1980 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 17, 2007 / Notices 

1The petitioner is E.I. DuPont de Nemours & 

Company (DuPont). 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–3782 or (202) 482–

2371, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On August 1, 2006, the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) 

published a notice of opportunity to 

request an administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on Corrosion–

Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products 

from Canada. See Antidumping or 

Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 

Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 

to Request Administrative Review, 71 

FR 43441 (August 1, 2006). On August 

30, 2006, Stelco Inc. (Stelco) timely 

requested that the Department conduct 

an administrative review of Stelco. On 

August 31, 2006, U.S. Steel (petitioner), 

timely requested that the Department 

conduct an administrative review of 

Dofasco Inc., Sorevco Inc., and Do Sol 

Galva., Partnership (hereinafter referred 

to as Dofasco), and Stelco. Shortly 

thereafter, the Department published a 

notice of the initiation of the 

antidumping duty administrative review 

of Corrosion–Resistant Carbon Steel Flat 

Products from Canada for the period 

August 1, 2005 through July 31, 2006. 

See Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews, 71 FR 57465 (September 29, 

2006). On December 28, 2006, petitioner 

withdrew its request for this 

administrative review with respect to 

respondents Dofasco and Stelco; on 

January 3, 2006, Stelco withdrew its 

request for an administrative review. 

Dofasco did not request an 

administrative review for this period. 

Rescission of Review 

The Department’s regulations at 

section 351.213(d)(1) 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 

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. Petitioner 

submitted its request for withdrawal for 

Dofasco and Stelco in a timely manner. 

In addition, although Stelco withdrew 

its request after the 90-day deadline, the 

Department finds it reasonable to extend 

the withdrawal deadline for Stelco 

because the Department has not yet 

devoted any significant time and 

resources to this review. Furthermore, 

we find that Stelco’s withdrawal does 

not constitute an abuse of our 

procedures. Therefore, the Department 

is rescinding the administrative review 

of the antidumping duty order on 

Corrosion–Resistant Carbon Steel Flat 

Products from Canada for the period 

August 1, 2005 through July 31, 2006. 

The Department intends to issue 

assessment instructions to U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection 41 days after the 

date of publication of this rescission of 

administrative review. See section 

356.8(a) of the Department’s regulations. 

Notification Regarding APOs 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to parties subject to administrative 

protective orders (APO) of their 

responsibility concerning the return or 

destruction of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues 

to govern business proprietary 

information in this segment of the 

proceeding. Timely written notification 

of the return/destruction of APO 

materials or conversion to judicial 

protective order is hereby requested. 

Failure to comply with the regulations 

and terms of an APO is a violation 

which is subject to sanction. 

This notice is issued and published in 

accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 

777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4). 

Dated: January 9, 2007. 

Stephen J. Claeys, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E7–530 Filed 1–16–03; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

(A–475–703) 

Notice of Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review: Granular 

Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin From 

Italy 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 17, 2007. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) is conducting an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on granular 

polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) resin 

from Italy, covering the period August 1, 

2004, through July 31, 2005. The review 

covers one producer/exporter of the 

subject merchandise, Solvay Solexis, 

Inc. and Solvay Solexis S.p.A. 

(collectively, Solvay). Based on our 

analysis of comments received, these 

final results differ from the preliminary 

results. The final results are listed below 

in the Final Results of Review section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Salim Bhabhrawala, at (202) 482–1784; 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On September 28, 2005, the 

Department published the notice of 

initiation of this antidumping duty 

administrative review, covering the 

period August 1, 2004, through July 31, 

2005 (the period of review, or POR). See 

Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Request for Revocation in 

Part, 70 FR 56631. 

On September 11, 2006, the 

Department published the preliminary 

results of its administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order on Granular 

PTFE Resin from Italy. See Notice of 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review: Granular 

Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin From 

Italy, 71 FR 53400 (Preliminary Results). 

We invited parties to comment on the 

Preliminary Results. On October 11, 

2006, we received a case brief from 

Solvay. On October 17, 2006, we 

received a rebuttal brief from the 

petitioner.1 Additionally, on September 

15, 2006, the Department issued a 

section E supplemental questionnaire to 

Solvay. Solvay submitted its response to 

this questionnaire on October 6, 2006. 

On October 31, 2006, and November 6, 

2006, the Department issued letters to 

all interested parties stating that it 

would accept comments and rebuttals, 

respectively, to remark upon issues 

strictly related to Solvay’s October 6, 

2006, response to the section E 

supplemental questionnaire. No parties 

submitted comments on Solvay’s 

section E supplemental response. 

Scope of the Review 

The product covered by this order is 

granular PTFE resin, filled or unfilled. 

This order also covers PTFE wet raw 

polymer exported from Italy to the 

United States. See Granular 

Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin From 

Italy; Final Affirmative Determination of 

Circumvention of Antidumping Duty 

Order, 58 FR 26100 (April 30, 1993). 

This order excludes PTFE dispersions in 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 17, 2007 / Notices 1981 

water and fine powders. During the 

period covered by this review, such 

merchandise was classified under item 

number 3904.61.00 of the Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule of the United States 

(HTSUS). We are providing this HTSUS 

number for convenience and Customs 

and Border Protection (CBP) purposes 

only. The written description of the 

scope remains dispositive. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues addressed in the case and 

rebuttal briefs by parties to this 

administrative review are addressed in 

the ‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum’’

(Decision Memorandum) from Stephen 

J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, to David M. 

Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, dated January 9, 2007, 

which is hereby adopted by this notice. 

Attached to this notice, as an appendix, 

is a list of the issues which parties have 

raised and to which we have responded 

in the Decision Memorandum. Parties 

can find a complete discussion of all 

issues raised in this review and the 

corresponding recommendations in this 

memorandum, which is on file in the 

Central Records Unit (CRU), Room B–

099 of the main Department building. In 

addition, a complete version of the 

Decision Memorandum can be accessed 

directly on the Web at 

ia.ita.doc.gov\frn. The paper copy and 

the electronic version of the Decision 

Memorandum are identical in content. 

Changes Since the Preliminary Results 

Based on our analysis of comments 

received, we made the following 

adjustments to the calculation 

methodology in determining the final 

dumping margins in the proceeding: 

• We revised Solvay’s U.S. warehousing 

expenses. See Comment 2 of the 

Decision Memorandum. 

• We used the section E data reported 

by Solvay to the Department on October 

6, 2006. 

These adjustments are discussed in 

the Decision Memorandum and in the 

Memorandum to Julie Santoboni from 

Salim Bhabhrawala Re: 2004–2005 

Administrative Review of the 

Antidumping Duty Order on Granular 

Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from Italy 

Final Results Sales Calculation 

Memorandum - Solvay Solexis, Inc. and 

Solvay Solexis S.p.A. (Calculation 

Memorandum). 

Final Results of Review 

As a result of our review, we 

determine that the following weighted–

average margin exists for the period of 

August 1, 2004, through July 31, 2005: 

Exporter/Manufacturer Weighted–Average 

Margin Percentage 

Solvay Solexis, Inc. ...... 39.13 

Assessment Rates 

The Department shall determine, and 

the 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 by dividing the 

dumping margin found on the subject 

merchandise examined by the entered 

value of such merchandise. Where the 

importer–specific assessment rate is 

above de minimis we will instruct CBP 

to assess antidumping duties on that 

importer’s entries of subject 

merchandise. The Department intends 

to issue appropriate instructions to CBP 

15 days after the publication of these 

final results of review. 

The Department clarified its 

‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on 

May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 

Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 

FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This 

clarification will apply to entries of 

subject merchandise during the period 

of review produced by the respondent 

for which it did not know its 

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 full discussion of this 

clarification, see Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 

Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 

FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). 

Furthermore, the following deposit 

requirements will be effective for all 

shipments of the subject merchandise 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the 

publication date of these final results of 

administrative review, as provided by 

section 751(a) 

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 

(the Act): (1) for the exporter/ 

manufacturer covered by this review, 

the cash deposit rate will be the rate 

listed above; (2) for merchandise 

exported by producers or exporters not 

covered in this review but covered in a 

previous segment of this proceeding, the 

cash deposit rate will continue to be the 

company–specific rate published in the 

most recent final results in which that 

producer or exporter participated; (3) if 

the exporter is not a firm covered in this 

review or in any previous segment of 

this proceeding, but the producer is, the 

cash deposit rate will be that established 

for the producer of the merchandise in 

these final results of review or in the 

most recent final results in which that 

producer participated; and (4) if neither 

the exporter nor the producer is a firm 

covered in this review or in any 

previous segment of this proceeding, the 

cash deposit rate will be 46.46 percent, 

the ‘‘All Others’’ rate established in the 

less–than-fair–value investigation. See 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Granular 

Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin From 

Italy, 53 FR 26096 (July 11, 1988). These 

deposit requirements shall remain in 

effect until publication of the final 

results of the next administrative 

review. 

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. 

This notice also is the only reminder 

to parties subject to administrative 

protective order (APO) of their 

responsibility concerning the return or 

destruction of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely 

written notification of the return/ 

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 notice in accordance with 

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

Act. 

Dated: January 9, 2007. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

APPENDIX 

Comment 1: Calculation of Solvay’s 

General and Administrative (G&A) 

Expense Ratio 

Comment 2: Clerical Error Allegation 

[FR Doc. E7–551 Filed 1–16–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES