Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 52 / Monday, March 19, 2007 / Notices 12759 

Manufacturer/Exporter Weighted Average 

Margin 

Stelco Inc. ..................... 1.51 percent 

Assessment 

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 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 to 

the total entered value of the examined 

sales observations for that importer. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 356.8(a), the 

Department intends to issue assessment 

instructions to CBP 41 days after the 

date of publication of these final results 

of review. 

The Department clarified its 

‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on 

May 6, 2003. This clarification will 

apply to entries of subject merchandise 

during the POR produced by companies 

included in these final results of review 

for which the reviewed companies did 

not know their merchandise was 

destined for the United States. In such 

instances, we will instruct CBP to 

liquidate unreviewed entries at the ‘‘All 

Others’’ rate if there is no rate for the 

intermediate company(ies) involved in 

the transaction. For a discussion of this 

clarification, see Notice of Policy 

Concerning Assessment of Antidumping 

Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). 

Cash Deposits 

Pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.222(i)(2)(i), the 

Department revoked this order and 

notified U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection to discontinue suspension of 

liquidation and collection of cash 

deposits on entries of the subject 

merchandise entered or withdrawn from 

warehouse on or after December 15, 

2005, the effective date of revocation of 

this AD order. See Revocation Pursuant 

to Second Five-year (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews 

of Antidumping and Countervailing 

Duty Orders: Certain Corrosion–

Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products 

from Australia, Canada, Japan, and 

France, 72 FR 7010 (February 14, 2007). 

Certificate on Reimbursement 

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 

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 in the subsequent 

assessment of double antidumping 

duties. 

Notification Regarding Administrative 

Protective Orders. 

This notice is the only reminder to 

parties subject to the administrative 

protective order (APO) of their 

responsibility concerning the return or 

destruction of proprietary information 

disclosed under the APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely written 

notification of the return or destruction 

of APO materials or conversion to 

judicial protective order is hereby 

requested. Failure to comply with the 

regulations and the terms of an APO is 

a sanctionable violation. 

We are issuing and publishing these 

results and this notice in accordance 

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

the Tariff Act of 1930. 

Dated: March 12, 2007. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretaryfor Import Administration. 

Appendix 

List of Issues 

1. Treatment of Dofasco’s bad debt 

allowance 

2. Application of the major input rule to 

Dofasco’s purchase of iron ore fluxed 

pellets from Quebec Cartier Mining 

(QCM) 

3. Treatment of Dofasco’s indirect 

selling expenses incurred in Canada 

4. Treatment of Dofasco’s inventory 

carrying costs incurred in Canada 

5. Application of the arm’s length test 

6. Treatment of Dofasco’s home market 

indirect selling expenses in the 

calculation of the net price used in the 

sales below cost test 

7. Calculation of credit expense for 

certain of Stelco’s U.S. sales 

[FR Doc. E7–4942 Filed 3–16–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–803] 

Notice of Amended Final Results in 

Accordance With Court Decision: 

Heavy Forged Hand Tools from the 

People’s Republic of China 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 19, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Thomas Martin or Mark Manning; AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 4, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–3936 or (202) 482–

5253, respectively. 

SUMMARY: On March 10, 2007, the 

appeals period expired with respect to 

a decision of the United States Court of 

International Trade (‘‘CIT’’), which had 

sustained the final results in part, and 

the remand determination in part, of the 

Department of Commerce (‘‘the 

Department’’) in the administrative 

review of the antidumping duty orders 

on heavy forged hand tools (‘‘HFHTs’’) 

from the People’s Republic of China 

(‘‘PRC’’), covering the period February 

1, 2001, through January 31, 2002. See 

Shandong Huarong Machinery Co. v. 

United States and Ames True Temper, 

Slip Op. 07–3 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2007) 

(‘‘Shandong Huarong II’’). As there is 

now a final court decision, we are 

amending the final results of the review 

in this matter. We will instruct U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) 

to liquidate entries subject to these 

amended final results. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On September 10, 2003, the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register the final results of review for 

the eleventh review of HFHTs from the 

PRC. See Heavy Forged Hand Tools, 

Finished or Unfinished, With or Without 

Handles, From the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review of the 

Order on Bars and Wedges, 68 FR 53347 

(September 10, 2003) (‘‘Final Results’’). 

The period of review (‘‘POR’’) was 

February 1, 2001, through January 31, 

2002. Shandong Huarong Machinery Co. 

(‘‘Huarong’’) filed a summons on 

September 18, 2003, and filed a 

complaint on September 25, 2003, 

challenging the Department’s Final 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
12760 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 52 / Monday, March 19, 2007 / Notices 

1Ames True Temper is a domestic interested 

party to the proceeding, and was the petitioner in 

the underlying review. 

Results. Ames True Temper 1 (‘‘Ames’’) 

filed a summons on October 10, 2003, 

and filed a complaint on November 10, 

2003, also challenging the Department’s 

Final Results. The Court consolidated 

the two cases on December 23, 2003. On 

February 17, 2004, Ames filed, with a 

supporting brief, a motion for judgment 

upon the agency record. On February 

18, 2004, Huarong filed, with a 

supporting brief, its motion for 

judgment upon the agency record. In 

their briefs, Ames and Huarong 

challenged several aspects of the Final 

Results. See Ames’s February 17, 2004, 

proposed order and brief in support of 

motion for judgment upon the agency 

record (‘‘Ames Motion for Judgment’’); 

see also Huarong’s February 18, 2004, 

proposed order and brief in support of 

motion for judgment upon the agency 

record (‘‘Huarong Motion for 

Judgment’’). On April 26, 2004, the 

Department filed its opposition to both 

the Huarong Motion for Judgment and 

the Ames Motion for Judgment. Ames 

filed an opposition to the Huarong 

Motion for Judgment on April 27, 2004. 

Huarong filed its reply to the 

Department’s opposition and Ames’s 

opposition on May 21, 2004. The Court 

issued a remand order on May 2, 2005. 

In Shandong Huarong Machinery Co. 

v. United States, 2005 Ct. Intl. Trade 

LEXIS 57, Slip Op. 2005–54 (Ct. Int’l 

Trade, 2005) (‘‘Shandong Huarong I’’), 

the CIT remanded the underlying final 

results to the Department to: (1) reopen 

the record in order to afford Huarong a 

second opportunity to provide a scrap 

offset in which its scrap sales are 

allocated to the production of bars/ 

wedges; (2) explain why its 

methodology of including distances 

greater than the distance from the 

nearest port to the factory, when 

calculating the weighted–average freight 

distance for multiple suppliers of one 

particular factor of production (‘‘FOP’’), 

satisfies the reasoning in Sigma Corp. v. 

United States, 117 F.3d 1401 (Fed. Cir. 

1997) (‘‘Sigma’’) and Lasko Metal 

Products Inc. v. United States, 43 F.3d 

1442, 1446 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (‘‘Lasko’’), or 

adjust its methodology; (3) explain its 

decision to disregard the effect of 

subsidies from the United States and 

other countries, in light of Fuyao Glass 

Indus. Group Co. v. United States, Slip 

Op. 2003–169 (Ct. Int’l Trade, 2003) 

(‘‘Fuyao I’’) and Fuyao Glass Indus. 

Group Co. v. United States, Slip Op. 

2005–06 (Ct. Int’l Trade, 2005) (‘‘Fuyao 

II’’); (4) supply a more complete 

explanation to support its determination 

that labor costs and other factor inputs 

for making steel pallets are included in 

the cost of brokerage and handling; and 

(5) provide a more complete explanation 

to support its decision that the cost of 

movement from the truck to the 

container yard, demurrage and storage 

charges, and other port charges are 

included in the brokerage and handling 

cost. 

The Department released the Draft 

Results of Redetermination Pursuant to 

Court Remand (‘‘Draft 

Redetermination’’) to Huarong and 

Ames for comment on October 7, 2005. 

The Department received timely filed 

comments from both Huarong and Ames 

on October 14, 2005, and rebuttal 

comments from Huarong on October 19, 

2005. The Department filed its Final 

Results of Redetermination Pursuant to 

Court Remand (‘‘Final 

Redetermination’’) with the CIT on 

November 30, 2005. In the Final 

Redetermination the Department did the 

following: (1) reopened the record, and 

applied a steel scrap offset in its 

calculation of normal value to adjust for 

sales of steel scrap that was generated 

from the production of the subject bars 

and wedges; (2) applied the Sigma cap 

in its analysis and capped the distance 

for each supplier before calculating the 

weighted–average inland freight 

distance; (3) explained its decision in 

the Final Results to not exclude U.S. 

export data from the Indian import 

statistics used as the surrogate value 

because it would have resulted in an 

insignificant adjustment to normal 

value; (4) revised its FOP methodology 

to include labor costs and other factor 

inputs for making steel pallets in normal 

value; and (5) explained its reasoning 

for finding that movement expenses 

incurred at the port of export were 

included in the calculation of brokerage 

and handing expenses. The Department 

recalculated the antidumping duty rate 

applicable to Huarong, and included the 

changes noted above. On January 9, 

2007, the CIT sustained all aspects of 

the remand redetermination made by 

the Department pursuant to the CIT’s 

remand of the Final Results. 

Amended Final Results of Review 

The time period for appealing the 

CIT’s final decision to the Court of 

Appeals for the Federal Circuit has 

expired and no party has appealed this 

decision. As there is now a final and 

conclusive court decision with respect 

to litigation for Huarong, we are 

amending the final results of review to 

reflect the findings of the remand 

results, pursuant to section 516A(e) of 

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

Act’’). The amended weighted–average 

margin is: 

Manufacturer/Exporter Margin 

Shandong Huarong Machinery Co.: 

Bars/Wedges ................ 31.00 

Assessment Rates 

The Department will determine, and 

CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on 

all appropriate entries. In accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have 

calculated importer–specific assessment 

rates. Where the importer–specific 

assessment rate is above de minimis on 

an ad valorem basis, calculated by 

dividing the dumping margins found on 

examined subject merchandise by the 

estimated entered value, we will 

instruct CBP to assess antidumping 

duties on that importer’s entries of 

subject merchandise. In accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will 

instruct CBP to liquidate without regard 

to antidumping duties any entries for 

which the importer–specific assessment 

rate is de minimis (i.e., less than 0.5 

percent ad valorem). Since the actual 

entered value of the merchandise was 

not reported to us, we have divided, 

where applicable, the total dumping 

margins (calculated as the difference 

between normal value and export price) 

for each importer by the total number of 

units sold to the importer. We will 

direct CBP to assess the resulting unit 

dollar amount against each unit of 

subject merchandise entered by the 

importer during the POR. The 

Department will issue appropriate 

assessment instructions directly to CBP 

15 days after publication of these 

amended final results of review. 

These amended final results of 

administrative review are issued and 

published in accordance with section 

516A(c)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: March 12, 2007. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E7–4949 Filed 3–16–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES