15104 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 61 / Friday, March 30, 2007 / Notices 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–533–809] 

Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges 

from India: Notice of Partial Rescission 

of New Shipper Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) is rescinding the new 

shipper review of Pradeep Metals 

Limited. We initiated this review on 

October 6, 2006. See Stainless Steel 

Flanges from India: Notice of Initiation 

of Antidumping Duty New Shipper 

Reviews, 71 FR 59081 (October 6, 2006). 

Our basis for rescinding this new 

shipper review is described below. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 30, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael J. Heaney or Robert James, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 7, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482 4475 or (202) 482–

0649, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On August 31, 2006, we received 

requests from Micro Forge (India) Ltd. 

(Micro) and Pradeep Metals Limited 

(Pradeep), two Indian manufacturers of 

forged stainless steel flanges, for new 

shipper reviews. On October 6, 2006, 

based on the certifications and 

documentation these companies 

submitted, we initiated a new shipper 

review for both Micro and Pradeep. See 

Stainless Steel Flanges from India: 

Notice of Initiation of Antidumping 

Duty New Shipper Reviews, 71 FR 59081 

(October 6, 2006). The period of review 

for the new shipper review is February 

1, 2006, through July 31, 2006. 

We issued our antidumping 

questionnaire for the new shipper 

review to Pradeep on October 13, 2006. 

We received a section A response from 

Pradeep on October 30, 2006. We 

received Pradeep’s response to sections 

B, C and D of our questionnaire on 

November 14, 2006. 

In its August 31, 2006 request for a 

new shipper review, Pradeep indicated 

that its first and only entry of flanges 

into the United States occurred on 

March 21, 2006. Subsequent to initiating 

the new shipper reviews the Department 

conducted a data query of entry 

information from Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP). The data obtained 

from CBP were placed on the record of 

this proceeding. See November 14, 2006 

Memorandum from Fred Baker to the 

file: ‘‘U.S. entry Documents–Stainless 

Steel Flanges from India’’ (Pradeep 

Entry Memorandum). We determined, 

based on our review of the data obtained 

from CBP, that Pradeep had exported 

flanges to the United States three to five 

years prior to the period covered by the 

new shipper review, and therefore 

pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.214(b)(2)(iv)(A),(B) and (C) did not 

qualify for a new shipper review for the 

period February 1, 2006, through July 

31, 2006. See November 20, 2006 

Memorandum from Fred Baker to the 

File: Intent to Rescind New Shipper 

Review of Pradeep Metals, Ltd 

(Department’s Rescission 

Memorandum). The Department’s 

Rescission Memorandum also stated our 

intent to rescind the new shipper review 

with respect to Pradeep based on 

Pradeep having exported subject 

merchandise to the United States prior 

to the period covered by the new 

shipper review. See ibid. 

We invited parties to submit 

comments on our intent to rescind. On 

December 5, 2006 we received 

comments from Pradeep. In its 

December 5, 2006, letter, Pradeep 

maintains that in some instances 

unaffiliated companies supplied raw 

materials to Pradeep which were used to 

make flanges. However, Pradeep asserts 

that these unaffiliated companies 

continued to maintain title to the 

merchandise. Pradeep further maintains 

that while its name appears on Customs 

entry documentation, the CBP 

documentation fails to establish that 

Pradeep ‘‘sold the subject flanges to the 

United States as a producer or 

exporter.’’ See December 5, 2006 letter 

from Pradeep to the U.S. Department of 

Commerce. 

Partial Rescission of New Shipper 

Review 

We have determined that Pradeep 

fails to qualify for a new shipper review. 

As explained in the Department’s 

Rescission Memorandum, the 

Department’s regulations require that 

the requester of a new shipper review 

report the date of its first shipment to 

the United States. Pradeep has indicated 

in its August 31, 2006, request for a new 

shipper review that its first shipment of 

flanges entered the United States on 

March 21, 2006. However, information 

obtained from CBP, including Pradeep’s 

own commercial invoices and shipping 

documents, indicate Pradeep was the 

exporter on a number of transactions 

that entered the United States three to 

five years before 2006. (The CBP 

information is not susceptible to public 

summary. However, the documents 

obtained from CBP are included in their 

entirety in the appendices to the 

Department’s November 14, 2006, 

Pradeep Entry Memorandum.) 

In its December 5, 2006, submission, 

Pradeep suggests it has ‘‘already 

reported or stated in its submissions to 

the Department all the cases where 

Pradeep Metals was the producer and 

exporter to the United States. Under 

those stated facts Pradeep Metals 

qualifies for a new shipper review.’’

Pradeep’s December 5, 2006 letter 

(emphasis added). While the record 

indicates the March 21, 2006, entry was 

the first U.S. entry in which Pradeep 

was both the producer and the exporter, 

it is plainly evident from the entry 

documents in our Pradeep Entry 

Memorandum that on numerous 

occasions prior to that shipment 

Pradeep acted as the exporter (i.e., the 

shipper) of subject stainless steel 

flanges. The evidence indicates these 

flanges were in some cases produced by 

other Indian manufacturers, but were 

clearly shipped and exported to the 

United States by Pradeep, as evidenced 

by the commercial invoices and 

shipping documents issued by Pradeep 

itself. See, e.g., the sales documentation 

included at Appendices I, II, IV, V, VII 

and VIII of the Pradeep Entry 

Memorandum. In addition to the 

commercial invoices and packing lists, 

several of these entry packages include 

a CBP ‘‘Notice of Action’’ which 

identifies Pradeep as the shipper. 

Pradeep continues in its comments by 

suggesting ‘‘another unaffiliated Indian 

flange company’’ may have contracted 

with Pradeep to provide tolling 

operations in producing flanges which 

‘‘were then owned by that other 

unaffiliated Indian producer, and 

returned to that other Indian company 

for its own disposition.’’ But the 

documentation found in the Pradeep 

Entry Memorandum contradicts 

Pradeep’s suggestion that someone else 

may have been shipping flanges that 

Pradeep manufactured in a tolling 

operation. The hypothetical scenario 

posited by Pradeep’s December 5, 2006, 

letter is not consistent with the facts 

already on the record, which indicate 

Pradeep was the shipper and exporter of 

subject flanges (whether or not 

produced by Pradeep) prior to the 

instant period of new shipper review. 

While Pradeep may not have 

previously acted as both manufacturer 

and exporter of any given prior 

shipment, the evidence clearly 

establishes that on numerous occasions 

prior to this new shipper review, 

Pradeep shipped subject stainless steel 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 61 / Friday, March 30, 2007 / Notices 15105 

flanges to the United States. Therefore, 

we find that Pradeep is not a new 

shipper pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B) 

of the Act, and that Pradeep’s request 

for new shipper review does not meet 

the requirements of 19 CFR 

351.214(b)(2)(iv)(A),(B) and (C). 

Accordingly, we are rescinding the new 

shipper review of Pradeep. 

Assessment 

The Department will instruct CBP to 

assess antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries. For Pradeep, 

antidumping duties shall be assessed at 

rates equal to the cash deposit of 

estimated antidumping duties required 

at the time of entry, or withdrawal from 

warehouse, for consumption, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 

351.212(c)(1)(I). The Department will 

issue liquidation instructions to CBP 15 

days after the publication of this notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice serves as a final 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 the review period. Failure to 

comply with this requirement could 

result in the Secretary’s presumption 

that reimbursement of antidumping 

duties occurred and subsequent 

assessment of double antidumping 

duties. 

This notice also serves as the only 

reminder to any parties that are subject 

to administrative protective order (APO) 

of their responsibility concerning the 

disposition of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

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

written notification of the return/ 

destruction of APO material 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 

sanctions. 

This notice is published in 

accordance with sections 751(a)(1) of 

the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(f)(3). 

Dated: March 23, 2007. 

Stephen J. Claeys, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E7–5934 Filed 3–29–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–831] 

Fresh Garlic from the People’s 

Republic of China: Extension of Time 

Limits for the Final Results of the 11th

Administrative Review and New 

Shipper Reviews 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 30, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul 

Walker, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, 

Import Administration, International 

Trade Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, 14th Street and 

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington 

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–0413. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On December 11, 2006, the 

Department of Commerce (‘‘the 

Department’’) published the preliminary 

results of the administrative review and 

new shipper review of fresh garlic from 

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

covering the period November 1, 2004, 

through October 31, 2005. See Fresh 

Garlic from the People’s Republic of 

China: Partial Rescission and 

Preliminary Results of the Eleventh 

Administrative Review and New 

Shipper Reviews, 71 FR 71510 

(December 11, 2006). 

Extension of Time Limit of Final 

Results 

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

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the 

Act’’), and section 351.213(h)(1) of the 

Department’s regulations, the 

Department shall issue the preliminary 

results of an administrative review 

within 245 days after the last day of the 

anniversary month of the date of 

publication of the antidumping duty 

order. The Act further provides that the 

Department shall issue the final results 

of a review within 120 days after the 

date on which the notice of the 

preliminary results was published in the 

Federal Register. However, if the 

Department determines that it is not 

practicable to complete the review 

within this time period, section 

751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and section 

351.213(h)(2) of the Department’s 

regulations allow the Department to 

extend the 245-day period to 365 days 

and the 120-day period to 180 days. 

Section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act also 

provides that we may extend the 

deadlines in a new shipper review if we 

determine that the case is 

extraordinarily complicated. 

The Department determines that it 

would not be practicable to complete 

the final results of the aligned 

administrative review and new shipper 

reviews within the statutory time 

period. The Department requires 

additional time to analyze voluminous 

comments regarding the nine companies 

involved in the instant reviews. This 

includes several issues the Department 

considers to be extraordinarily 

complicated, including, but not limited 

to, the intermediate valuation of the 

garlic bulb. Therefore, in accordance 

with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the 

Department is extending the time period 

for issuing the final results of this 

review by 60 days until June 9, 2007. 

However, since June 9th falls on a 

Saturday, the actual due date is June 11, 

2007. 

This notice is published pursuant to 

sections 751(c)(3)(A) and 

751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act, and section 

351.214(h)(i)(1) of the Department’s 

Regulations. 

Dated: March 19, 2007. 

Stephen J. Claeys, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E7–5861 Filed 3–29–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–421–807] 

Certain Hot–Rolled Carbon Steel Flat 

Products from the Netherlands: Notice 

of Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In response to requests from 

Nucor Corporation (Nucor), Mittal Steel 

USA Inc. (Mittal) and United States 

Steel Corporation (USSC) (collectively, 

petitioners), the U.S. Department of 

Commerce (the Department) initiated an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on certain hot–

rolled carbon steel flat products from 

the Netherlands for Corus Staal BV 

(Corus) for the period November 1, 

2005, through October 31, 2006. No 

other interested party requested a 

review of Corus for this period of 

review. For the reasons discussed 

below, the Department is rescinding this 

administrative review. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 30, 2007. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES