20948 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 19, 2000 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[Order No. 1081]

Grant of Authority; Establishment of a

Foreign-Trade Zone, Fort Lauderdale,

Florida Area

Pursuant to its authority under the ForeignTrade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as

amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the ForeignTrade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the

following Order:

Whereas, the Foreign-Trade Zones Act

provides for ‘‘ * * * the establishment

* * * of foreign-trade zones in ports of

entry of the United States, to expedite

and encourage foreign commerce, and

for other purposes,’’ and authorizes the

Foreign-Trade Zones Board to grant to

qualified corporations the privilege of

establishing foreign-trade zones in or

adjacent to U.S. Customs ports of entry;

Whereas, the City of Fort Lauderdale,

Florida (the Grantee), has made

application to the Board (FTZ Docket

12–99, filed 3/19/99), requesting the

establishment of a foreign-trade zone in

the Fort Lauderdale, Florida, area,

adjacent to the Port Everglades Customs

port of entry;

Whereas, notice inviting public

comment has been given in the Federal

Register (64 FR 14859, 3/29/99); and,

Whereas, the Board adopts the

findings and recommendations of the

examiner’s report, and finds that the

requirements of the FTZ Act and the

Board’s regulations are satisfied, and

that approval of the application is in the

public interest;

Now, therefore, the Board hereby

grants to the Grantee the privilege of

establishing a foreign-trade zone,

designated on the records of the Board

as Foreign-Trade Zone No. 241, at the

sites described in the application,

subject to the Act and the Board’s

regulations, including Section 400.28,

and further subject to the grantee’s

implementation of the site management

plan presented for the record in this

case.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 6th day of

April 2000.

Foreign-Trade Zones Board.

William M. Daley,

Secretary of Commerce, Chairman and

Executive Officer.

Attest:

Dennis Puccinelli,

Acting Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–9825 Filed 4–18–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–570–848]

Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From

the People’s Republic of China: Final

Results of Administrative Antidumping

Duty and New Shipper Reviews, and

Final Rescission of New Shipper

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Final Results of

Administrative and New Shipper

Reviews, and Rescission of New

Shipper Review: Freshwater Crawfish

Tail Meat from the People’s Republic of

China.

SUMMARY: On October 12, 1999, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) published the preliminary

results of its administrative and new

shipper reviews of the antidumping

duty order on freshwater crawfish tail

meat from the People’s Republic of

China (PRC). The administrative review

covers the period March 26, 1997

through August 31, 1998 with the

exception of the administrative review

of Ningbo Nanlian Frozen Foods Co.,

Ltd. (Ningbo Nanlian) which covers the

period April 1, 1998 through August 31,

1998.

Based on our analysis of the

comments received, we have made

changes to the margin calculations.

Therefore, the final results differ from

the preliminary results. The final

weighted-average dumping margins for

the reviewed firms are listed below in

the section entitled ‘‘Final Results of

Review.’’

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 19, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thomas Gilgunn, Sarah Ellerman, Mike

Strollo, or Maureen Flannery,

Antidumping/Countervailing Duty

Enforcement, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW,

Washington DC 20230; telephone (202)

482–0648, (202) 482–4106, (202) 482–

5255 and (202) 482–3020, respectively.

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 Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act)

by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act.

In addition, unless otherwise indicated,

all citations to the Department’s

regulations are to the provisions

codified at 19 CFR part 351 (1998).

Background

On October 12, 1999, the Department

published the preliminary results of

review of the antidumping duty order

on freshwater crawfish tail meat from

the PRC (64 FR 8543). On November 12,

1999, we received comments from

respondents Nantong Delu Aquatic

Food Co., Ltd. (Nantong Delu),

Yancheng Foreign Trade Corporation

(Yancheng FTC), and Ocean Harvest

Wholesale Inc., an importer. On

November 24, 1999, we received

comments from respondents Qingdao

Rirong and Lianyungang Haiwang,

Baolong Biochemical, and Ningbo

Nanlian, and from Maritime Trading

Company, an importer. On November

24, 1999 we also received comments on

behalf of the following interested

parties: Worldwide Link, Inc., Captain

Charlie Seafood Wholesale Co., U.S.A.,

Ocean Duke, Boston Seafood Processors,

Maritime Trading, COB Development

Corp., Atlantic Gem, Neptune Fisheries,

Pacific Giant, and Intraco, all importers;

and Huaiyin Foreign Trade Corporation

(30) (HFTC30), an exporter. We also

received comments from the petitioner,

the Crawfish Processors Alliance (CPA).

On December 8, 1999, we received

rebuttal comments.

On February 3, 2000, we issued

questionnaires to certain interested

parties regarding possible relationships

among certain producers and exporters

of subject merchandise. On February 17,

2000, we received responses. From

February 22 through March 3, 2000, we

conducted verification of this

information in China, and met with

various Chinese government entities

and U.S. embassy staff in China.

Huaiyin Foreign Trade Corporation (5)

(HFTC5) did not allow Department

officials to meet with HFTC5 officials or

conduct a verification of its response.

We also conducted a telephone

interview with Yancheng Yaou Seafood

Co., Ltd. (Asia-Europe), formerly known

as Yancheng Baolong Aquatic Foods

Co., Ltd. On March 20, 2000, we

received timely comments from several

interested parties regarding the

Department’s memoranda detailing

these verifications and meetings, and

our attempts to conduct verification of

HFTC5. On March 23, 2000, the

Department conducted a public hearing

on the issues presented by interested

parties in their November 24, 1999 case

briefs, their December 8, 1999 rebuttal

briefs, and their March 20, 2000

comments regarding the Department’s

memoranda.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 19, 2000 / Notices 20949

The Department has now completed

these reviews in accordance with

section 751 of the Act.

Scope of Review

The product covered by this review is

freshwater crawfish tail meat, in all its

forms (whether washed or with fat on,

whether purged or unpurged), grades,

and sizes; whether frozen, fresh, or

chilled; and regardless of how it is

packed, preserved, or prepared.

Excluded from the scope of the order are

live crawfish and other whole crawfish,

whether boiled, frozen, fresh, or chilled.

Also excluded are saltwater crawfish of

any type, and parts thereof. Freshwater

crawfish tail meat is currently

classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States (HTS)

under item numbers 0306.19.00.10 and

0306.29.00.00. The HTS subheadings

are provided for convenience and

Customs purposes only. The written

description of the scope of this order is

dispositive.

Analysis of Comments Received

All issues raised in the case and

rebuttal briefs by parties to this

administrative review are addressed in

the ‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum’’

(Decision Memo) from Edward C. Yang,

Director, Office 9, to Joseph A. Spetrini,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration, dated April 7, 2000,

which is hereby adopted by this notice.

A list of the issues which parties have

raised and to which we have responded,

all of which are in the Decision Memo,

is attached to this notice as an

appendix. 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, room B–099 of the

main Department building (B–099). In

addition, a complete version of the

Decision Memo can be accessed directly

on the Web at www.ita.doc.gov/

import admin/records/frn/. The paper

copy and electronic version of the

Decision Memo are identical in content.

Rescission of New Shipper Review for

Baolong Biochemical

In our preliminary results, we

concluded that Baolong Biochemical

did not have a bona fide sale to the

United States during the review period,

and thus was not entitled to a review

under section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act.

For a further discussion of these issues,

see the relevant sections of the Decision

Memo. See also Memorandum to Robert

S. LaRussa from Barbara E. Tillman:

Issues for the Preliminary Results of

Review Concerning Bona Fide Sales and

the Use of Facts Available (Facts

Available Memorandum), dated

September 30, 1999. We subsequently

clarified for all parties that this

rescission was a preliminary

determination and that the Department

would accept comments on this issue.

After reviewing the comments received

with respect to Baolong Biochemical,

we have concluded that our preliminary

determination was appropriate and,

because Baolong Biochemical has no

bona fide sales during the period of

review, we are rescinding the new

shipper review of Baolong Biochemical.

We will instruct the Customs Service to

require the posting of cash deposits,

rather than bond, for imports of

crawfish exported by Baolong

Biochemical.

Use of Facts Available

For a discussion of our application of

facts otherwise available, see the ‘‘Facts

Available’’ section of the Decision

Memo, which is on file in B–099 and

available on the Web at

www.ita.doc.gov/import admin/

records/frn/.

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

Based on our analysis of comments

received, we have made certain changes

in the margin calculations for Qingdao

Rirong. Any alleged programming or

clerical errors are discussed in the

relevant sections of the ‘‘Decision

Memorandum,’’ accessible in B–099 and

on the Web at www.ita.doc.gov/

import admin/records/frn/.

Ningbo Nanlian

Based on an analysis of the record, we

have determined that Ningbo Nanlian

does not merit a separate rate. For a

discussion of this issue, see the section

of the Decision Memo entitled ‘‘Facts

Available for Ningbo Nanlian’’ and the

proprietary version of the Memorandum

from Edward C. Yang to Joseph A.

Spetrini regarding ‘‘Relationship of

HFTC5 and Ningbo Nanlian,’’ dated

April 7, 2000 (Ningbo Nanlian/HFTC5

Decision Memo.)

HFTC Entities

Based on our analysis of comments

received, we have concluded the

following. The HFTC entity now known

as HFTC5, a.k.a. Huaiyin Cereals and

Oils Import and Export Corporation, is

the same HFTC entity that was assigned

a separate rate in the LFTV

investigation.

The Department has also determined

that, since HFTC30 has not requested a

separate rate, HFTC30 is not entitled to

a separate rate in this review. However,

all Chinese crawfish exporters not

specifically named, including HFTC30,

were subject to the review as part of the

PRC entity of which they are considered

part. Their rate is 201.63 percent.

Final Results of Review

We determine that the following

weighted-average margins exist for the

period March 26, 1997 through August

31, 1998:

Manufacturer/exporter Time period Margin

(percent)

Qingdao Rirong Foodstuff Co., Ltd. ........................................................................................................ 03/26/97–08/31/98 0.00

Lianyungang Haiwang Aquatic Products Co., Ltd. .................................................................................. 03/26/97–08/31/98 201.63

PRC-wide rate 1 ....................................................................................................................................... 201.63

1Binzhou Prefecture Foodstuffs Import & Export Corp., Huaiyin Foreign Trade Corp., Huaiyin Foreign Trade Corporation (5) (also known as

Huaiyin Cereals, Oils & Foodstuffs), Huaiyin Foreign Trade Corporation (30), Huaiyin Ningtai Fisheries Co., Ltd., Nantong Delu Aquatic Food Co.,

Ltd., Ningbo Nanlian Frozen Foods Co., Ltd. (for the period 4/1/98–8/31/98), Yancheng Baolong Aquatic Foods Co., Ltd., and Yancheng Baolong

Foreign Trade Corp. are subject to the PRC-wide rate of 201.63%.

Cash Deposit Requirements

The following deposit requirements

will be effective upon publication of

this notice of final results of

administrative review for all shipments

of freshwater crawfish tail meat from the

PRC entered, or withdrawn from

warehouse, for consumption on or after

the date of publication, as provided by

section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The

cash deposit rates for the reviewed

companies will be the rates shown

above except that, for firms whose

weighted-average margins are less than

0.5 percent and therefore de minimis,

the Department shall require no deposit

of estimated antidumping duties; (2) for

previously-reviewed PRC and non-PRC

exporters with separate rates, the cash

deposit rate will be the companyVerDate 20<MAR>2000 12:51 Apr 18, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19APN1.SGM pfrm02 PsN: 19APN1
20950 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 19, 2000 / Notices

specific rate established for the most

recent period; (3) for all other PRC

exporters, the cash deposit rate will be

the PRC-wide rate, 201.63 percent; and

(4) for all other non-PRC exporters of the

subject merchandise, the cash deposit

rate will be the rate applicable to the

PRC supplier of that exporter.

These deposit requirements shall

remain in effect until publication of the

final results of the next administrative

review.

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 this 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 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 section 351.305(a)(3) of the

Department’s regulations. 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.

We are issuing and publishing this

determination and notice in accordance

with sections 751 and 777(i) of the Act.

Dated: April 7, 2000.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

Appendix I

1. Facts Available

A. Non-Respondents and Improperly Filed

and Served Responses

B. Haiwang

C. Ningbo Nanlian

D. HFTC5

2. Recission of the New Shipper Review of

Yancheng Baolong Biochemical Products

(Baolong Biochemical)

3. Circumstance of Sale Adjustments:

Imputed Credit Expense

4. Factor Valuation

5. Deposit and Assessment Rates for HFTC30

and other companies with Huaiyin

Foreign Trade Corporation in their title.

[FR Doc. 00–9824 Filed 4–18–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

North American Free-Trade

Agreement, Article 1904 NAFTA Panel

Reviews; Notice of Request for an

Extraordinary Challenge Committee

AGENCY: NAFTA Secretariat, United

States Section, International Trade

Administration, Department of

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Request for an

Extraordinary Challenge Committee to

review issues raised by the June 18,

1999 and February 10, 2000 decisions of

the binational NAFTA Panel that

reviewed the final results of

administrative review and the

redetermination pursuant to remand by

the United States Department of

Commerce (the Department) in the

above-captioned proceeding. This

request was filed with the United States

Section of the NAFTA Secretariat on

March 23, 2000.

SUMMARY: On March 23, 2000, the Office

of the United States Trade

Representative filed a Request for an

Extraordinary Challenge Committee to

review decisions dated June 18, 1999

and February 10, 2000. On June 18,

1999, the panel convened in this

proceeding issued it Opinion an Order.

The Panel remanded to the International

Trade Administration on the grounds

that the Department erred in basing its

normal-value calculations on Type I

cement in both bulk and bagged form,

and it remanded this issue to the

Department for recalculation using only

sales in bulk form. On February 10,

2000 the Panel affirmed the Final

Results of Redetermination pursuant to

Panel Remand, without commenting on

the bulk/bagged issue. The NAFTA

Secretariat has assigned Case Number

ECC–2000–1904–01USA to this request.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Caratina L. Alston, United States

Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat, Suite

2061, 14th and Constitution Avenue,

Washington, DC 20230, (202) 482–5438.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Chapter

19 of the North American Free-Trade

Agreement (‘‘Agreement’’) establishes a

mechanism to replace domestic judicial

review of final determinations in

antidumping and countervailing duty

cases involving imports from a NAFTA

country with review by independent

binational panels. When a Request for

Panel Review is filed, a panel is

established to act in place of national

courts to review expeditiously the final

determination to determine whether it

conforms with the antidumping or

countervailing duty law of the country

that made the determination.

Under Article 1904.13 of the

Agreement, the Government of the

United States, Canada and Mexico

established Rules of Procedure for

Article 1904 Extraordinary Challenge

Committees (‘‘ECC Rules’’). These ECC

Rules were published in the Federal

Register on February 23, 1994 (59 FR

8702). The ECC Rules give effect to the

provisions of Chapter Nineteen of the

Agreement with respect to

Extraordinary Challenge Committee

proceedings conducted pursuant to

Article 1904 of the Agreement. The ECC

Rules are intended to result in decisions

typically within 90 days after the

establishment of an Extraordinary

Challenge Committee. The

Extraordinary Challenge Committee

proceeding in this matter will be

conducted in accordance with these

ECC Rules.

Background

On April 9, 1997, the Department

published the final results of the fifth

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on gray

portland cement and clinker from

Mexico. During the period of review,

respondent CEMEX, S.A. de C.V., sold

Type II cement in bulk form in the

United States. Because the Department

found CEMEX’s home-market sales of

Type II cement to be outside the

ordinary course of trade, the Department

compared CEMEX’s U.S. sales of Type

II cement to its home-market sales of a

similar product—Type I cement. The

Department determined that the foreign

like product included all Type I cement,

whether or not packed in bags. CEMEX

objected to the Department’s finding

that the ‘‘similar’’ foreign like products

included both bulk and bagged

merchandise, and it requested

binational panel review pursuant to

Chapter 19 of the NAFTA.

On June 18, 1999, the Panel convened

in this proceeding issued its Opinion

and Order. The Panel held that the

Department erred in basing its normalvalue calculations on Type I cement in

both bulk and bagged form, and it

remanded this issue to the Department

for recalculation using only sales in

bulk form. In reaching its decision, the

Panel held that Koyo Seiko Co., Ltd. v.

United States, 66F. 3d 1204 (Fed. Cir.

1995), does not mandate deference to

the Department’s foreign-like-product

analysis in this case, and it made

findings of fact relying on evidence that

was not part of the administrative

record. One panelist dissented from the

Panel’s resolution of the bulk/bagged

issue with respect to the standard of