the foreign 

instrument, for such purposes as the 

instrument is intended to be used, was 

being manufactured in the United States 

at the time the instrument was ordered. 

Reasons: The foreign instrument is a 

conventional transmission electron 

microscope (CTEM) and is intended for 

research or scientific educational uses 

requiring a CTEM. We know of no 

CTEM, or any other instrument suited to 

these purposes, which was being 

manufactured in the United States 

either at the time of order of the 

instrument OR at the time of receipt of 

the application by U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection.

Gerald A. Zerdy, 

Program Manager, Statutory Import Programs 

Staff.

[FR Doc. 04–23954 Filed 10–25–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration 

North American Free-Trade Agreement 

(NAFTA), Article 1904 NAFTA Panel 

Reviews; Decision of the Panel

AGENCY: NAFTA Secretariat, United 

States Section, International Trade 

Administration, Department of 

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of decision of NAFTA 

Panel. 

SUMMARY: On October 19, 2004, the 

NAFTA Panel issued its decision in the 

matter of Corrosion-Resistant Carbon 

Steel Flat Products from Canada, 

Secretariat File No. USA–CDA–00–

1904–11.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Caratina L. Alston, United States 

Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat, Suite 

2061, 14th and Constitution Avenue, 

NW., 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 

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 was conducted in accordance 

with these rules. 

Background Information: On 

December 28, 2000, Dofasco filed a First 

Request for Panel Review with the 

United States Section of the NAFTA 

Secretariat pursuant to Article 1904 of 

the North American Free Trade 

Agreement. Panel review was requested 

of the final results of the full sunset 

review of antidumping duty orders 

made by the United States International 

Trade Commission, respecting Certain 

Corrosion-Resistant Steel Flat Products 

from Canada and the continuation of 

antidumping duty order by the U.S. 

Department of Commerce based on the 

International Trade Commission’s 

determination. These determinations 

were published in the Federal Register, 

(65 FR 75301) on December 1, 2000, and 

(65 FR 78469) on December 15, 2000. 

The NAFTA Secretariat has assigned 

Case Number USA–CDA–00–1904–11 to 

this request. 

Panel Decision 

The Panel remanded this matter back 

to the International Trade Commission 

and found: 

(1) The Commission’s decision to 

cumulate Canadian imports, in light of 

its consideration of the high capacity 

utilization rates in Canada, is 

unsupported by substantial evidence; 

and 

(2) The Commission’s determination 

that the Domestic Industry is in a 

‘‘weakened state’’, in light of its ‘‘profit 

center’’ rationale, is unsupported by 

substantial evidence and not in 

accordance with law. 

Accordingly, the Panel remanded the 

case to the Commission stating:

—If it still wishes to cumulate Canadian 

corrosion resistant steel products, the 

Commission must sufficiently explain 

and articulate—consistent with this 

opinion—the basis of its conclusions 

as to whether, in light of the high 

capacity utilization rates prevalent in 

Canada during the period of review, 

there exists substantial evidence in 

the record upon which to base the 

Commission’s determination that 

there was available excess capacity in 

Canada sufficient to lead to an 

increase in imports having a 

discernible adverse impact upon the 

domestic industry if the antidumping 

order were to be revoked. 

—If the Commission still chooses to find 

that the Domestic Industry is in a 

vulnerable or weakened state, the 

Commission must sufficiently explain 

and articulate—consistent with this 

opinion—the basis of its conclusions 

as to whether the Commission’s 

analysis of the impact of Canadian 

imports involves the profits of the 

domestic corrosion-resistant steel 

industry or those of the broader steel 

industry, and the impact of the profit 

analysis upon the Commission’s 

affirmative vulnerability 

determination regarding the domestic 

corrosion-resistant steel industry.

In a separate opinion, Panelist 

Anissimoff stated in part: 

The issue concerns the Arguments 

made by parties before the Commission 

which are left unaddressed by the 

Commission in its determination. The 

Complainant says that its arguments and 

evidence were not expressly addressed 

by the Commission in its determination. 

The obligation to discuss relevant and 

material arguments legally springs from 

19 U.S.C. 1677f(i)(3)(B) along with the 

legislative history as found at the 

Uruguay Round Trade Agreements, 

Statement of Administrative Action, 

H.R. Doc. No. 316, Vol. 1, 103d Cong., 

2d Sess. 892 (1994) (hereinafter ‘‘SAA’’). 

Shortly stated, the Commission is 

legally obliged to discuss in its 

determination the relevant and material 

arguments made by interested parties, in 

this case the Complainant. 

Equally the Commission is presumed 

by law to have considered all of the