Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 14, 2005 / Notices 54355 

1CSG also listed the following variations of the 

company names that may have been used to 

represent it during the POR: Shenzhen CSG 

Automotive Glass Co., Ltd.; Shenzhen Benxun 

AutoGlass Co., Ltd.; Shenzhen Benxun Automotive 

Glass Co., Ltd.; Shenzhen Benxun Automotive Co., 

Ltd.; Shenzhen Benxun AutoGlass Co., Ltd., d/b/a 

Shenzhen CSG Automotive Glass Co., Ltd.; 

Shenzhen CSG Automotive Glass Co., Ltd. 

(Shenzhen Benxun Automotive Co., Ltd.); and 

Shenzhen CSG Automotive Glass Co., Ltd. 

(Shenzhen Benxun Automotive Glass Co., Ltd.). 

Subsequent to CSG’s request for an administrative 

review, the Department determined that CSG is a 

successor-in-interest to Shenzhen Benxun 

Automotive Glass Co., Ltd., which received a 

separate rate in the investigation of this proceeding. 

See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Changed Circumstances Review: Automotive 

Replacement Glass Windshields From the People’s 

Republic of China, 69 FR 43388 (July 20, 2004). 

accordance with the PRA, Title 44, 

United States Code, Chapter 35, OMB 

approved this survey under OMB 

control number 0607–0195. We will 

furnish report forms to organizations 

included in the survey. Additional 

copies are available on written request 

to the Director, U.S. Census Bureau, 

Washington, DC 20233–0101. 

Based upon the foregoing, I have 

directed that an annual survey be 

conducted for the purpose of collecting 

these data. 

Dated: September 9, 2005. 

Charles Louis Kincannon, 

Director, Bureau of the Census. 

[FR Doc. 05–18247 Filed 9–13–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–07–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Bureau of Economic Analysis 

Bureau of Economic Analysis Advisory 

Committee 

AGENCY: Bureau of Economic Analysis, 

Economics and Statistics 

Administration. 

ACTION: Notice of public meeting. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act (Public Law 

92–463 as amended by Public Law 94–

409, Public Law 96–523, Public Law 97–

375 and Public Law 105–153), we are 

giving notice of a meeting of the Bureau 

of Economic Analysis Advisory 

Committee. The meeting’s agenda is as 

follows: 1. Director’s report/update; 2. 

Communication of BEA data 

methodologies and concepts; 3. NAICS, 

NAPCS and time series continuity; 4. 

International data needs; 5. Medical care 

spending. 

DATES: Friday, November 4, 2005, the 

meeting will begin at 9 a.m. and adjourn 

at approximately 4 p.m. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will take place 

at the Bureau of Economic Analysis, 

1441 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 

20230. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

James J. Murphy, Public Affairs 

Specialist, Bureau of Economic 

Analysis, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone number: (202) 606–2787. 

Public Participation: This meeting is 

open to the public. Because of security 

procedures, anyone planning to attend 

the meeting must contact James Murphy 

of BEA at (202) 606–2787 in advance. 

The meeting is physically accessible to 

people with disabilities. Requests for 

foreign language interpretation or other 

auxiliary aids should be directed to 

James Murphy at (202) 606–2787. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Committee was established September 

2, 1999, to advise the Bureau of 

Economic Analysis (BEA) on matters 

related to the development and 

improvement of BEA’s regional 

economic accounts and proposed 

revisions to the International System of 

National Accounts. This will be the 

Committee’s ninth meeting. 

Dated: September 7, 2005. 

J. Steven Landefeld, 

Director, Bureau of Economic Analysis. 

[FR Doc. 05–18248 Filed 9–13–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–867] 

Automotive Replacement Glass 

Windshields From the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Results of 

Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(‘‘the Department’’) published its 

preliminary results of administrative 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on automotive replacement glass 

(‘‘ARG’’) windshields from the People’s 

Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) on May 9, 

2005. See Automotive Replacement 

Glass Windshields from the People’s 

Republic of China: Preliminary Results 

of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review 70 FR 24373 (May 9, 2005) 

(‘‘Preliminary Results’’). The period of 

review (‘‘POR’’) is April 1, 2003, 

through March 31, 2004. We invited 

interested parties to comment on our 

preliminary results. Based on our 

analysis of the comments received, we 

have made certain changes to our 

calculations. The final dumping margins 

for this review are listed in the ‘‘Final 

Results of Review’’ section below. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 14, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Will 

Dickerson or Jon Freed, 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) 482–1778 and (202) 

482–3818, respectively. 

Background 

On April 4, 2002, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

antidumping duty order on ARG 

windshields from the PRC. See 

Antidumping Duty Order: Automotive 

Replacement Glass Windshields from 

the People’s Republic of China, 67 FR 

16087 (April 4, 2002). On April 1, 2004, 

the Department published a notice of 

opportunity to request an administrative 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on ARG windshields from the PRC for 

the period April 1, 2003, through March 

31, 2004. See Antidumping or 

Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 

Suspended Investigation: Opportunity 

to Request Administrative Review, 69 

FR 17129 (April 1, 2004). On April 21, 

2004, Pilkington North America, Inc. 

(‘‘PNA’’), an importer of subject 

merchandise during the POR, requested 

an administrative review of Changchun 

Pilkington Safety Glass Company 

Limited and Wuhan Yaohua Pilkington 

Safety Glass Company Limited 

(collectively ‘‘the Pilkington JVs’’), 

producers from which it imported the 

subject merchandise (with PNA, 

collectively ‘‘Pilkington’’). On April 24, 

2004, Dongguan Kongwan Automobile 

Glass, Ltd. (‘‘Dongguan Kongwan’’) and 

Peaceful City, Ltd. (‘‘Peaceful City’’) 

requested an administrative review of 

their sales to the United States during 

the POR. On April 26, 2004, Fuyao 

Glass Industry Group Company, Ltd. 

(‘‘Fuyao’’) requested an administrative 

review of its sales to the United States 

during the POR. On April 29, 2004, 

Shenzhen CSG Automotive Glass Co., 

Ltd. (‘‘CSG’’) requested an 

administrative review of its sales to the 

United States during the POR.1 No other 

interested parties submitted requests for 

review. On May 27, 2004, the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register a notice of the initiation of the 

antidumping duty administrative review 

of ARG windshields from the PRC for 

the period April 1, 2003, through March 

31, 2004. See Initiation of Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Request for Revocation in 

54356 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 14, 2005 / Notices 

Part, 69 FR 30282 (May 27, 2004) 

(‘‘Initiation Notice’’). 

On October 12, 2004, the Department 

published a notice of partial rescission, 

which rescinded the administrative 

review with regard to the following 

companies: Dongguan Kongwan, Fuyao, 

and Peaceful City. See Certain 

Automotive Replacement Glass 

Windshields From the People’s Republic 

of China: Notice of Partial Rescission of 

the Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 69 FR 60612 (October 12, 2004). 

On December 3, 2004, the Department 

published a notice in the Federal 

Register extending the time limit for the 

preliminary results of review from 

December 31, 2004, to March 31, 2005. 

See Extension of Time Limit for the 

Preliminary Results of the Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review: 

Automotive Replacement Glass 

Windshields from the People’s Republic 

of China, 69 FR 70224 (December 3, 

2004). Additionally, on March 22, 2005, 

the Department published a notice in 

the Federal Register further extending 

the time limit for the preliminary results 

of review to May 2, 2005. See Extension 

of Time Limit for the Preliminary 

Results of the Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review: Automotive 

Replacement Glass Windshields from 

the People’s Republic of China, 70 FR 

14445 (March 22, 2005).The Department 

published the preliminary results on 

May 9, 2005. See Preliminary Results, 

70 FR at 24373. 

We invited parties to comment on our 

preliminary results. See Preliminary 

Results, 70 FR at 24381. On June 8, 

2005, the Department received a case 

brief from CSG. We did not receive a 

case brief from PNA or any other 

interested party. In addition, we did not 

receive any rebuttal comments. On 

August 18, 2005, we issued a 

memorandum to all interested parties 

requesting comments regarding a change 

in the Department’s calculated 

regression-based wage rate 

methodology. See Memorandum from 

Will Dickerson to the File: Automotive 

Replacement Glass Windshields from 

the People’s Republic of China—New 

Non-Market Economy Wage Rates 

(August 18, 2005). No parties provided 

comments. We have conducted this 

administrative review in accordance 

with Section 751 of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’), and 19 

CFR 351.213. 

Scope of Order 

The products covered by this order 

are ARG windshields, and parts thereof, 

whether clear or tinted, whether coated 

or not, and whether or not they include 

antennas, ceramics, mirror buttons or 

VIN notches, and whether or not they 

are encapsulated. ARG windshields are 

laminated safety glass (i.e., two layers of 

(typically float) glass with a sheet of 

clear or tinted plastic in between 

(usually polyvinyl butyral)), which are 

produced and sold for use by 

automotive glass installation shops to 

replace windshields in automotive 

vehicles (e.g., passenger cars, light 

trucks, vans, sport utility vehicles, etc.) 

that are cracked, broken or otherwise 

damaged. 

ARG windshields subject to this order 

are currently classifiable under 

subheading 7007.21.10.10 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedules of the 

United States (HTSUS). Specifically 

excluded from the scope of the order are 

laminated automotive windshields sold 

for use in original assembly of vehicles. 

While HTSUS subheadings are provided 

for convenience and customs purposes, 

our written description of the scope of 

the order is dispositive. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in the postpreliminary comments by parties in this 

review are addressed in the Issues and 

Decision Memorandum, dated 

September 6, 2005, (‘‘Decision Memo’’) 

which is hereby adopted by this notice. 

A list of the issues which parties raised 

and to which we responded in the 

Decision Memo is attached to this notice 

as an appendix. The Decision Memo is 

a public document which is on file in 

the Central Records Unit (‘‘CRU’’) in 

room B–099 in the main Department 

building, and is accessible on the Web 

at http://www.ia.ita.doc.gov/. The paper 

copy and electronic version of the 

memorandum are identical in content. 

Partial Facts—Available 

In the preliminary results, the 

Department used facts otherwise 

available in conducting its analysis of 

certain U.S. sales which were not 

reported by CSG. Sections 776(a)(2)(A) 

and 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act provide that 

the Department shall use facts available 

when an interested party withholds 

information that has been requested by 

the Department or when an interested 

party fails to provide the information 

requested in a timely manner and in the 

form requested. During verification, the 

Department discovered that CSG had 

failed to provide information regarding 

certain U.S. sales of subject 

merchandise by the deadline for 

submitting such information. See 

Preliminary Results, 70 FR at 24377. 

Consequently, the Department lacked 

information necessary to conduct a 

complete and accurate analysis of these 

U.S. sales of subject merchandise and 

determined to use facts otherwise 

available for the U.S. sales which were 

not reported by CSG. See sections 

776(a)(1) and 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act. 

Section 776(b) of the Act provides 

that the Department may use adverse 

inferences when an interested party has 

failed to cooperate by not acting to the 

best of its ability to comply with the 

Department’s request for information. In 

applying facts available to the 

unreported sales, the Department 

determined that adverse inferences were 

warranted because CSG failed to 

cooperate by not acting to the best of its 

ability to comply with the Department’s 

requests to report all U.S. sales in a 

timely manner. CSG had numerous 

opportunities to present complete and 

accurate information regarding its U.S. 

sales but failed to do so. See Preliminary 

Results, 70 FR at 24377. Because the 

administrative record was incomplete 

with regard to these unreported U.S. 

sales, the Department applied the PRCwide rate from the petition as adverse 

facts available (‘‘AFA’’), in accordance 

with Section 776(b) of the Act. See 

Preliminary Results, 70 FR at 24377. 

There have been no arguments 

submitted to cause us to reconsider our 

decision in the preliminary results in 

this respect. Therefore, we have 

determined that the application of 

partial facts available continues to be 

appropriate for certain U.S. sales which 

were not reported by CSG. 

Corroboration of Adverse Facts 

Available 

Section 776(c) of the Act provides 

that, when the Department relies on 

secondary information rather than on 

information obtained in the course of an 

investigation or review as facts 

available, it must, to the extent 

practicable, corroborate that information 

from independent sources reasonably at 

its disposal. Secondary information is 

defined in the Statement of 

Administrative Action (‘‘SAA’’) as 

‘‘information derived from the petition 

that gave rise to the investigation or 

review, the final determination 

concerning the subject merchandise, or 

any previous review under section 751 

concerning the subject merchandise.’’

See SAA at 870. The SAA provides that 

to ‘‘corroborate’’ means simply that the 

Department will satisfy itself that the 

secondary information to be used has 

probative value. See SAA at 870. The 

SAA also states that independent 

sources used to corroborate may 

include, for example, published price 

lists, official import statistics and 

customs data, and information obtained 

from interested parties during the 

particular investigation or review. See 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 14, 2005 / Notices 54357 

SAA at 870. As noted in Tapered Roller 

Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished 

and Unfinished, from Japan, and 

Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or 

Less in Outside Diameter, and 

Components Thereof, from Japan; 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Reviews and 

Partial Termination of Administrative 

Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 (November 

6, 1996), to corroborate secondary 

information, the Department will, to the 

extent practicable, examine the 

reliability and relevance of the 

information used. 

In the preliminary results, we 

corroborated the petition rate that was 

applied as AFA to CSG’s unreported 

sales. See Preliminary Results, 70 FR at 

24378; see also Memorandum from Will 

Dickerson to Robert Bolling: 

Corroboration of the PRC-Wide Adverse 

Facts-Available Rate, dated May 2, 2005 

(‘‘Second Review Preliminary 

Corroboration Memo’’). The Department 

explained that the reliability of the 

petition rate was determined in the 

investigation and that no information in 

the current review was presented that 

challenges the reliability of this 

information. See Second Review 

Preliminary Corroboration Memo at 2. 

Since the preliminary results, no parties 

have placed arguments on the record to 

cause us to reconsider the reliability of 

the petition rate. Thus, the Department 

continues to find that the information is 

reliable. 

In the preliminary results, the 

Department found the petition rate to be 

relevant because the record of this 

administrative review contained 

margins within the range of the petition 

margin, although we stated that we 

would reexamine its relevancy by 

considering all margins on the record at 

the time of the final results. See 

Preliminary Results, 70 FR at 24378. In 

these final results, the Department 

compared the final margin calculations 

in this administrative review with the 

rate of 124.5 percent from the original 

petition to assess the relevancy of the 

partial AFA rate it has chosen. We find 

that the highest dumping margins for 

both CSG and PNA exceed the petition 

rate of 124.5 percent. See Memorandum 

from Will Dickerson to Robert Bolling: 

Corroboration of the PRC-Wide Adverse 

Facts—Available Rate, dated September 

6, 2005, at Attachment 1. Therefore, the 

PRC-wide rate continues to be within 

the range of the highest margins we 

have determined in this administrative 

review. Since the record of this 

administrative review contains margins 

within the range of the petition margin, 

we determine that the rate from the 

petition continues to be relevant for use 

in this administrative review. Further, 

the rate used is currently applicable to 

all exporters subject to the PRC-wide 

rate. 

As the petition rate is both reliable 

and relevant, we determine that it has 

probative value. As a result, the 

Department determines that the petition 

rate is corroborated, to the extent 

practicable, for the purposes of this 

administrative review and may 

reasonably be applied to CSG as a 

partial AFA rate. Accordingly, we 

determine that the highest rate from any 

segment of this administrative 

proceeding (i.e., the rate of 124.5 

percent) is corroborated in accordance 

with the requirement under section 

776(c) of the Act (i.e., has probative 

value), and we have assigned this rate 

to CSG’s unreported sales. 

Changes Since the Preliminary Results 

Based on our analysis of comments 

received, we have made changes in the 

margin calculations for CSG. See 

Decision Memo at 6. In the preliminary 

results, the Department inadvertently 

made a currency conversion error with 

respect to certain unreported sales of 

CSG. For the final results, the 

Department corrected the currency 

conversion error. 

Additionally, for these final results, 

the Department has modified its 

regression-based PRC wage rate. The 

specific calculation changes can be 

found in CSG Final Analysis Memo and 

Final Results of Review of the Order on 

Automotive Replacement Glass 

Windshields from the People’s Republic 

of China: Pilkington North America 

Program Analysis for the Final Results 

of Review Memorandum from Will 

Dickerson, Case Analyst, through Robert 

Bolling, Program Manager, Office VIII to 

the File, dated September 6, 2005 (‘‘PNA 

Final Analysis Memo’’). 

Final Results of Review 

We determine that the following 

percentage margins exist on exports of 

ARG windshields from the PRC for the 

period April 1, 2003, through March 31, 

2004: 

AUTOMOTIVE REPLACEMENT GLASS

WINDSHIELDS FROM THE PRC 

Producer/Manufacturer/ 

Exporter 

Weightedaverage 

margin 

percent) 

CSG ...................................... 0.93 

Pilkington .............................. 0.91 

Assessment Rates 

The Department will issue 

appraisement instructions directly to 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(‘‘CBP’’) within 15 days of publication 

of these final results of administrative 

review. In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.212(b)(1), we have calculated 

importer-specific assessment rates for 

merchandise subject to this review. For 

CSG, we divided the total dumping 

margins of its reviewed sales by the total 

entered value of its reviewed sales for 

each applicable importer to calculate 

ad-valorem assessment rates. Because 

Pilkington did not report entered value, 

we divided the total dumping margins 

of its reviewed sales by the total 

quantity (measured in square meters) of 

subject merchandise sold to each 

applicable importer during the POR to 

calculate a per-unit assessment amount. 

We will direct CBP to assess the 

resulting assessment rates against the 

entered customs values for the subject 

merchandise on each importer’s entries 

under the relevant order during the 

POR. 

To determine whether the duty 

assessment rates were de minimis, in 

accordance with the requirement set 

forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we 

calculated importer-specific ad valorem 

rates. For CSG, we aggregated the 

dumping margins calculated for all U.S. 

sales to each importer and divided this 

amount by the entered value of the sales 

to each importer. For further details see 

CSG Final Analysis Memo. For 

Pilkington, we divided the total 

dumping margins for each importer by 

a constructed entered value of the sales 

to each importer, as Pilkington did not 

report entered value. For further details 

see PNA Final Analysis Memo. Where 

an importer-specific ad valorem rate is 

de minimis, we will order CBP to 

liquidate appropriate entries without 

regard to antidumping duties. 

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 ARG windshields from the PRC 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the date of 

publication, as provided by Section 

751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit 

rates for the reviewed companies will be 

the rates shown above, except that the 

Department shall require no deposit of 

estimated antidumping duties for firms 

whose weighted-average margins are 

less than 0.5 percent and therefore de 

minimis; (2) for previously reviewed or 

investigated companies not listed above 

54358 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 14, 2005 / Notices 

that have separate rate, the cash deposit 

rate will continue to be the companyspecific rate published for the most 

recent period; (3) the cash deposit rate 

for all other PRC exporters will be 124.5 

percent, the current PRC-wide rate; and 

(4) the cash deposit rate for all non-PRC 

exporters will be the rate applicable to 

the PRC exporter that supplied that 

exporter. These deposit requirements, 

when imposed, shall remain in effect 

until publication of the final results of 

the next administrative review. 

Notification of Interested Parties 

This notice also 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 during this 

review period. Failure to comply with 

this requirement could result in the 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of the antidumping 

duties occurred and the subsequent 

assessment of double antidumping 

duties. 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to parties subject to administrative 

protective orders (‘‘APOs’’) 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 this 

determination and notice in accordance 

with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of 

the Act. 

Dated: September 6, 2005. 

Joseph A. Spetrini, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix 1—Issues in the Decision 

Memorandum 

Shenzhen CSG’s Comments 

Comment 1: Currency Used to Value Certain 

Unreported Sales of CSG 

Comment 2: Treatment of the By-Product 

Offset in Normal Value 

[FR Doc. 05–18175 Filed 9–13–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–831] 

Fresh Garlic From the People’s 

Republic of China: Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty New Shipper 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

ACTION: Rescission of antidumping duty 

new shipper review. 

SUMMARY: On June 30, 2005, the 

Department of Commerce (‘‘the 

Department’’) initiated a new shipper 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on fresh garlic from the People’s 

Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) covering the 

period November 1, 2004, through April 

30, 2005. See Fresh Garlic from the 

People’s Republic of China: Notice of 

Initiation of New Shipper Antidumping 

Duty Review, 70 FR 39733 (July 11, 

2005) (‘‘Initiation Notice’’). This new 

shipper review covered three exporters, 

Shandong Chenshun Farm Produce 

Trading Company, Ltd., Shenzhen 

Fanhui Import and Export Co., Ltd., and 

Xi’an XiongLi Foodstuff Co., Ltd. (‘‘Xian 

XiongLi’’). For the reasons discussed 

below, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(f)(1), 

we are rescinding the review of Xian 

XiongLi. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 14, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ryan Douglas or Brian Ledgerwood at 

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) 482–1277 and (202) 

482–3836, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On May 26, 2005, the Department 

received a timely request for a new 

shipper review of the antidumping duty 

order on fresh garlic from the PRC from 

Xian XiongLi, an exporter of subject 

merchandise sold to the United States. 

On June 30, 2005, the Department 

initiated this new shipper review 

covering the period November 1, 2004, 

through April 30, 2005. On August 9, 

2005, the Department received a timely 

request from Xian XiongLi to withdraw 

its request for this review. See Letter 

from Xian XiongLi Foodstuff Co., Ltd. to 

the Department, August 9, 2005. 

Scope of the Antidumping Duty Order 

The products subject to this 

antidumping duty order are all grades of 

garlic, whole or separated into 

constituent cloves, whether or not 

peeled, fresh, chilled, frozen, 

provisionally preserved, or packed in 

water or other neutral substance, but not 

prepared or preserved by the addition of 

other ingredients or heat processing. 

The differences between grades are 

based on color, size, sheathing, and 

level of decay. 

The scope of this order does not 

include (a) garlic that has been 

mechanically harvested and that is 

primarily, but not exclusively, destined 

for non-fresh use or (b) garlic that has 

been specially prepared and cultivated 

prior to planting and then harvested and 

otherwise prepared for use as seed. 

The subject merchandise is used 

principally as a food product and for 

seasoning. The subject garlic is 

currently classifiable under subheadings 

0703.20.0000, 0710.80.7060, 

0710.80.9750, 0711.90.6000, and 

2005.90.9500 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’). Although the HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

written description of the scope of this 

proceeding is dispositive. 

In order to be excluded from 

antidumping duties, garlic entered 

under the HTSUS subheadings listed 

above that is (1) mechanically harvested 

and primarily, but not exclusively, 

destined for non-fresh use, or (2) 

specially prepared and cultivated prior 

to planting and then harvested and 

otherwise prepared for use as seed, must 

be accompanied by declarations to the 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(‘‘CBP’’) to that effect. 

Rescission of New Shipper Review 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(f)(1), the 

Department will rescind a new shipper 

review if a party that requested a review 

withdraws its request not later than 60 

days after the date of publication of the 

notice of initiation of the requested 

review. Xian XiongLi; withdrew its 

request for a new shipper review on 

August 09, 2005, before the expiration 

of the 60-day deadline. No other party 

requested a new shipper review of Xian 

XiongLi, therefore, we are rescinding 

the new shipper review of the 

antidumping duty order on fresh garlic 

from the PRC with respect to Xian 

XiongLi in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.214(f)(1). 

Cash Deposits 

The Department will issue 

appropriate cash deposit instructions to 

CBP for shipments from Xian XiongLi of 

fresh garlic from the PRC entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for