328 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 2 / Thursday, January 4, 2007 / Notices 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value for 

Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from the 

People’s Republic of China, 69 FR 67304 

(November 17, 2004) (‘‘Final 

Determination’’). The final judgment in 

this case was not in harmony with the 

Department’s Final Determination. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 18, 2006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul 

Stolz or Charles Riggle, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 8, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–4474 or (202) 482–

0650, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 

Goldlink Industries Co., Ltd., Trust 

Chem Co., Ltd., Tianjin Hanchem 

International Trading Co., Ltd. v. United 

States, 431 F. Supp. 2d 1323 (CIT 2006), 

the CIT remanded the underlying final 

determination to the Department to (1) 

re–examine its determination to apply 

total adverse facts available (‘‘AFA’’) to 

Tianjin Hanchem International Trading 

Co., Ltd. (‘‘Hanchem’’); (2) further 

explain its determination that the 

subsidies Pidilite Industries, Ltd. 

(‘‘Pidilite’’), an Indian producer of CVP, 

received did not distort Pidilite’s 

financial ratios; (3) re–examine the 

surrogate values for benzene sulfonyl 

chloride, calcium chloride and steam; 

(4) either include terminal charges and 

brokerage fees in movement costs or 

precisely and reasonably explain its 

decision not to include such costs; and 

(5) re–open the record and allow parties 

to submit new information as necessary. 

On September 22, 2006, the 

Department released the Draft Remand 

Redetermination to interested parties 

and requested that they submit 

comments by September 27, 2006. The 

petitioners submitted comments on 

September 27, 2006. Respondents did 

not submit comments. On October 16, 

2006, the Department issued to the CIT 

its final results of redetermination 

pursuant to remand. In the remand 

redetermination the Department (1) 

applied partial AFA to Hanchem; (2) 

explained how the subsidies Pidilite 

received did not distort Pidilite’s 

financial ratios; (3) re–calculated the 

surrogate values for benzene sulfonyl 

chloride, calcium chloride and steam; 

(4) explained why it is not appropriate 

to include terminal charges and 

brokerage fees in movement costs; and 

(5) re–opened the record and allowed 

parties to submit new information with 

respect to the surrogate value of steam. 

Thus, the Department recalculated the 

antidumping duty rates applicable to 

Goldlink Industries Co., Ltd., Trust 

Chem Co., Ltd., Hanchem, Nantong 

Haidi Chemicals Co., Ltd., and the PRC–

wide entity. On December 8, 2006, the 

CIT sustained the final redetermination 

made by the Department pursuant to the 

CIT’s remand of the Final 

Determination. 

In its decision in Timken Co., v. 

United States, 893 F.2d 337, 341 (Fed. 

Cir. 1990) (‘‘Timken’’), the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

(‘‘CAFC’’) held that, pursuant to section 

516A(e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (‘‘the Act’’), the Department 

must publish a notice of a court 

decision that is not ‘‘in harmony’’ with 

a Department determination, and must 

suspend liquidation of entries pending 

a ‘‘conclusive’’ court decision. The CIT’s 

decision in this case on December 8, 

2006, constitutes a final decision of the 

court that is not in harmony with the 

Department’s Final Determination. This 

notice is published in fulfillment of the 

publication requirements of Timken. 

Accordingly, the Department will 

continue the suspension of liquidation 

of the subject merchandise pending the 

expiration of the period of appeal or, if 

appealed, pending a final and 

conclusive court decision. In the event 

the CIT’s ruling is not appealed or, if 

appealed, upheld by the CAFC, the 

Department will instruct U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection to revise the cash 

deposit rates covering the subject 

merchandise. 

This notice is issued and published in 

accordance with section 516A(c)(1) of 

the Act. 

Dated: December 27, 2006. 

Stephen J. Claeys, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E6–22559 Filed 1–3–07; 8:45 am] 

Billing Code: 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–201–802] 

Gray Portland Cement and Clinker 

From Mexico: Initiation of an 

Antidumping Duty ChangedCircumstances Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In response to a request for a 

changed-circumstances review from 

Holcim Apasco, S.A. de C.V. (Apasco) 

and pursuant to Section II.B.6 of the 

Agreement between the Office of the 

United States Trade Representative, the 

United States Department of Commerce 

and Secretaria de Economia on Trade in 

Mexican Cement (the Agreement) dated 

March 6, 2006, the Department of 

Commerce is initiating a changedcircumstances review of the 

antidumping duty order on gray 

portland cement and clinker from 

Mexico. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 4, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

George Callen at (202) 482–0180 or 

Minoo Hatten at (202) 482–1690, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 5, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On August 30, 1990, the Department 

of Commerce (the Department) 

published the antidumping duty order 

on gray portland cement and clinker 

from Mexico (Mexican cement). See 

Antidumping Duty Order: Gray Portland 

Cement and Clinker From Mexico, 55 

FR 35443. According to the Agreement, 

upon request, the Department ‘‘shall 

conduct an expedited changedcircumstances review to establish a new 

estimated duty deposit rate for any 

Mexican Cement exporter (and its 

affiliated parties) that’’: (a) Had an 

estimated duty deposit rate under the 

Mexican Cement Order; (b) did not 

receive the new estimated duty deposit 

rate of three U.S. dollars ($3.00) per 

metric ton referenced in Section II.A.4.b 

of this Agreement; and (c) exported 

Mexican Cement to the United States in 

the year preceding the Effective Date or 

exports Mexican Cement to the United 

States while the Agreement remains in 

force. 

On December 14, 2006, pursuant to 

section II.B.6 of the Agreement, Apasco 

requested that the Department conduct 

a changed-circumstances review of 

certain export sales of the subject 

merchandise to the United States made 

by Apasco during the period October 

through December 2006. 

Scope of the Order 

The products subject to this order 

include gray portland cement and 

clinker. Gray portland cement is a 

hydraulic cement and the primary 

component of concrete. Clinker, an 

intermediate material product produced 

when manufacturing cement, has no use 

other than of being ground into finished 

cement. Gray portland cement is 

currently classifiable under Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule of the United States 

(HTSUS) item number 2523.29, and 

cement clinker is currently classifiable 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 2 / Thursday, January 4, 2007 / Notices 329 

under HTSUS item number 2523.10. 

Gray portland cement has also been 

entered under HTSUS item number 

2523.90 as ‘‘other hydraulic cements.’’

Although the HTSUS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, the written description of the 

scope of this proceeding is dispositive. 

Initiation of Changed-Circumstances 

Review 

Pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), 

19 CFR 351.216 (2005), and Section 

II.B.6 of the Agreement, the Department 

will conduct a changed-circumstances 

review upon receipt of information 

concerning, or a request from an 

interested party for a review of, an 

antidumping duty order which shows 

changed circumstances sufficient to 

warrant a review of the order. Apasco 

claims that it has satisfied the criteria 

detailed above to warrant such a review. 

See 19 CFR 351.216(d) and II.B.6 of the 

Agreement. We agree. Therefore, in 

accordance with the above-referenced 

regulation, the Department is initiating 

a changed-circumstances review. The 

Department will issue questionnaires 

requesting factual information for the 

review, and will publish in the Federal 

Register a notice of preliminary results 

of antidumping duty changedcircumstances review, in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(2) and (4), and 

19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(i). The notice will 

set forth the factual and legal 

conclusions upon which our 

preliminary results are based. Pursuant 

to 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(ii), interested 

parties will have an opportunity to 

comment on the preliminary results of 

review. Recognizing that the Agreement 

specifies an expedited review, we will 

make every effort to issue final results 

of review in an expeditious manner, but 

no later than the regulatory deadline in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.216(e). 

During the course of this antidumping 

duty changed circumstances review, we 

will not change the cash deposit 

requirements for the merchandise 

subject to review. The cash deposit will 

be altered, if warranted, pursuant only 

to the final results of this review. 

This notice of initiation is in 

accordance with section 751(b)(1) of the 

Act, 19 CFR 351.216(b) and (d), and 19 

CFR 351.221(b)(1). 

Dated: December 27, 2006. 

Stephen J. Claeys, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 06–9977 Filed 12–29–06; 4:10 pm] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

(A–580–841) 

Structural Steel Beams from Korea: 

Notice of Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On September 7, 2006, the 

Department of Commerce published the 

preliminary results of the administrative 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on structural steel beams from Korea. 

See Structural Steel Beams from Korea: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 

52766 (September 7, 2006) (Preliminary 

Results). This administrative review 

covers INI Steel Company and Dongkuk 

Steel Mill Co., Ltd., manufacturers and 

exporters of the subject merchandise. 

The period of review is August 1, 2004, 

through July 31, 2005. 

We did not receive any comments 

from parties, and we have not made any 

changes to our analysis. The final 

weighted–average dumping margins for 

the reviewed firms are thus unchanged 

from our preliminary results of review, 

and are shown in the section entitled 

‘‘Final Results of Review.’’

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 4, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Maryanne Burke or Steve Bezirganian, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone (202) 482–5604 or (202) 482–

1131, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On September 7, 2006, the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register its preliminary results of the 

administrative review of structural steel 

beams from Korea for the period August 

1, 2004 through July 31, 2005. See 

Preliminary Results. No party 

commented on Preliminary Results. 

Scope of the Order 

The products covered by this order 

are doubly–symmetric shapes, whether 

hot–or cold–rolled, drawn, extruded, 

formed or finished, having at least one 

dimension of at least 80 mm (3.2 inches 

or more), whether of carbon or alloy 

(other than stainless) steel, and whether 

or not drilled, punched, notched, 

painted, coated or clad. These products 

include, but are not limited to, wide–

flange beams (‘‘W’’ shapes), bearing 

piles (‘‘HP’’ shapes), standard beams 

(‘‘S’’ or ‘‘I’’ shapes) and M–shapes. 

All products that meet the physical 

and metallurgical descriptions provided 

above are within the scope of this order 

unless otherwise excluded. The 

following products are outside and/or 

specifically excluded from the scope of 

this order: structural steel beams greater 

than 400 pounds per linear foot or with 

a web or section height (also known as 

depth) over 40 inches. 

The merchandise subject to this order 

is currently classified in the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS) at subheadings: 

7216.32.00000, 7216.33.0030, 

7216.33.0060, 7216.33.0090, 

7216.50.0000, 7216.61.0000, 

7216.69.0000, 7216.99.0010, 

7216.99.0090, 7228.70.3010, 

7228.70.3041, and 7228.70.6000. 

Although the HTSUS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, the written description of the 

merchandise is dispositive. 

Changes Since the Preliminary Results 

As noted above, no parties 

commented on Preliminary Results. The 

Department is making no changes to its 

preliminary analysis. 

Final Results of Review: 

As a result of our review, we 

determine that the following weighted–

average margins exist for the period of 

August 1, 2004, through July 31, 2005: 

Manufacturer/Exporter Margin 

INI Steel Company ..................... 1.91% 

Dongkuk Steel Mill Co., Ltd. ....... 0.00% 

Assessment Rates 

The Department will determine, and 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties 

on all appropriate entries, pursuant to 

section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 

1930 (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.212(b). 

The Department calculated importer–

specific duty assessment rates (or, when 

the importer was unknown by the 

respondent, customer–specific duty 

assessment rates) on the basis of the 

ratio of the total amount of antidumping 

duties calculated for the examined sales 

observations involving each importer (or 

customer, when appropriate) to the total 

entered value of the examined sales 

observations for that importer (or 

customer, when appropriate). 

The Department clarified its 

‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on 

May 6, 2003. This clarification will 

apply to entries of structural steel beams 

during the POR produced by INI Steel 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES