10238 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 10, 2009 / Notices 

1See Mittal Steel Point Lisas Ltd. v. United States, 

Unites States Court of Appeals 2008-1040, -1054 

(Fed. Cir. 2008) (‘‘Mittal v. United States’’). 

2See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review: Carbon and Certain Alloy 

Steel Wire Rod from Trinidad and Tobago, 70 FR 

69512 (November 16, 2005) (‘‘Final Results’’). 

3See Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod 

from Trinidad & Tobago: Amended Notice of Court 

Decision Not In Harmony with Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 

51408 (September 7, 2007). 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 26th 

day of February 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for 

Import Administration, Alternate Chairman, 

Foreign–Trade Zones Board. 

Attest: 

Andrew McGilvray, 

Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E9–5120 Filed 3–9–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–274–804] 

Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire 

Rod From Trinidad and Tobago: 

Amended Final Results Pursuant to a 

Court Decision 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On December 3, 2008, the 

United States Court of Appeals for the 

Federal Circuit (‘‘CAFC’’) affirmed the 

Department of Commerce’s 

(‘‘Department’’) final results of 

redetermination pursuant to the 

Department’s voluntary remand, 

wherein the Department calculated 

credit expenses from the date of invoice, 

rather than the date of shipment for 

Mittal Steel Point Lisas Ltd. (‘‘Mittal’’).1

The Court also affirmed the 

Department’s classification of Mittal’s 

composite wire rod as non–prime 

merchandise. The period of review 

(‘‘POR’’) is October 1, 2003, through 

September 30, 2004. The Department is 

amending the final results of the second 

administrative review of carbon and 

certain alloy steel wire rod (‘‘wire rod’’) 

from Trinidad and Tobago to reflect the 

U.S. Court of International Trade’s 

(‘‘CIT’’) decision. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 10, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Dennis McClure, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 3, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–5973. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

November 16, 2005, the Department 

published its final results in the second 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on wire rod 

from Trinidad and Tobago covering the 

POR.2

On December 16, 2005, and January 

17, 2006, respectively, Mittal filed a 

summons and complaint with the U.S. 

Court of International Trade (‘‘CIT’’) 

challenging the Department’s credit 

expense calculation and treatment of 

non–prime merchandise. On March 7, 

2007, the Department requested a 

voluntary remand so that we could 

reevaluate the calculation of credit 

expenses and inventory carrying costs 

used to calculate constructed export 

price. On April 24, 2007, the CIT 

granted the Department’s voluntary 

remand motion to reevaluate its 

calculation of credit expenses and 

inventory carrying costs and affirmed 

the Department’s treatment of non– 

prime merchandise. 

On June 21, 2007, the Department 

filed with the CIT its final results of 

redetermination, calculating credit 

expenses from the invoice date, rather 

than the shipment date. The Department 

also changed the inventory carrying 

costs used in its constructed export 

price calculation to reflect the date of 

invoice as the date of sale. On August 

8, 2007, the CIT sustained the final 

results of redetermination on remand. 

On September 7, 2007, the Department 

notified the public that the final 

judgment in this case is not in harmony 

with the Final Results. 

On October 5, 2007, and October 9, 

2007, respectfully, both Mittal and 

Gerdau Ameristeel Corp. and Keystone 

Consolidated Industries, Inc., the 

petitioners, appealed the CIT’s decision. 

On December 3, 2008, the CAFC 

affirmed the CIT’s decision on both 

issues. The deadline to appeal the 

redetermination pursuant to remand is 

March 3, 2009, 90 days after the date the 

CAFC affirmed the CIT’s decision (i.e., 

December 3, 2008). However, on January 

12, 2009, Mittal filed a motion to lift the 

injunction on liquidating entries related 

to this case, in which it informed the 

CIT that neither it nor petitioners 

intended to petition the U.S. Supreme 

Court for certiorari. The CIT granted 

Mittal’s motion on January 13, 2009. 

Therefore, the Department is amending 

the Final Results with respect to Mittal. 

Amended Final Results of Review 

The remand redetermination 

explained that the Department 

determined to calculate credit expense 

from the date of invoice. Based on this 

reconsideration, we are amending the 

final results for Mittal. Accordingly, we 

are applying to Mittal the following 

dumping margin. 

Manufacturer/exporter Period of review 

Weighted–average 

margin (%) 

Original: Revised: 

Mittal Steel Point Lisas Ltd. (formerly Caribbean Ispat Limited) ................................... 10/1/2003–9/30/2004 4.13 4.08 

Assessment 

The Department has determined, and 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(‘‘CBP’’) shall assess, antidumping 

duties on all appropriate entries covered 

by these amended final results. The 

Department intends to issue assessment 

instructions to CBP 15 days after the 

publication date of these amended final 

results 

Notification to Interested Parties 

This notice 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. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.402(f)(3), failure 

to comply with this requirement could 

result in the Secretary’s presumption 

that reimbursement of antidumping 

duties occurred and the subsequent 

assessment of doubled antidumping 

duties. 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to parties 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 and as explained 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 10, 2009 / Notices 10239 

in the APO itself. 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. 

This notice is issued and published in 

accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 

777(i) of the Act. 

Dated: March 4, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–5114 Filed 3–9–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–881] 

Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings from 

the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results of Expedited Sunset Review of 

Antidumping Duty Order. 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce 

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 10, 2009 

SUMMARY: On November 3, 2008, the 

Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) initiated a sunset 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on malleable cast iron pipe fittings from 

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

On the basis of a notice of intent to 

participate, and an adequate substantive 

response from domestic interested 

parties, as well as a lack of response 

from respondent interested parties, the 

Department conducted an expedited 

(120-day) sunset review. As a result of 

the sunset review, the Department finds 

that revocation of the antidumping duty 

order would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of dumping. 

The dumping margins are identified in 

the Final Results of Review section of 

this notice. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sergio Balbontı ́n, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 8, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 

Washington, DC 20230; Telephone: 

(202) 482–6478. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On November 3, 2008, the Department 

published the notice of initiation of the 

sunset review of the antidumping duty 

order on malleable cast iron pipe fittings 

(‘‘MCP’’) from the PRC pursuant to 

section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, 

as amended (‘‘the Act’’). See Initiation 

of Five-year (‘‘Sunset’’) Review, 73 FR 

65292 (November 3, 2008). On 

November 11, 2008, the Department 

received a notice of intent to participate 

from domestic interested parties, Anvil 

International, Inc. and Ward 

Manufacturing, Inc. (collectively 

‘‘domestic interested parties’’), within 

the deadline specified in section 

351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Department’s 

regulations. The domestic interested 

parties claimed interested party status 

under section 771(9)(C) of the Act as 

domestic producers of MCP in the 

United States. On December 2, 2008, the 

Department received a substantive 

response from the domestic interested 

parties within the deadline specified in 

section 351.218(d)(3)(i) of the 

Department’s regulations. The 

Department did not receive a response 

from any respondent interested parties 

to this proceeding. As a result, pursuant 

to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 

section 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2) of the 

Department’s regulations, the 

Department determined to conduct an 

expedited review of the order. See 

Memorandum to the File titled, 

‘‘Adequacy Determination: Sunset 

Review of the Antidumping Duty Order 

on Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings 

from the People’s Republic of China,’’ 

dated January 13, 2009. 

Scope of the Order 

The products covered by the 

antidumping duty order are certain 

malleable iron pipe fittings, cast, other 

than grooved fittings, from the PRC. The 

merchandise is classified under item 

numbers 7307.19.90.30, 7307.19.90.60 

and 7307.19.90.80 of the Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule (HTSUS). Excluded 

from the scope of the order are metal 

compression couplings, which are 

imported under HTSUS number 

7307.19.90.80. A metal compression 

coupling consists of a coupling body, 

two gaskets, and two compression nuts. 

These products range in diameter from 

1/2 inch to 2 inches and are carried only 

in galvanized finish. Although HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

Department’s written description of the 

scope of this proceeding is dispositive. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in this review are 

addressed in the ‘‘Issues and Decision 

Memorandum’’ (‘‘Decision 

Memorandum’’) from John M. 

Andersen, Acting Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Operations, to 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration, 

dated concurrently with this notice, and 

is hereby adopted by this notice. The 

issues discussed in the Decision 

Memorandum include the likelihood of 

continuation or recurrence of dumping 

and the magnitude of the margins likely 

to prevail if the order were revoked. 

Parties can find a complete discussion 

of all issues raised in this review and 

the corresponding recommendations in 

this public memorandum, which is on 

file in the Central Records Unit in room 

1117 of the main Commerce building. 

In addition, a complete version of the 

Decision Memorandum can be accessed 

directly on the web at http:// 

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

electronic version of the Decision 

Memorandum are identical in content. 

Final Results of Review 

Pursuant to section 752(c) of the Act, 

we determine that revocation of the 

antidumping duty order on MCP from 

the PRC would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of dumping 

at the following weighted–average 

percentage margins: 

Exporter/Manufacturer Margin(percent) 

Beijing Sai Lin Ke Hardware Co. Ltd. (‘‘SLK’’) 15.92 

Langfang Pannext Pipe 

Fitting Co., Ltd. ......... 7.35 

Chengde Malleable Iron 

General Factory 

(‘‘Chengde’’) .............. 11.18 

SCE Co., Ltd. (‘‘SCE’’) 11.18 

Jinan Meide Casting 

Co., Ltd. .................... 11.31 

PRC–Wide .................... 111.36 

This notice also serves as the only 

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 section 351.305 

of the Department’s regulations. Timely 

notification of the return or 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. 

We are issuing and publishing the 

results and notice in accordance with 

sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of 

the Act. 

Dated: March 3, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–5086 Filed 3–9–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S