58262 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 189 / Thursday, September 28, 2000 / Notices

only party to request a review of

Camesa’s sales for this period of the

proceeding. Therefore, in accordance

with section 351.213(d)(1), we are

rescinding this review of sales by

Camesa.

Section 351.213(d)(3) allows the

Department to rescind a review if the

Department concludes that during the

POR there were no entries, exports, or

sales of the subject merchandise, as the

case may be. Based on Cablesa’s

certification, submitted on May 10,

2000, which we independently

confirmed with the U.S. Customs

Service, we conclude that Cablesa had

no entries, exports, or sales during the

POR, and, thus, that there is no basis for

a review. Therefore, in accordance with

section 351.213(d)(3) we are rescinding

this review of sales by Cablesa.

We will instruct customs to liquidate

the entries made during the POR at the

rate entered. We are publishing this

notice in accordance with section

351.213(d)(4) of our regulations.

Dated: September 20, 2000.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Deputy Assistant Secretary, AD/CVD

Enforcement Group III.

[FR Doc. 00–24953 Filed 9–27–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–201–802]

Gray Portland Cement and Clinker

From Mexico: Final Results of

Changed-Circumstances Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Final Results of ChangedCircumstances Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review.

SUMMARY: On August 17, 2000, the

Department of Commerce published the

notice of preliminary results of its

changed-circumstances review

concerning its examination of whether

GCC Cemento, S.A. de C.V., is the

successor-in-interest to Cementos de

Chihuahua, S.A. de C.V., for purposes of

determining antidumping liability. We

have now completed that review and

determine that GCC Cemento, S.A. de

C.V., is the successor-in-interest to

Cementos de Chihuahua, S.A. de C.V.,

for antidumping duty law purposes and,

as such, receives the antidumping duty

cash deposit rate previously assigned to

Cementos de Chihuahua, S.A. de C.V.,

of 48.95 percent ad valorem.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 28, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Minoo Hatten or Robin Gray, Office of

AD/CVD Enforcement 3, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

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

telephone (202) 482–1690 or (202) 482–

4023, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On November 24, 1999, Cementos de

Chihuahua, S.A. de C.V. (CDC),

requested that the Department of

Commerce (the Department) conduct an

expedited changed-circumstances

review pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the

Act). In that letter, CDC stated that,

effective December 1, 1999, GCC

Cemento, S.A. de C.V. (GCCC), a newly

created company, would be the

successor in interest to CDC due to a

corporate reorganization. CDC also

stated that it would become a holding

company and the parent of GCCC and

its subsidiary companies. On December

13, 1999, the petitioner, the Southern

Tier Cement Committee, opposed CDC’s

request that the Department initiate an

expedited changed-circumstances

review. Since the Department had very

little information on the record

concerning this corporate

reorganization, the Department

concluded that it would be

inappropriate to conduct an expedited

changed-circumstances review and

issue a preliminary determination

concurrent with the initiation of a

changed-circumstance review. Thus, the

Department published only a notice of

initiation. See Gray Portland Cement

and Clinker From Mexico: Notice of

Initiation of Antidumping Duty

Changed-Circumstances Review, 65 FR

1592 (January 11, 2000). On January 20,

2000, the Department sent a

questionnaire to GCCC requesting

additional information. On February 9,

2000, the Department received GCCC’s

response to the questionnaire. On April

6, 2000, the Department sent a

supplemental questionnaire to GCCC.

GCCC responded on April 27, 2000. On

June 23, 2000, the Department

conducted a verification of information

pertaining to this changedcircumstances review at GCCC’s offices

in Chihuahua, Mexico.

On August 17, 2000, the Department

published in the Federal Register (65

FR 50180) the notice of preliminary

results of changed-circumstances

antidumping duty administrative review

of the antidumping duty order on gray

portland cement and clinker from

Mexico. We now have completed this

changed-circumstances review in

accordance with section 751(b) of the

Act.

The Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute are references to

the provisions effective January 1, 1995,

the effective date of the amendments

made to the Act by the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act (URAA). In addition,

unless otherwise indicated, all citations

to the Department’s regulations are to 19

CFR Part 351 (1999).

Scope of the Review

The products covered by this review

include gray portland cement and

clinker. Gray portland cement is a

hydraulic cement and the primary

component of concrete. Clinker, an

intermediate material product produced

when manufacturing cement, has no use

other than of being ground into finished

cement. Gray portland cement is

currently classifiable under the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) item

number 2523.29 and cement clinker is

currently classifiable under item

number 2523.10. Gray portland cement

has also been entered under item

number 2523.90 as ‘‘other hydraulic

cements.’’

The HTS subheadings are provided

for convenience and customs purposes

only. Our written description remains

dispositive as to the scope of the

product coverage.

Successorship

According to CDC’s November 24,

1999, letter, effective December 1, 1999,

GCCC, a newly created company, would

become the successor in interest to CDC

due to a corporate reorganization. CDC

requested that the Department make a

determination that GCCC should receive

the same antidumping duty treatment as

the former CDC with respect to gray

portland cement and clinker from

Mexico.

The Department examined the

following factors: (1) Management; (2)

production facilities; (3) supplier

relationships; (4) customer base. As a

result of its examination, the

Department has determined that the

resulting operation of GCCC is the same

as that of its predecessor, CDC, and thus

the Department has determined that

GCCC is the successor-in-interest to

CDC for purposes of determining

antidumping duty liability. For a

complete discussion of the basis for this

decision, see Gray Portland Cement and

Clinker from Mexico: Preliminary

Results of Changed Circumstances

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