54900 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 2005 / Notices 

Handling (‘‘B&H’’) 

H. Inclusion of Packing Weight in 

Movement Expenses’ Calculation 

I. Factors of Production for Pallets 

J. Application of Packing Materials 

and the Byproduct Offset in the 

Calculation of Normal Value 

Comment 9: TMC 

A. AFA for Failure at Verification 

B. Separate Rate 

C. AFA for Suppliers 

D. Discounts 

E. Surrogate Value for Scrap Rail 

Comment 10: Jinma 

[FR Doc. 05–18587 Filed 9–16–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

(C–533–063) 

Certain Iron–Metal Castings from India: 

Notice of Amended Final Results 

Pursuant to Final Court Decision 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On June 16, 2005, the United 

States Court of International Trade (CIT) 

sustained the Department of 

Commerce’s (the Department) July 9, 

2004, Final Results of Redetermination 

on Remand Pursuant to Kiswok 

Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. United States, 

pursuant to Slip Op. 04–54 (CIT May 20, 

2004), (Remand Determination), which 

pertains to Certain Iron–Metal Castings 

from India: Final Results of 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Review, 65 FR 31515 (May 18, 2000) 

(Iron–Metal Castings). See Kiswok 

Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Calcutta Ferrous 

Ltd. v. United States, Court No. 00–03–

00127, Slip. Op. 05–73 (CIT, June 16, 

2005). Because all litigation in this 

matter has concluded, the Department is 

issuing amended final results for Iron–

Metal Castings in accordance with the 

CIT’s decision. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 20, 2005 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert Copyak, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 3, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Ave., N.W., 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–2209. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On May 18, 2000, the Department 

published its final results of 

administrative review in Iron–Metal 

Castings. Calcutta Ferrous Ltd. and 

Kiswok Industries Pvt. Ltd. (collectively 

‘‘respondents’’) challenged the 

Department’s final results before the 

CIT. In the administrative review, 

Calcutta Ferrous Ltd. argued that ‘‘in 

calculating the benefits received by 

castings exporters from export loans, 

Commerce failed to take into account 

penalty interest paid at interest rates 

higher than the benchmark.’’ See 

Comment 7 of the May 18, 2000, Issues 

and Decision Memorandum that 

accompanied Iron–Metal Castings. In 

Kiswok Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Calcutta 

Ferrous Ltd. v. United States, Slip Op. 

04–54 (CIT May 20, 2004) (Kiswok v. 

United States), the Court concurred 

with Calcutta Ferrous Ltd.’s position. Id. 

at 15–18. The Court also disagreed with 

Commerce’s position in Iron–Metal 

Castings that the overdue portion of the 

loan becomes a new loan with a new 

applicable interest rate. Id. at 17–18. 

In light of the Court’s instructions in 

Kiswok v. United States, the 

Department, in its redetermination, 

recalculated the benefit Calcutta Ferrous 

Ltd. realized from its preferential loans, 

taking into account all of the interest 

paid thereon. See Remand 

Determination. The Department 

recalculated the program rate with 

respect to Calcutta Ferrous’ export 

credit loans to be 0.22 percent ad 

valorem. With this change in the 

program rate, the final rate for Calcutta 

Ferrous changed to 9.25 percent ad 

valorem. No party submitted comments 

regarding the Department’s Remand 

Determination. On June 16, 2005, the 

CIT sustained the Department’s 

redetermination in all respects and thus 

affirmed the Department’s 

recalculations. 

On July 20, 2005, the Department, 

consistent with the decision of the 

United States Court of Appeals for the 

Federal Circuit in Timken Co. v. United 

States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 1990), 

notified the public that the Kiswok v. 

United States decision was ‘‘not in 

harmony’’ with the Department’s 

original results. See Certain Iron–Metal 

Castings from India: Notice of Court 

Decision and Suspension of Liquidation, 

70 FR 41687 (July 20, 2005) (Timken 

Notice). The Timken Notice continued 

the suspension of liquidation, and 

further informed that if the CIT’s 

decision was not appealed, or if 

appealed and the appeal was upheld, 

the Department would publish amended 

final countervailing duty results. Id. 

Amended Final Determination 

Because there is now a final and 

conclusive decision in the court 

proceeding, we are amending the final 

results and establishing for Calcutta 

Ferrous the revised countervailing duty 

rate of 9.25 percent, effective as of July 

20, 2005, the publication date of the 

Timken Notice. Accordingly, we will 

instruct the CBP to assess countervailing 

duties at 9.25 percent ad valorem on all 

shipments of the subject merchandise 

from Calcutta Ferrous Ltd., entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after January 1, 

1997, through Decemeber 31, 1997. 

This determination is published 

pursuant to sections 751(3)(c) and 777(i) 

of the Act. 

Dated: September 7, 2005. 

Joseph A. Spetrini, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 05–18586 Filed 9–16–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

Export Trade Certificate of Review 

ACTION: Notice of Application to Amend 

an Export Trade Certificate of Review. 

SUMMARY: Export Trading Company 

Affairs (‘‘ETCA’’) of the International 

Trade Administration, Department of 

Commerce, has received an application 

to amend an Export Trade Certificate of 

Review (‘‘Certificate’’). This notice 

summarizes the proposed amendment 

and requests comments relevant to 

whether the Certificate should be 

issued. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jeffrey Anspacher, Director, Export 

Trading Company Affairs, International 

Trade Administration, (202) 482–5131 

(this is not a toll-free number) or e-mail 

at oetca@ita.doc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title III of 

the Export Trading Company Act of 

1982 (15 U.S.C. 4001–21) authorizes the 

Secretary of Commerce to issue Export 

Trade Certificates of Review. An Export 

Trade Certificate of Review protects the 

holder and the members identified in 

the Certificate from state and federal 

government antitrust actions and from 

private treble damage antitrust actions 

for the export conduct specified in the 

Certificate and carried out in 

compliance with its terms and 

conditions. Section 302(b)(1) of the 

Export Trading Company Act of 1982 

and 15 CFR 325.6(a) require the 

Secretary to publish a notice in the 

Federal Register identifying the 

applicant and summarizing its proposed 

export conduct. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 2005 / Notices 54901 

Request for Public Comments 

Interested parties may submit written 

comments relevant to the determination 

whether an amended Certificate should 

be issued. If the comments include any 

privileged or confidential business 

information, it must be clearly marked 

and a nonconfidential version of the 

comments (identified as such) should be 

included. Any comments not marked 

privileged or confidential business 

information will be deemed to be 

nonconfidential. An original and five (5) 

copies, plus two (2) copies of the 

nonconfidential version, should be 

submitted no later than 20 days after the 

date of this notice to: Export Trading 

Company Affairs, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, Room 7021B, Washington, 

DC 20230. Information submitted by any 

person is exempt from disclosure under 

the Freedom of Information Act (5 

U.S.C. 552). However, nonconfidential 

versions of the comments will be made 

available to the applicant if necessary 

for determining whether or not to issue 

the Certificate. Comments should refer 

to this application as ‘‘Export Trade 

Certificate of Review, application 

number 84–16A12.’’

Northwest Fruit Exporters’ (‘‘NFE’’) 

original Certificate was issued on June 

11, 1984 (49 FR 24581, June 14, 1984) 

and previously amended on May 2, 

1988 (53 FR 16306, May 6, 1988); 

September 21, 1988 (53 FR 37628, 

September 27, 1988); September 20, 

1989 (54 FR 39454, September 26, 

1989); November 19, 1992 (57 FR 55510, 

November 25, 1992); August 16, 1994 

(59 FR 43093, August 22, 1994); 

November 4, 1996 (61 FR 57850, 

November 8, 1996); October 22, 1997 

(62 FR 55783, October 28, 1997); 

November 2, 1998 (63 FR 60304, 

November 9, 1998); October 20, 1999 

(64 FR 57438, October 25, 1999); 

October 16, 2000 (65 FR 63567, October 

24, 2000); October 5, 2001 (66 FR 52111, 

October 12, 2001); October 3, 2002 (67 

FR 62957, October 9, 2002); September 

16, 2003 (68 FR 54893, September 19, 

2003); and October 14, 2004 (69 FR 

61802, October 21, 2004). A summary of 

the application for an amendment 

follows. 

Summary of the Application 

Applicant: Northwest Fruit Exporters, 

105 South 18th Street, Suite 227, 

Yakima, Washington 98901–2149. 

Contact: James R. Archer, Manager, 

Telephone: (509) 576–8004. 

Application No.: 84–16A12. 

Date Deemed Submitted: September 

6, 2005. 

Proposed Amendment: Northwest 

Fruit Exporters seeks to amend its 

Certificate to: 

1. Add each of the following 

companies as a new ‘‘Member’’ of the 

Certificate within the meaning of 

section 325.2(1) of the Regulations (15 

CFR 325.2(1)): Bolinger & Sons, 

Wenatchee, WA; C&M Fruit Packers, 

Wenatchee, WA; Cascade Fresh Fruits, 

LLC, Manson, WA; AltaFresh L.L.C. dba 

Chelan Fresh Marketing, Chelan, WA; 

Nuchief Sales Inc., Wenatchee, WA; 

Orchard View Farms, The Dalles, OR; 

SST Growers and Packers LLC, Granger, 

WA; Voelker Fruit and Cold Storage, 

Yakima, WA; and Yakima-Roche Fruit 

Sales L.L.C., Yakima, WA; and 

2. Delete the following companies as 

‘‘Members’’ of the Certificate: Fox 

Orchards, Mattawa, WA; Magi, Inc., 

Brewster, WA (as a result of a merger 

with Chelan Fruit Cooperative, a 

Member of NFE); Monson Fruit Co., 

Selah, WA (for its cherry operation, 

only); Rawland F. Taplett dba R.F. 

Taplett Fruit & Cold Storage Co., 

Wenatchee, WA; Sund-Roy L.L.C., 

Yakima, WA; and Washington Export, 

LLC, Yakima, WA. 

Dated: September 13, 2005. 

Jeffrey Anspacher, 

Director, Export Trading Company Affairs. 

[FR Doc. 05–18492 Filed 9–16–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DR–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

North American Free-Trade Agreement 

(NAFTA), Article 1904 Binational Panel 

Reviews 

AGENCY: NAFTA Secretariat, United 

States Section, International Trade 

Administration, Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of decision of panel. 

SUMMARY: On September 9, 2005, the 

binational panel issued its decision in 

the review of the final determination 

made by the International Trade 

Administration, respecting Alloy 

Magnesium from Canada Final 

Countervailing Duty Determination, 

New Shipper Review, Secretariat File 

No. USA–CDA–2003–1904–02. The 

binational panel affirmed the 

International Trade Administration 

determination with two dissenting 

opinions and one concurring opinion. 

Copies of the panel decision are 

available from the U.S. Section of the 

NAFTA Secretariat. 

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 the 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 of the Agreement, 

which came into force on January 1, 

1994, the Government of the United 

States, the Government of Canada and 

the Government of Mexico established 

Rules of Procedure for Article 1904 

Binational Panel Reviews (‘‘Rules’’). 

These Rules were published in the 

Federal Register on February 23, 1994 

(59 FR 8686). The panel review in this 

matter has been conducted in 

accordance with these Rules. 

Panel Decision 

The determination is as follows: 

A. With respect to the de facto 

specificity issue, a majority of the panel 

decided to uphold the Department’s 

Final Determination. Chairman Endsley 

and panelist Holbein wrote the panel 

opinion, while panelist Winham wrote 

separate concurring views. Panelists 

Anissimoff and LaBarge dissent. 

B. With respect to the AUL 

calculation issue, the panel 

unanimously upheld the Department’s 

Final Determination. 

C. With respect to the discount rate 

issue, the panel unanimously upheld 

the Department’s Final Determination. 

The panel has directed the Secretary 

to issue a Notice of Final Panel Action 

on the 11th day following the issuance 

of the panel decision. 

Dated: September 13, 2005. 

Caratina L. Alston, 

United States Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat. 

[FR Doc. 05–18499 Filed 9–16–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–GT–P