Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 2005 / Notices 54897 

1Ames True Temper. 

0266, Department of Commerce, Room 

6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, 

NW., Washington, DC 20230. E-mail: 

dHynek@doc.gov. 

Written comments and 

recommendations for the proposed 

information collection should be sent to 

David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, 

David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov or fax 

(202) 395–7285 within 30 days of the 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register. 

Dated: September 13, 2005. 

Madeleine Clayton, 

Management Analyst, Office of the Chief 

Information Officer. 

[FR Doc. 05–18500 Filed 9–16–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–FP–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–803] 

Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or 

Unfinished, With or Without Handles, 

From the People’s Republic of China: 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Reviews and Final 

Rescission and Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Reviews 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On March 10, 2005, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

‘‘Department’’) published in the Federal 

Register the preliminary results of the 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on heavy forged 

hand tools, finished or unfinished, with 

or without handles (‘‘HFHTs’’), from the 

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

Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or 

Unfinished, With or Without Handles, 

From the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Results of Administrative 

Reviews and Preliminary Partial 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Reviews, 70 FR 11934 

(March 10, 2005) (‘‘Preliminary 

Results’’). We gave interested parties an 

opportunity to comment on the 

Preliminary Results and conducted 

verification of two Respondents. Based 

upon our analysis of the comments and 

information received, we made changes 

to the dumping margin calculations for 

the final results. We find that certain 

manufacturers/exporters sold subject 

merchandise at less than normal value 

during the POR. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 19, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul 

Walker or Julia Hancock, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 9, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

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

telephone: (202) 482–0413 or (202) 482–

1394, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Case History 

The Preliminary Results in this 

administrative review were published 

on March 10, 2005. Since the 

Preliminary Results, the following 

events have occurred: 

On March 18, 2005, the Department 

sent pre–verification questionnaires to 

TMC and Huarong. On March 22, 2004, 

the Department served the verification 

schedules for TMC and Huarong on all 

interested parties. On March 28, 2005, 

TMC and Huarong submitted their 

responses to the Department’s March 18, 

2005 pre–verification questionnaires. 

On April, 4, 2005, TMC submitted a 

request for an extension of time to 

prepare for verification. On April 5, 

2005, TMC withdrew its request for an 

extension of time to prepare for 

verification. On April 5, 2005, the 

Department sent a second pre–

verification questionnaire to TMC. On 

April 8, 2005, TMC submitted its 

response to the Department’s second 

pre–verification questionnaire. The 

Department conducted verification of 

the data submitted by Huarong and 

TMC on April 11–15, 2005 and April 

18–20, 2005, respectively. 

On April 18, 2005, the Department 

received Huarong’s verification 

Exhibits. On April 22, 2005, the 

Department received TMC’s verification 

Exhibits. On April 27, 2005, Shandong 

Jinma Industrial Group Company, Ltd. 

(‘‘Jinma’’) requested that the reviews be 

rescinded with respect to Jinma. On 

May 17, 2005, the verification report for 

Huarong was completed. On May 23, 

2005, the verification report for TMC 

was completed. 

On June 7, 2005, the Department 

preliminarily rescinded the review with 

respect to Jinma and requested that 

parties comment on this rescission in 

their briefs. On June 13, 2005, the 

Petitioner1 and Respondents submitted 

their case briefs. On June 20, 2005, the 

Petitioner and Respondents submitted 

their rebuttal briefs. 

On June 27, 2005, the Department 

extended the time limit for completion 

of the final results of the instant 

administrative review. See Heavy 

Forged Hand Tools, Finished or 

Unfinished, With or Without Handles, 

From the People’s Republic of China: 

Extension of Time Limit for the Final 

Results of the Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 70 FR 36928 

(June 27, 2005). 

Scope of the Order 

The products covered by these orders 

are HFHTs comprising the following 

classes or kinds of merchandise: (1) 

Hammers and sledges with heads over 

1.5 kg (3.33 pounds) (hammers/sledges); 

(2) bars over 18 inches in length, track 

tools and wedges (bars/wedges); (3) 

picks and mattocks (picks/mattocks); 

and (4) axes, adzes and similar hewing 

tools (axes/adzes). 

HFHTs include heads for drilling 

hammers, sledges, axes, mauls, picks 

and mattocks, which may or may not be 

painted, which may or may not be 

finished, or which may or may not be 

imported with handles; assorted bar 

products and track tools including 

wrecking bars, digging bars, and 

tampers; and steel woodsplitting 

wedges. HFHTs are manufactured 

through a hot forge operation in which 

steel is sheared to required length, 

heated to forging temperature, and 

formed to final shape on forging 

equipment using dies specific to the 

desired product shape and size. 

Depending on the product, finishing 

operations may include shot blasting, 

grinding, polishing and painting, and 

the insertion of handles for handled 

products. HFHTs are currently provided 

for under the following Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’) subheadings: 8205.20.60, 

8205.59.30, 8201.30.00, and 8201.40.60. 

Specifically excluded from these 

investigations are hammers and sledges 

with heads 1.5 kg. (3.33 pounds) in 

weight and under, hoes and rakes, and 

bars 18 inches in length and under. 

The Department has issued six 

conclusive scope rulings regarding the 

merchandise covered by these orders: 

(1) On August 16, 1993, the Department 

found the ‘‘Max Multi–Purpose Axe,’’

imported by the Forrest Tool Company, 

to be within the scope of the axes/adzes 

order; (2) on March 8, 2001, the 

Department found ‘‘18–inch’’ and ‘‘24–

inch’’ pry bars, produced without dies, 

imported by Olympia Industrial, Inc. 

and SMC Pacific Tools, Inc., to be 

within the scope of the bars/wedges 

order; (3) on March 8, 2001, the 

Department found the ‘‘Pulaski’’ tool, 

produced without dies by TMC, to be 

within the scope of the axes/adzes 

order; (4) on March 8, 2001, the 

Department found the ‘‘skinning axe,’’

imported by Import Traders, Inc., to be 

within the scope of the axes/adzes 

order; (5) on December 9, 2004, the 

Department found the ‘‘MUTT,’’

54898 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 2005 / Notices 

imported by Olympia Industrial, Inc., 

under HTSUS 8205.59.5510, to be 

within the scope of the axes/adzes 

order; and (6) on May 23, 2005, the 

Department found 8 inch by 8 inch and 

10 inch by 10 inch cast tampers, 

imported by Olympia Industrial, Inc. to 

be outside the scope of the orders. 

We also note that on May 12, 2005, 

the Department initiated a formal scope 

inquiry on the ‘‘Mean Green Splitting 

Machine’’ imported by Avalanche 

Industries. This decision is currently 

due on September 23, 2005. 

Rescission of Review 

We preliminarily rescinded these 

reviews with respect to Shanghai Xinike 

Trading Company, Ltd. (‘‘Olympia 

Shanghai’’), Ningbo Tiangong Great Star 

Tools Company, Ltd. (‘‘Ningbo’’), Fexian 

Hualu Tool Company, Ltd. (‘‘Fexian’’), 

Jinhua Twin–Star Tools Company 

(‘‘Jinhua’’), Ltd. and ZhangJiagang 

Tianda Special Hardware Company, 

Ltd. (‘‘ZhangJiagang’’), which reported 

that they did not sell merchandise 

subject to any of the four HFHT 

antidumping orders during the POR. See 

Preliminary Results at 11937. As stated 

above, on June 7, 2005, the Department 

preliminarily rescinded the reviews 

with respect to Jinma, which requested 

on April 27, 2005, that the reviews be 

rescinded because it did not sell 

merchandise subject to any of the four 

HFHT antidumping orders during the 

POR. See the Department’s June 7, 2005 

letter to All Interested Parties. 

For Olympia Shanghai, Ningbo, 

Fexian, Jinhua, ZhangJiagang and Jinma, 

the Department reviewed data from 

Customs and Border Protection 

(‘‘Customs’’), which supports the claims 

that these companies did not export 

subject merchandise during the POR. 

Furthermore, no party has placed 

evidence on the record demonstrating 

that these companies exported the 

merchandise identified above during the 

POR. Therefore, in accordance with 19 

CFR 351.213(d)(3) and consistent with 

the Department’s practice, we are 

rescinding these administrative reviews 

with respect to the companies and 

merchandise identified above. 

In addition, we also preliminarily 

rescinded the review of Huarong with 

respect to the hammers/sledges and 

picks/mattocks orders, since Huarong 

reported that they made no shipments of 

subject hammers/sledges and picks/ 

mattocks during the POR. See 

Preliminary Results at 11937. 

The Department reviewed Customs 

data which supports the claim that 

Huarong did not export hammers/ 

sledges and picks/mattocks during the 

POR. Furthermore, no party has placed 

evidence on the record demonstrating 

that Huarong exported the merchandise 

identified above during the POR. 

Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.213(d)(3) and consistent with the 

Department’s practice, we are 

rescinding these administrative reviews 

on hammers/sledges and picks/mattocks 

with respect to Huarong. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in the case and 

rebuttal briefs by parties to this 

proceeding and to which we have 

responded are listed in the Appendix to 

this notice and addressed in the Issues 

and Decision Memorandum, which is 

hereby adopted by this notice. Parties 

can find a complete discussion of the 

issues raised in this administrative 

review and the corresponding 

recommendations in this public 

memorandum which is on file in the 

Central Records Unit (CRU), room B–

099 of the main Department building. In 

addition, a complete version of the 

Issues and Decision Memorandum can 

be accessed directly on the internet at 

http://ia.ita.doc.gov/. The paper copy 

and electronic version of the Issues and 

Decision Memorandum are identical in 

content. 

Verification 

As provided in section 782(i) of the 

Act, we verified the information 

submitted by TMC and Huarong for use 

in our final results. See the 

Department’s verification reports on the 

record of this investigation in the CRU 

with respect to TMC and Huarong. For 

all verified companies, we used 

standard verification procedures, 

including examination of relevant 

accounting and production records, as 

well as original source documents 

provided by the Respondents. 

During verification, TMC informed 

the Department that its supplier of 

picks/mattocks had all accounting books 

seized by the Tianjin Tax Authority, 

thereby rendering the Department 

unable to verify any of TMC’s factors of 

production for picks/mattocks. See 

Memorandum to the File from Paul 

Walker, Verification of Sales for Tianjin 

Machinery Import & Export Corporation 

in the 13th Administrative Review of 

Heavy Forged Hand Tools from the 

People’s Republic of China, dated May 

23, 2005. 

Facts Available 

In the Preliminary Results, we based 

the dumping margins for Huarong and 

TMC on total adverse facts available 

(‘‘AFA’’) for their sales of merchandise 

subject to certain HFHTs orders 

pursuant to sections 776(a) and 776(b) 

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 

(the ‘‘Act’’). See Preliminary Results, 70 

FR 11934 at 11938–39. We continue to 

apply total AFA to Huarong for bars/ 

wedges and TMC for bars/wedges, axes/ 

adzes and hammers/sledges because 

they significantly impeded our ability to 

(1) conduct the reviews of these orders, 

and (2) instruct Customs to assess the 

correct antidumping duties, as 

mandated by section 731 of the Act. 

Huarong and TMC participated in an 

‘‘agent’’ sales scheme whereby one PRC 

company allowed another PRC company 

to enter subject merchandise using the 

first company’s invoices. In addition, 

we have applied total AFA to TMC in 

the review of the picks/mattocks order 

due to TMC’s failed FOP verification. 

See Issues and Decision Memorandum 

at Comment 9 (a). Lastly, we continue 

to find that the companies that 

constitute the PRC–wide entity, which 

did not establish entitlement to a 

separate rate, failed to provide requested 

information. For this reason, we 

continue to find that, in accordance 

with sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), and (C) 

of the Act, it is appropriate to base the 

PRC–wide margin in these reviews on 

total AFA. 

Section 776(b)(4) of the Act permits 

the Department to use, as AFA, 

information from the less than fair value 

(‘‘LTFV’’) investigation or any prior 

review. Thus, in selecting an AFA rate, 

the Department’s practice has been to 

assign Respondents who fail to 

cooperate with the Department’s 

requests for information the highest 

margin determined for any party in the 

LTFV investigation or in any 

administrative review. See, e.g., 

Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from 

Taiwan; Preliminary Results and 

Rescission in Part of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 67 FR 5789 

(February 7, 2002). As AFA, we are 

assigning to the PRC–wide entity’s sales 

of axes/adzes, bars/wedges, hammers/ 

sledges, and picks/mattocks the rates of 

174.58, 139.31, 45.42, and 98.77 

percent, respectively. The rates selected 

for bars/wedges was published in the 

most recently completed review of the 

HFHTs orders. See Heavy Forged Hand 

Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or 

Without Handles, From the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Reviews, Final Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Reviews, and Determination Not To 

Revoke in Part, 69 FR 55581 (September 

15, 2004) (‘‘Final Results of the 12th 

Review’’) as amended. The rate selected 

as AFA for hammers/sledges was 

originally from the LTFV investigation 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 2005 / Notices 54899 

and is currently the PRC–wide rate. See 

Final Results of the 12th Review as 

amended. The rate for axes/adzes was 

calculated in the instant review. The 

rate for picks/mattocks was calculated 

in the 5th review and corroborated in 

the Final Results of the 12th Review as 

amended. 

A complete explanation of the 

selection, corroboration, and application 

of AFA can be found in the Preliminary 

Results. See Preliminary Results, 70 FR 

at 11938–41. The Department received 

comments and rebuttal comments with 

regard to certain aspects of our selection 

and application of AFA. See Issues and 

Decision Memorandum, at Comments 2, 

3, 8 and 9. Nothing has changed since 

the Preliminary Results that would 

affect the Department’s selection, 

corroboration, and application of facts 

available for the above–referenced 

companies and orders, except for the 

AFA rate used for picks/mattocks. 

Accordingly, for the final results, we 

continue to apply AFA as noted above. 

Final Results of Review 

The weighted–average dumping 

margins for the POR are as follows: 

Manufacturer/exporter Margin (percent) 

Huarong:.

Axes/Adzes ................... 174.58 

PRC–Wide Entity2:.

Axes/Adzes ................... 174.58 

Bars/Wedges ................ 139.31 

Hammers/Sledges ........ 45.42 

Picks/Mattocks .............. 98.77 

2 Including TMC for all four orders (hammers/sledges, bars/wedges, axes/adzes and 

picks/mattocks) and Huarong for the bars/ 

wedges order. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following deposit requirements 

will be effective upon publication of the 

final results of these administrative 

reviews for all shipments of HFHTs 

from the PRC entered, or withdrawn 

from warehouse, for consumption on or 

after the publication date of this notice, 

as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of 

the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for 

the reviewed companies named above 

will be the rates for those firms 

established in the final results of these 

administrative reviews; (2) for any 

previously reviewed or investigated PRC 

or non–PRC exporter, not covered in 

these reviews, with a separate rate, the 

cash deposit rate will be the company–

specific rate established in the most 

recent segment of these proceedings; (3) 

for all other PRC exporters, the cash 

deposit rates will be the PRC–wide rates 

established in the final results of these 

reviews; and (4) the cash deposit rate for 

any non–PRC exporter of subject 

merchandise from the PRC who does 

not have its own rate will be the rate 

applicable to the PRC exporter that 

supplied the non–PRC exporter. These 

deposit requirements, when imposed, 

shall remain in effect until publication 

of the final results of the next 

administrative reviews. 

The PRC–Wide Cash Deposit Rates 

The current PRC–wide cash deposit 

rates are 174.58 percent for axes/adzes, 

139.31 percent for bars/wedges, 45.42 

percent for hammers/sledges, and 98.77 

percent for picks/mattocks. These 

deposit requirements shall remain in 

effect until publication of the final 

results of the next administrative 

reviews. 

Assessment Rates 

Upon completion of these 

administrative reviews, the Department 

will determine, and Customs shall 

assess, antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries. In accordance with 

19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), for the respondent 

receiving a calculated dumping margin, 

we calculated importer–specific per–

unit duty assessment rates based on the 

ratio of the total amount of the dumping 

duties calculated for the examined sales 

to the total quantity of those same sales. 

These importer–specific per–unit rates 

will be assessed uniformly on all entries 

of each importer that were made during 

the POR. In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.106(c)(2), we will instruct Customs 

to liquidate without regard to 

antidumping duties any entries for 

which the importer–specific assessment 

rate is de minimis (i.e., less than 0.5 

percent ad valorem). In testing whether 

any importer–specific assessment rate is 

de minimis, we used the reported data 

to calculate the freight on board at the 

port of export (‘‘FOB’’) price of U.S. 

sales and used this FOB price as an 

estimate for the entered value. For all 

shipments of subject merchandise for 

the four antidumping orders covering 

HFHTs from the PRC, exported by the 

respondents and imported by entities 

not identified by the respondents in 

their questionnaire responses, we will 

instruct Customs to assess antidumping 

duties at the cash deposit rate in effect 

on the date of the entry. Lastly, for the 

respondents receiving dumping rates 

based upon AFA, the Department, upon 

completion of these reviews, will 

instruct Customs to liquidate entries 

according to the AFA ad valorem rate. 

The Department will issue appraisement 

instructions directly to Customs upon 

the completion of the final results of 

these administrative reviews. 

Reimbursement of Duties 

This notice also 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 POR. 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. 

Administrative Protective Orders 

This notice also serves as a 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 19 CFR 351.305, which continues 

to govern business proprietary 

information in this segment of the 

proceeding. 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 terms of an APO is a violation 

which is subject to sanction. 

We are issuing and publishing these 

results and notice in accordance with 

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

Dated: September 6, 2005. 

Joseph A Spetrini, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix I – Decision Memorandum 

I. General Comments: 

Comment 1: Inclusion of Cast Picks 

within the Scope 

Comment 2: Adverse Facts Available 

(‘‘AFA’’) for ‘‘Agent’’ Sales 

Comment 3: AFA Rate for Bars/Wedges 

Comment 4: Subsidy Suspicion Policy 

for Surrogate Value Sources in the Bars/ 

Wedges Order 

Comment 5: Denial of Due Process 

Rights 

Comment 6: Changed Circumstance 

Reviews for the 10th and 11th AD 

Reviews of HFHTs 

Comment 7: Combination Rates & 

Master List Assessment Instructions 

II. Company Specific Comments 

Comment 8: Huarong 

A. Price Adjustment 

B. AFA for Movement Expense 

C. AFA for Labor 

D. AFA for Packing 

E. Scrap Offset 

F. Surrogate Value for Steel Billet 

G. Surrogate Value for Brokerage & 

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.