Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 189 / Thursday, September 28, 2000 / Notices 58263

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 65 FR 50180 (August 17, 2000).

Comments

Although we gave interested parties

an opportunity to comment on the

preliminary results, none were

submitted.

Final Results of ChangedCircumstances Review

We determine that GCCC is the

successor-in-interest to CDC and,

accordingly, GCCC will receive the same

antidumping duty treatment as the

former CDC. Based on the most recently

completed review, the cash-deposit rate

for entries of subject merchandise from

GCCC will be 45.98 percent (see Gray

Portland Cement and Clinker From

Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review, 65 FR

13943 (March 15, 2000)). We will

instruct the U.S. Customs Service

accordingly.

We are issuing and publishing this

determination and notice in accordance

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

the Act and section 351.216 of the

Department’s regulations.

Dated: September 20, 2000.

Troy H. Cribb,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–24955 Filed 9–27–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–583–827]

Static Random Access Memory

Semiconductors From Taiwan: Notice

of Court Decision and Suspension of

Liquidation

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: On August 29, 2000, in

Taiwan Semiconductor Industry

Association, et al. v. United States,

Court No. 98–05–01460, Slip Op. 00–

113 (CIT), a lawsuit challenging the

final affirmative determination of the

U.S. International Trade Commission

that less-than-fair-value imports of static

random access memory semiconductors

from Taiwan were causing material

injury to the domestic industry, the U.S.

Court of International Trade affirmed

the U.S. International Trade

Commission’s second remand

determination, which found no material

injury as well as no threat of material

injury, and entered a final judgment

order accordingly. Consistent with the

decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for

the Federal Circuit in Timken Co. v.

United States, 893 F. 2d 337 (Fed. Cir.

1990), the U.S. Department of

Commerce will continue to order the

suspension of liquidation of the subject

merchandise until there is a

‘‘conclusive’’ decision in this case. If the

case is not appealed, or if it is affirmed

on appeal, the U.S. Department of

Commerce will revoke the antidumping

duty order covering the subject

merchandise.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 27, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irina

Itkin or Shawn Thompson, AD/CVD

Enforcement Group I, Office II, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230;

telephone: (202) 482–0656 or (202) 482–

1776, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The U.S. Department of Commerce

(the ‘‘Department’’) published notice of

its amended final affirmative less-thanfair-value determination covering the

subject merchandise, i.e., imports of

static random access memory

semiconductors from Taiwan, on April

16, 1998, Notice of Amended Final

Determination and Antidumping Duty

Order of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:

Static Random Access Memory

Semiconductors From Taiwan, 63 FR

18883 (April 16, 1998), and the U.S.

International Trade Commission (the

‘‘Commission’’) subsequently made its

final affirmative determination that a

U.S. industry was being materially

injured by reason of imports of the

subject merchandise. See Static Random

Access Memory Semiconductors From

the Republic of Korea and Taiwan, 63

FR 18443 (April 15, 1998). The

Department published the amended

antidumping order covering the subject

merchandise on April 22, 1998. See

Amended Antidumping Duty Order of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Static

Random Access Memory

Semiconductors From Taiwan, 63 FR

19898.

Following publication of the

antidumping duty order, the Taiwan

Semiconductor Industry Association, an

interested party in this case, filed a

lawsuit with the U.S. Court of

International Trade (‘‘CIT’’) challenging

the Commission’s final affirmative

determination of material injury. In two

subsequent decisions, the CIT remanded

the case to the Commission. See Taiwan

Semiconductor Industry Association, et

al. v. United States, 59 F. Supp. 2d

1324, 1336 (CIT) (1999); see also Taiwan

Semiconductor Industry Association, et

al. v. United States, Slip Op. 00–37

(CIT) (April 11, 2000). On the second

remand, the Commission determined

that an industry in the United States is

not being materially injured, nor is it

threatened with material injury, by

reason of imports of the subject

merchandise. The CIT affirmed the

Commission’s second remand

determination on August 29, 2000. See

Taiwan Semiconductor Industry

Association, et al. v. United States, Slip

Op. 00–113 (CIT).

Suspension of Liquidation

In its decision in Timken Co. v.

United States 893 F. 2d 337 (Fed. Cir.

1990) (‘‘Timken’’), the U.S. Court of

Appeals for the Federal Circuit

(‘‘Federal Circuit’’) held that the

Department must publish notice of a

decision of the CIT or the Federal

Circuit which is not ‘‘in harmony’’ with

the Department’s or the Commission’s

determination. Publication of this notice

fulfills that obligation. The Federal

Circuit also held that the Department

must suspend liquidation of the subject

merchandise until there is a

‘‘conclusive’’ decision in the case.

Therefore, pursuant to Timken, the

Department must continue to suspend

liquidation pending the expiration of

the period to appeal the CIT’s August

29, 2000, decision or, if that decision is

appealed, pending a final decision by

the Federal Circuit. Furthermore,

because the respondents obtained an

injunction in this litigation, the

Department will revoke the

antidumping duty order covering the

subject merchandise effective October 1,

1997, in the event that the CIT’s ruling

is not appealed or the Federal Circuit

issues a final decision affirming the

CIT’s ruling.

Dated: September 21, 2000.

Troy H. Cribb,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–24954 Filed 9–27–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P