14078 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 57 / Monday, March 26, 2007 / Notices 

producers/exporters of the subject 

merchandise to the United States. 

Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary 

Results 

Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of 

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

the Department shall make a 

preliminary determination in an 

administrative review of an 

antidumping order within 245 days after 

the last day of the anniversary month of 

the date of publication of the order. 

Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act further 

provides, however, that the Department 

may extend the 245-day period to 365 

days if it determines it is not practicable 

to complete the review within the 

foregoing time period. We determine 

that it is not practicable to complete this 

administrative review within the time 

limits mandated by section 751(a)(3)(A) 

of the Act because we require additional 

time to analyze the respondent’s cost of 

production response and issue 

supplemental questionnaires. Therefore, 

we have fully extended the deadline for 

completing the preliminary results until 

July 31, 2007, which is 365 days from 

the last day of the anniversary month of 

the date of publication of the order. The 

deadline for the final results of the 

review continues to be 120 days after 

the publication of the preliminary 

results. 

This extension notice is published in 

accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A) 

and 777(i) of the Act. 

Dated: March 19, 2007. 

Stephen J. Claeys, 

Deputy Assistant Secretaryfor Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E7–5502 Filed 3–23–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–601] 

Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 

Thereof, Finished or Unfinished, from 

the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review and Notice 

of Rescission in Part and Intent to 

Rescind in Part 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(‘‘the Department’’) is conducting the 

nineteenth administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on tapered 

roller bearings and parts thereof, 

finished or unfinished (‘‘TRBs’’), from 

the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’), 

covering the period June 1, 2005, 

through May 31, 2006. If these 

preliminary results are adopted in our 

final results of review, we will instruct 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(‘‘CBP’’) to assess antidumping duties 

on entries of subject merchandise 

during the period of review (‘‘POR’’) for 

which the importer–specific assessment 

rates are above de minimis. 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on these preliminary results. 

We intend to issue the final results no 

later than 120 days from the date of 

publication of this notice. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 26, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Eugene Degnan or Robert Bolling, 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) 482–0414 and (202) 

482–3434, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On June 2, 2006, the Department 

published a notice of opportunity to 

request an administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on TRBs from 

the PRC for the period June 1, 2005, 

through May 31, 2006. See Antidumping 

or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, 

or Suspended Investigation: 

Opportunity to Request Administrative 

Review, 71 FR 32032 (June 2, 2006). On 

June 30, 2006, The Timken Company 

(‘‘Timken’’ or ‘‘Petitioner’’) requested 

that the Department conduct an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order covering TRBs 

from the PRC for entries of subject 

merchandise produced and/or exported 

by Chin Jun Industrial Ltd. (‘‘Chin 

Jun’’), and Peer Bearing Company - 

Changshan (‘‘CPZ’’). Additionally, on 

June 30, 2006, Hebei Longsheng Metals 

& Minerals Co., Ltd. (‘‘Hebei 

Longsheng’’) and Yantai Timken 

Company Limited (‘‘Yantai’’) 

independently requested that the 

Department conduct an administrative 

review of their respective sales. Further, 

on June 30, 2006, Koyo Corporation of 

U.S.A. (‘‘Koyo’’), a U.S. producer of 

TRBs, requested that the Department 

conduct an administrative review of 

Yantai’s sales. On July 27, 2006, the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register a notice of the initiation of the 

antidumping duty administrative review 

of TRBs from the PRC for the period 

June 1, 2005, through May 31, 2006, for 

Chin Jun, CPZ, Hebei Longsheng, and 

Yantai. See Initiation of Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Requests for Revocation in 

Part, 71 FR 42626 (July 27, 2006) 

(‘‘Initiation Notice’’). 

On August 9, 2006, the Department 

issued its antidumping duty 

questionnaire to all of the above 

respondents. 

On August 28, 2006, Chin Jun 

reported to the Department that it was 

a dormant company during the POR and 

had no sales of subject merchandise. On 

September 6, 2006, Yantai withdrew its 

request for review, stating that it did not 

intend to participate further in the 

review because of the limited value of 

its exports. Also on September 6, 2006, 

Hebei Longsheng submitted its Section 

A response to the Department’s original 

questionnaire. On September 8, 2006, 

CPZ reported to the Department that it 

did not intend to submit questionnaire 

responses because of the limited value 

of its exports. On September 29, 2006, 

Hebei Longsheng withdrew its request 

for review, pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.213(d)(1). 

Notice of Intent to Rescind in Part and 

Partial Rescission 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), the 

Department may rescind an 

administrative review, in whole or in 

part, with respect to a particular 

exporter or producer, if the Secretary 

concludes that, during the period 

covered by the review, there were no 

entries, exports, or sales of the subject 

merchandise. The Department explains 

this practice in the preamble to the 

Department’s regulations. See 

Antidumping Duties; Countervailing 

Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27317 (May 19, 

1997) (‘‘Preamble’’); see also Stainless 

Steel Plate in Coils From Taiwan: 

Preliminary Results and Rescission in 

Part of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 67 FR 5789, 

5790 (February 7, 2002), and Stainless 

Steel Plate in Coils from Taiwan: Final 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 66 FR 18610 

(April 10, 2001). Because Chin Jun 

reported to the Department that it was 

a dormant company during the POR and 

it had no sales of subject merchandise, 

and we have received no evidence that 

Chin Jun had any shipments to the 

United States of subject merchandise 

during the POR, pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.213(d)(3), the Department 

preliminarily rescinds this review as to 

Chin Jun. 

The Department’s regulations at 19 

CFR 351.213(d)(1) further provide that 

the Department will rescind an 

administrative review if the party that 

requested the review withdraws its 

request for review within 90 days of the 

date of publication of the notice of 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 57 / Monday, March 26, 2007 / Notices 14079 

initiation of the requested review, or 

withdraws its request at a later date if 

the Department determines that it is 

reasonable to extend the time limit for 

withdrawing the request. Hebei 

Longsheng withdrew its request for 

review within the 90-day time limit and 

no other party requested a review with 

respect to Hebei Longsheng. Therefore, 

we are rescinding this review as to 

Hebei Longsheng. 

Yantai also withdrew its request for 

review within the 90-day time frame 

discussed above; however, another 

interested party (i.e., Koyo) also 

requested a review of Yantai. Therefore, 

we are not rescinding this review as to 

Yantai. 

Period of Review 

The POR is June 1, 2005, through May 

31, 2006. 

Scope of the Order 

Merchandise covered by this order is 

TRBs from the PRC; flange, take–up 

cartridge, and hanger units 

incorporating tapered roller bearings; 

and tapered roller housings (except 

pillow blocks) incorporating tapered 

rollers, with or without spindles, 

whether or not for automotive use. This 

merchandise is currently classifiable 

under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule 

of the United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) item 

numbers 8482.20.00, 8482.91.00.50, 

8482.99.30, 8483.20.40, 8483.20.80, 

8483.30.80, 8483.90.20, 8483.90.30, 

8483.90.80, 8708.99.80.15, and 

8708.99.80.80. Although the HTSUS 

item numbers are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

written description of the scope of the 

order is dispositive. 

Application of Facts Available 

Section 776(a)(1) and (2) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930 (‘‘the Act’’) provides that 

the Department shall apply ‘‘facts 

otherwise available’’ if, inter alia, 

necessary information is not on the 

record or an interested party or any 

other person (A) withholds information 

that has been requested, (B) fails to 

provide information within the 

deadlines established, or in the form 

and manner requested by the 

Department, subject to subsections (c)(1) 

and (e) of section 782, (C) significantly 

impedes a proceeding, or (D) provides 

information that cannot be verified as 

provided by section 782(i) of the Act. 

Where the Department determines 

that a response to a request for 

information does not comply with the 

request, section 782(d) of the Act 

provides that the Department will so 

inform the party submitting the 

response and will, to the extent 

practicable, provide that party the 

opportunity to remedy or explain the 

deficiency. If the party fails to remedy 

the deficiency within the applicable 

time limits and subject to section 782(e) 

of the Act, the Department may 

disregard all or part of the original and 

subsequent responses, as appropriate. 

Section 782(e) of the Act provides that 

the Department ‘‘shall not decline to 

consider information that is submitted 

by an interested party and is necessary 

to the determination but does not meet 

all applicable requirements established 

by the administering authority’’ if the 

information is timely, can be verified, is 

not so incomplete that it cannot be used, 

and if the interested party acted to the 

best of its ability in providing the 

information. Where all of these 

conditions are met, the statute requires 

the Department to use the information 

supplied if it can do so without undue 

difficulties. 

Section 776(b) of the Act further 

provides that the Department may use 

an adverse inference in applying the 

facts otherwise available when a party 

has failed to cooperate by not acting to 

the best of its ability to comply with a 

request for information. Such an adverse 

inference may include reliance on 

information derived from the petition, 

the final determination, a previous 

administrative review, or other 

information placed on the record. 

Section 776(c) of the Act provides 

that, when the Department relies on 

secondary information rather than on 

information obtained in the course of an 

investigation or review, it shall, to the 

extent practicable, corroborate that 

information from independent sources 

that are reasonably at its disposal. 

Secondary information is defined as 

‘‘[i]nformation derived from the petition 

that gave rise to the investigation or 

review, the final determination 

concerning the subject merchandise, or 

any previous review under section 751 

concerning the subject merchandise.’’

See Statement of Administrative Action 

accompanying the Uruguay Round 

Agreements Act, H.R. Rep. No. 103–316, 

Vol. 1, at 870 (1994) (‘‘SAA’’), reprinted 

in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4040, 4198–99. 

Corroborate means that the Department 

will satisfy itself that the secondary 

information to be used has probative 

value. Id. To corroborate secondary 

information, the Department will, to the 

extent practicable, examine the 

reliability and relevance of the 

information to be used. 

Application of Total Adverse Facts 

Available 

CPZ 

As discussed above, the Department 

initiated an administrative review of 

CPZ’s exports of merchandise covered 

by the antidumping duty order on TRBs 

from the PRC. See Initiation Notice. On 

August 9, 2006, the Department issued 

its original questionnaire to CPZ. On 

September 8, 2006, CPZ reported to the 

Department that it did not intend to 

submit questionnaire responses because 

of the limited value of its exports. We 

find that because CPZ failed to submit 

questionnaire responses, CPZ has not 

demonstrated its entitlement to a 

separate rate and is, therefore, subject to 

the PRC–wide rate. 

Yantai 

On September 6, 2006, Yantai 

reported to the Department it was 

withdrawing its request for review and 

it did not intend to further participate 

in the review because of the limited 

value of its exports. However, because 

Koyo also requested an administrative 

review of Yantai, the Department could 

not rescind as to Yantai. Because Yantai 

failed to submit questionnaire 

responses, the Department was unable 

to conduct a separate–rate analysis of 

Yantai. Accordingly, the Department 

finds that Yantai has not demonstrated 

its entitlement to a separate rate and is, 

therefore, subject to the PRC–wide rate. 

The PRC–Wide Entity 

Because CPZ and Yantai did not 

respond to the Department’s 

questionnaire, and therefore did not 

demonstrate their eligibility for 

separate–rate status, the Department is 

treating these PRC producers/exporters 

as part of the PRC–wide entity. 

Additionally, because we have 

determined that the companies named 

above are part of the PRC–wide entity, 

the PRC–wide entity is now under 

review. Pursuant to section 776(a) of the 

Act, we further find that because the 

PRC–wide entity (including the 

companies discussed above) failed to 

respond to the Department’s 

questionnaires, withheld or failed to 

provide information in a timely manner 

or in the form or manner requested by 

the Department, or otherwise impeded 

the proceeding, it is appropriate to 

apply a dumping margin for the PRC–

wide entity using facts otherwise 

available on the record. Additionally, 

because these parties failed to respond 

to our requests for information, we find 

that an adverse inference is appropriate. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
14080 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 57 / Monday, March 26, 2007 / Notices 

Selection of the Adverse Facts 

Available Rate 

In deciding which facts to use as 

adverse facts available (‘‘AFA’’), section 

776(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.308(c)(1) authorize the Department 

to rely on information derived from (1) 

the petition, (2) a final determination in 

the investigation, (3) any previous 

review or determination, or (4) any 

information placed on the record. In 

administrative reviews, the Department 

normally selects, as AFA, the highest 

rate determined for any respondent in 

any segment of the proceeding. See, e.g., 

Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the 

People’s Republic of China: Notice of 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 68 FR 19504 

(April 21, 2003); see also Stainless Steel 

Plate in Coils from Taiwan; Preliminary 

Results and Rescission in Part of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 67 FR 57991 (February 7, 2002). 

The Court of International Trade 

(‘‘CIT’’) and the Court of Appeals for the 

Federal Circuit (‘‘Federal Circuit’’) have 

consistently upheld the Department’s 

practice. See Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. 

United States, 899 F.2d 1185, 1190 (Fed. 

Circ. 1990) (‘‘Rhone Poulenc’’); NSK Ltd. 

v. United States, 346 F. Supp. 2d 1312, 

1335 (CIT 2004)(upholding a 73.55 

percent total AFA rate, the highest 

available dumping margin from a 

different respondent in an less than fair 

value investigation); see also Kompass 

Food Trading Int’l v. United States, 24 

CIT 678, 689 (2000) (upholding a 51.16 

percent total AFA rate, the highest 

available dumping margin from a 

different, fully cooperative respondent); 

and Shanghai Taoen International 

Trading Co., Ltd. v. United States, 2005 

Ct. Int’l. Trade 23 *23; Slip Op. 05–22 

(February 17, 2005) (upholding a 223.01 

percent total AFA rate, the highest 

available dumping margin from a 

different respondent in a previous 

administrative review). 

The Department’s practice when 

selecting an adverse rate from among 

the possible sources of information is to 

ensure that the margin is sufficiently 

adverse ‘‘as to effectuate the purpose of 

the facts available role to induce 

respondents to provide the Department 

with complete and accurate information 

in a timely manner.’’ See Static Random 

Access Memory Semiconductors from 

Taiwan; Final Determination of Sales at 

Less than Fair Value, 63 FR 8909, 8932 

(February 23, 1998). The Department’s 

practice also ensures ‘‘that the party 

does not obtain a more favorable result 

by failing to cooperate than if it had 

cooperated fully.’’ See SAA at 890, see 

also Final Determination of Sales at 

Less than Fair Value: Certain Frozen 

and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from 

Brazil, 69 FR 76910 (December 23, 

2004); see also D&L Supply Co. v. 

United States, 113 F. 3d 1220, 1223 

(Fed. Cir. 1997). In choosing the 

appropriate balance between providing 

respondents with an incentive to 

respond accurately and imposing a rate 

that is reasonably related to the 

respondent’s prior commercial activity, 

selecting the highest prior margin 

‘‘reflects a common sense inference that 

the highest prior margin is the most 

probative evidence of current margins, 

because, if it were not so, the importer, 

knowing of the rule, would have 

produced current information showing 

the margin to be less.’’ Rhone Poulenc, 

899 F. 2d at 1190. 

Consistent with the Department’s 

practice and the purposes of section 

776(b) of the Act, as AFA, we are 

assigning the rate of 60.95 percent to the 

PRC–wide entity, which is the highest 

rate calculated in any segment of the 

proceeding. This rate was calculated for 

Premier Bearing and Equipment Ltd. 

(‘‘Premier’’) in the final results of 

redetermination on remand from the 

CIT for the seventh administrative 

review of TRBs covering the POR of 

June 1, 1993, to May 31, 1994. Peer 

Bearing Co. v. United States, Slip op. 

02–53 (CIT 2002); as upheld by the 

Federal Circuit in 78 Fed. Appx. 718 

(Fed. Cir. 2003); see also Tapered Roller 

Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished 

and Unfinished from the PRC: Amended 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 67 FR 79902, 

(Dec. 31, 2002) (‘‘TRBs Amended 

Final’’), and Tapered Roller Bearings 

and Parts Thereof, Finished and 

Unfinished, from the PRC: Amended 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 69 FR 10423 

(March 5, 2004) (‘‘TRBs Amended Final 

2’’). The Department preliminarily 

determines that this information is the 

most appropriate, from the available 

sources, to effectuate the purposes of 

AFA. The Department’s reliance on 

secondary information to determine an 

AFA rate is subject to the requirement 

to corroborate. See section 776(c) of the 

Act and the ‘‘Corroboration of 

Secondary Information’’ section below. 

Corroboration of Secondary 

Information 

Section 776(c) of the Act provides 

that, where the Department selects from 

among the facts otherwise available and 

relies on ‘‘secondary information,’’ the 

Department shall, to the extent 

practicable, corroborate that information 

from independent sources reasonably at 

the Department’s disposal. Secondary 

information is described in the SAA as 

‘‘[i]nformation derived from the petition 

that gave rise to the investigation or 

review, the final determination 

concerning the subject merchandise, or 

any previous review under section 751 

concerning the subject merchandise.’’

See SAA at 870. The SAA states that 

‘‘corroborate’’ means to determine that 

the information used has probative 

value. The Department has determined 

that to have probative value information 

must be reliable and relevant. Tapered 

Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, 

Finished and Unfinished from Japan, 

and Tapered Roller Bearings Four 

Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and 

Components Thereof, from Japan: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Reviews and 

Partial Termination of Administrative 

Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 (November 

6, 1996). The SAA also states that 

independent sources used to corroborate 

such evidence may include, for 

example, published price lists, official 

import statistics and customs data, and 

information obtained from interested 

parties during the particular 

investigation. See Notice of Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: High and Ultra–High 

Voltage Ceramic Station Post Insulators 

from Japan, 68 FR 35627 (June 16, 

2003); and Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Live Swine From Canada, 70 

FR 12181 (March 11, 2005). 

The reliability of the AFA rate was 

determined by the calculation of the 

margin for Premier, pursuant to the final 

results of redetermination on remand 

from the CIT, for the seventh 

administrative review of TRBs (covering 

the period June 1, 1993, to May 31, 

1994). See TRBs Amended Final and 

TRBs Amended Final 2. The 

Department has received no information 

to date that warrants revisiting the issue 

of the reliability of the rate calculation 

itself. See e.g., Certain Preserved 

Mushrooms from the People’s Republic 

of China: Final Results and Partial 

Rescission of the New Shipper Review 

and Final Results and Partial Rescission 

of the Third Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 68 FR 41304, 

41307–41308 (July 11, 2003). No 

information has been presented in the 

current review that calls into question 

the reliability of this information. Thus, 

the Department finds that the 

information contained in the 1993–1994 

review is reliable. 

With respect to the relevance aspect 

of corroboration, the Department will 

consider information reasonably at its 

disposal to determine whether a margin 

continues to have relevance. Where 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 57 / Monday, March 26, 2007 / Notices 14081 

circumstances indicate that the selected 

margin is not appropriate as AFA, the 

Department will disregard the margin 

and determine an appropriate margin. 

See Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico: 

Final Results of Antidumping 

Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812 

(February 22, 1996) (where the 

Department disregarded the highest 

margin in that case as adverse best 

information available (the predecessor 

to facts available) because the margin 

was based on another company’s 

uncharacteristic business expense 

resulting in an unusually high margin). 

Similarly, the Department does not 

apply a margin that has been 

discredited. See D&L Supply Co. v. 

United States, 113 F.3d 1220, 1221 (Fed. 

Cir. 1997) (ruling that the Department 

will not use a margin that has been 

judicially invalidated). To assess the 

relevancy of the rate used, the 

Department has no record evidence to 

call into question Premier’s margins. 

Further, in our recently completed final 

results for the 2003–2004 review of 

TRB’s, we also applied the 60.95 

percent rate to the PRC–wide entity as 

AFA. See Tapered Roller Bearings and 

Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished 

from the PRC: Amended Final Results of 

Administrative Review, 71 FR 9521 

(February 24, 2006). Therefore, we 

determine that the rate from the 1993–

1994 review continues to be relevant for 

use in this administrative review. 

As the 1993–1994 margin is both 

reliable and relevant, we determine that 

it has probative value. Accordingly, we 

determine that the highest rate from any 

segment of this administrative 

proceeding, 60.95 percent, meets the 

corroboration criteria established in 

section 776(c) that secondary 

information have probative value. As a 

result, the Department determines that 

the 1993–1994 margin is corroborated 

for the purposes of this administrative 

review and may reasonably be applied 

to the PRC–wide entity as AFA. 

Because these are preliminary results 

of review, the Department will consider 

all margins on the record at the time of 

the final results of review for the 

purpose of determining the most 

appropriate final margin for the PRC–

wide entity. See Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Solid Fertilizer Grade 

Ammonium Nitrate From the Russian 

Federation, 65 FR 1139 (January 7, 

2000). 

Preliminary Results of Review 

We preliminarily determine that the 

following weighted–average dumping 

margins exist for the period June 1, 

2005, through May 31, 2006: 

TRBS FROM THE PRC 

Producer/Exporter Weighted–Average 

Margin (Percent) 

PRC–Wide Entity* ........ 60.95 

* Including CPZ and Yantai. 

Disclosure 

The Department will disclose 

calculations performed for these 

preliminary results to the parties within 

five days of the date of publication of 

this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.224(b). Any interested party may 

request a hearing within 30 days of 

publication of these preliminary results. 

See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if 

requested, will be held 37 days after the 

date of publication of this notice. See 19 

CFR 351.310(d). Interested parties may 

submit case briefs and/or written 

comments no later than 30 days after the 

date of publication of these preliminary 

results of review. See 19 CFR 

351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal briefs and 

rebuttals to written comments, limited 

to issues raised in such briefs or 

comments, may be filed no later than 35 

days after the date of publication. See 19 

CFR 351.309(d). The Department 

requests that parties submitting written 

comments also provide the Department 

with an additional copy of those 

comments on diskette. The Department 

will issue the final results of this 

administrative review, which will 

include the results of its analysis of 

issues raised in any such comments, 

within 120 days of publication of these 

preliminary results, pursuant to section 

751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. 

Assessment Rates 

Upon issuance of the final results, the 

Department will determine, and CBP 

shall assess, antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries. The Department 

intends to issue appropriate assessment 

instructions directly to CBP 15 days 

after the date of publication of the final 

results of this administrative review. In 

this review, if these preliminary results 

are adopted in our final results of 

review, we will direct CBP to assess the 

resulting rate against the entered 

customs value for the subject 

merchandise on each importer’s/ 

customer’s entries during the POR. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of the final results of this 

administrative review for shipments of 

subject merchandise from the PRC 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the 

publication date, as provided by 

sections 751(a)(1)( C ) and (a)(2)( C ) of 

the Act: (1) for CPZ and Yantai, the cash 

deposit rate will be that established in 

the final results of this review; (2) for 

previously investigated or reviewed PRC 

and non–PRC exporters not listed above 

that have separate rates, the cash 

deposit rate will continue to be the 

exporter–specific rate published for the 

most recent period; (3) for all PRC 

exporters of subject merchandise that 

have not been found to be entitled to a 

separate rate, the cash deposit rate will 

be the PRC–wide rate of 60.95 percent; 

and (4) for all non–PRC exporters of 

subject merchandise which have not 

received their own rate, the cash deposit 

rate will be the rate applicable to the 

PRC exporters that supplied that non–

PRC exporter. These deposit 

requirements, when imposed, shall 

remain in effect until further notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice also serves as a 

preliminary reminder to importers of 

their responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f) 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 the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties. 

The Department is issuing and 

publishing these preliminary results of 

administrative review in accordance 

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

Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b) and 

351.214(h). 

Dated: March 1, 2007. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E7–5500 Filed 3–23–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

Export Trade Certificate of Review 

ACTION: Notice of Issuance of an Export 

Trade Certificate of Review, Application 

No. 06–00003. 

SUMMARY: On March 16, 2007, the U.S. 

Department of Commerce issued an 

Export Trade Certificate of Review to 

the American Sugar Alliance (‘‘ASA’’). 

This notice summarizes the conduct for 

which certification has been granted. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jeffrey Anspacher, Director, Export 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES