24562 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 85 / Thursday, May 3, 2007 / Notices 

Transportation Co., Ltd., Apiarist Co., 

Hangzhou Golden Harvest Health 

Industry Co., Ltd., Shanghai Taiside 

Trading Co., Ltd., Wuhan Bee Healthy 

Co., Ltd., Wuhan Shino–Food Trade Co., 

Ltd., China Ocean Shipping Agency 

Beijing, Rich Shipping Company, M&H 

Shipping (Shanghai) Corporation, 

United Logistics Group Inc., Beijing 

World Trade Co., Ltd., Hangzhou 

Golden Dragon Group Corporation Ltd., 

Kunshan Xinrui Co., Ltd., Qingdao 

Aolan Trade Co., Ltd., Sichuan– 

Dujiangyan Dubao Bee Industrial Co., 

Ltd., Eurasia Bee’s Products Co., Ltd., 

Anhui Honghui Foodstuff (Group) Co., 

Ltd., Jiangsu Kanghong Natural 

Healthfoods Co., Ltd., and Tianjin Eulia 

Honey Co., Ltd. Petitioners were the 

only party to request a review of the 

entries of subject merchandise exported 

by these companies. 

Partial Rescission 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the 

Secretary will rescind an administrative 

review, in whole or in part, if a party 

who requested the review withdraws 

the request within ninety days of the 

date of publication of notice of initiation 

of the requested review. 

Because the Petitioners’ withdrawal of 

requests for review was timely and no 

other party requested a review of the 

aforementioned companies, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), 

we are rescinding this review with 

respect to Cheng Du Wai Yuan Bee 

Products Co., Ltd., Chiangmai 

Healthyproduct Co., Ltd., Hangzhou 

Xinsheng (or Xinyun) Shipping Agency 

Co., Ltd., Shanghai Xinyun International 

Transportation Co., Ltd., Apiarist Co., 

Hangzhou Golden Harvest Health 

Industry Co., Ltd., Shanghai Taiside 

Trading Co., Ltd., Wuhan Bee Healthy 

Co., Ltd., Wuhan Shino–Food Trade Co., 

Ltd., China Ocean Shipping Agency 

Beijing, Rich Shipping Company, M&H 

Shipping (Shanghai) Corporation, 

United Logistics Group Inc., Beijing 

World Trade Co., Ltd., Hangzhou 

Golden Dragon Group Corporation Ltd., 

Kunshan Xinrui Co., Ltd., Qingdao 

Aolan Trade Co., Ltd., Sichuan– 

Dujiangyan Dubao Bee Industrial Co., 

Ltd., Eurasia Bee’s Products Co., Ltd., 

Anhui Honghui Foodstuff (Group) Co., 

Ltd., Jiangsu Kanghong Natural 

Healthfoods Co., Ltd., and Tianjin Eulia 

Honey Co., Ltd. 

Assessment Rates 

The Department will instruct U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) 

to assess antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries. For those 

companies for which this review has 

been rescinded and which have a 

separate rate, 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)(2). The Department will 

issue appropriate assessment 

instructions directly to CBP within 15 

days of publication of this notice. For 

those companies for which this review 

has been rescinded but do not have a 

separate rate at this time (and thus 

remain part of the PRC–wide entity), the 

Department will issue assessment 

instructions upon the completion of this 

administrative review. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice serves as a final reminder 

to importers for whom this review is 

being rescinded, as of the publication 

date of this notice, 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 the antidumping 

duties occurred and the subsequent 

assessment of double antidumping 

duties. 

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 section 777(i)(1) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4). 

Dated: April 26, 2007. 

Stephen J. Claeys, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E7–8479 Filed 5–2–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–201–817] 

Oil Country Tubular Goods from 

Mexico: Extension of Time Limits for 

the Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 3, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Drury, or Angelica Mendoza, 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) 482–0195, or (202) 

482–3019, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On September 29, 2006, the 

Department of Commerce (‘‘the 

Department’’) published a notice of 

initiation of an antidumping duty 

administrative review for, oil country 

tubular goods (OCTG) from Mexico for 

the August 1, 2005, through July 31 

2006, period of review (POR) covering 

producers/exporters Hylsa, S.A. de C.V. 

(Hylsa) and Tubos de Acero de Mexico, 

S.A. (TAMSA). See Initiation of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Reviews, 71 FR 57465 

(September 29, 2006). On November 1, 

2006, TAMSA submitted a certification 

that it had not shipped OCTG to the 

United States during the POR and 

requested that the Department rescind 

the review with respect to TAMSA. See 

Letter from TAMSA to the Department, 

November 1, 2006. 

On November 15, 2006, Hylsa 

submitted a letter to the Department 

stating that shares of Hylsa’s parent, 

Hylsamex, had been acquired by a 

company affiliated with TAMSA. 

Accordingly, Hylsa and TAMSA had 

common owners and were affiliated 

during the POR. As a result, Hylsa 

requested clarification from the 

Department as to whether the 

Department would require Hylsa to 

submit TAMSA’s sales and/or cost 

information for the POR. See Letter from 

Hylsa to the Department, November 15, 

2006. The Department issued a 

supplemental questionnaire on February 

16, 2007, requesting more information 

on this issue. Hylsa submitted a 

response on March 16, 2007. 

mmaher on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with $$_JOB

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 85 / Thursday, May 3, 2007 / Notices 24563 

The preliminary results for this 

administrative review are currently due 

no later than May 3, 2007. 

Extension of Time Limits for 

Preliminary Results 

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

of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires 

the Department to complete the 

preliminary results of an administrative 

review within 245 days after the last day 

of the anniversary month of an order for 

which a review is requested. However, 

if it is not practicable to complete the 

review within these time periods, 

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

the Department to extend the 245 day 

time period for the preliminary results 

to 365 days. 

The Department has determined it is 

not practicable to complete this review 

within the statutory time limit because 

additional time is required to determine 

whether it will be necessary to request 

sales and/or cost information from 

TAMSA as part of the Department’s 

review of sales by Hylsa during the 

POR. Accordingly, the Department is 

extending the time limits for completion 

of the preliminary results of this 

administrative review until no later than 

August 31, 2007, which is 365 days 

from the last day of the anniversary 

month of this order. We intend to issue 

the final results in this review no later 

than 120 days after publication of the 

preliminary results notice. 

This notice is issued and published in 

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

and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: April 27, 2007. 

Stephen Claeys, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E7–8480 Filed 5–2–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

A–201–817 

Oil Country Tubular Goods from 

Mexico; Final Results of the Sunset 

Review of Antidumping Duty Order 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On June 1, 2006, the 

Department of Commerce (‘‘the 

Department’’) initiated a sunset review 

of the antidumping duty order on oil 

country tubular goods (‘‘OCTG’’) from 

Mexico. On the basis of the notice of 

intent to participate, adequate 

substantive responses, and rebuttal 

comments filed on behalf of the 

petitioners and respondent interested 

parties, the Department conducted a full 

sunset review of the antidumping duty 

order pursuant to section 751(c) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the 

Act’’), and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(2)(i). As a 

result of this sunset review, the 

Department finds that revocation of the 

antidumping duty order would likely 

lead to the continuation or recurrence of 

dumping at the levels listed below in 

the section entitled ‘‘Final Results of 

Review.’’ 

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 3, 2007 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Drury or Angelica Mendoza, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 7, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20230; 

telephone: 202–482–0195 or 202–482– 

3019, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On June 1, 2006, the Department 

published its notice of initiation of the 

sunset review of the antidumping duty 

order on OCTG from Mexico, in 

accordance with section 751(c) of the 

Act. See Initiation of Five-year 

(‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews, 71 FR 31153 (June 

1, 2006) (‘‘Notice of Initiation’’). 

The Department received notices of 

intent to participate on behalf of United 

States Steel Corporation and IPSCO 

Tubulars Inc., Lone Star Steel Company, 

Koppel Steel (NS Group), Maverick 

Tube Corporation, Newport Steel (NS 

Group) and V&M Star LP (collectively 

‘‘petitioners’’), within the 15-day 

deadline specified in 19 CFR 

351.218(d)(1)(i). Petitioners claimed 

interested party status under section 

771(9)(C) of the Act, as manufacturers of 

a domestic–like product in the United 

States. 

The Department received complete 

substantive responses to the notice of 

initiation from the interested parties 

Hylsa S.A. de CV (‘‘Hylsa’’) and Tubos 

de Aceros de Mexico, S.A. (‘‘TAMSA’’) 

(collectively ‘‘respondent interested 

parties’’) within the 30-day deadline 

specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). 

The Department received rebuttal 

responses from petitioners to the 

substantive responses from the 

respondent interested parties on July 5, 

2006, and July 14, 2006, respectively. 

Section 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(A) 

provides that the Secretary normally 

will conclude that respondent interested 

parties have provided adequate 

response to a notice of initiation where 

the Department receives complete 

substantive responses from respondent 

interested parties accounting on average 

for more than 50 percent, by volume, or 

value, if appropriate, of the total exports 

of the subject merchandise to the United 

States over the five calendar years 

preceding the year of publication of the 

notice of initiation. On July 21, 2006, 

the Department found that respondent 

interested parties accounted for more 

than 50 percent of exports by volume of 

the subject merchandise from Mexico to 

the United States. See Memorandum to 

Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration, 

from John K. Drury entitled, ‘‘Adequacy 

Determination: Sunset Review of the 

Antidumping Duty Order on Oil 

Country Tubular Goods from Mexico,’’ 

(July 21, 2006). In accordance with 19 

CFR 351.218(e)(2)(i), the Department 

determined to conduct a full sunset 

review of this antidumping duty order. 

On September 25, 2006, in accordance 

with section 751(c)(5)(B) of the Act, the 

Department extended the deadlines for 

the preliminary and final results of this 

sunset review by 90 days. See Oil 

Country Tubular Goods from Mexico; 

Extension of Time Limits for 

Preliminary and Final Results of Full 

Five-year (‘‘Sunset’’) Review of 

Antidumping Duty Order, 71 FR 55774. 

The Department published the 

preliminary results of this sunset review 

on December 26, 2006. See Oil Country 

Tubular Goods from Mexico; 

Preliminary Results of the Sunset 

Review of Antidumping Duty Order, 71 

FR 77372 (December 26, 2006). In the 

Preliminary Results, the Department 

found that revocation of the order 

would likely result in continuation or 

recurrence of dumping with net margins 

of 21.70 percent for TAMSA and ‘‘all 

others,’’ and 0.62 percent for Hylsa. 

On February 14, 2007, within the 

deadline specified in 19 CFR §

351.309(c)(1)(i), the Department 

received case briefs on behalf of both 

TAMSA and Hylsa. On February 20, 

2007, the Department rejected the case 

brief on behalf of Hylsa under 19 CFR 

§ 351.302(d), as the Department 

determined that the brief contained new 

factual information submitted 

subsequent to the deadline for new 

factual information as proscribed in 19 

CFR § 351.301(b)(3). The Department 

requested that Hylsa re–file the case 

brief no later than February 22, 2007, 

and extended the deadline for rebuttal 

briefs to February 28, 2007. On February 

20, 2007, the Department received a 

rebuttal brief on behalf of petitioner 

IPSCO. On February 22, 2007, the 

Department received the corrected case 

brief on behalf of Hylsa. On February 

28, the Department received rebuttal 

briefs on behalf of petitioner U.S. Steel. 

mmaher on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with $$_JOB