Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 214 / Monday, November 7, 2005 / Notices 67453 

1Petitioners are comprised of members of the 

California Pistachio Commission (CPC). 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

C–507–601 

Certain In–shell Roasted Pistachios 

from the Islamic Republic of Iran: 

Preliminary Results of Countervailing 

Duty Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) is conducting an 

administrative review of the 

countervailing duty (CVD) order on 

certain in–shell roasted pistachios from 

the Islamic Republic of Iran (Iran) for 

the period January 1, 2003, through 

December 31, 2003. For information on 

the net subsidy rate for the reviewed 

company, please see the ‘‘Preliminary 

Results of Review’’ section of this 

notice. Interested parties are invited to 

comment on these preliminary results. 

(See the ‘‘Public Comment’’ section of 

this notice.) 

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 7, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Darla Brown, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 3, Import Administration, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, Room 4014, 

14th Street and Constitution Avenue 

NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 

(202) 482–2786. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On October 7, 1986, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

countervailing duty order on certain in–

shell roasted pistachios from Iran. See 

Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty 

Determination and Countervailing Duty 

Order: Roasted In–Shell Pistachios from 

Iran, 51 FR 35679 (October 7, 1986) 

(Roasted Pistachios). On October 1, 

2004, the Department published a notice 

of opportunity to request an 

administrative review of this CVD order. 

See Antidumping or Countervailing 

Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended 

Investigation; Opportunity To Request 

Administrative Review, 69 FR 58889 

(October 1, 2004). On October 27, 2004, 

we received a timely request for an 

administrative review from Tehran 

Negah Nima Trading Company, Inc., 

trading as Nima Trading Company 

(Nima), the respondent company in this 

proceeding. On November 19, 2004, we 

initiated an administrative review of the 

CVD order on in–shell roasted 

pistachios from Iran covering the period 

of review (POR) January 1, 2003, 

through December 31, 2003. See 

Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews, 69 FR 67701 (November 19, 

2004). 

On November 30, 2004, petitioners1

filed an entry of appearance and request 

for verification. On December 20, 2004, 

we issued our initial questionnaire to 

the Government of Iran (GOI) and Nima. 

On December 21, 2004, Cal Pure 

Pistachios, Inc. (Cal Pure), a domestic 

interested party, submitted an entry of 

appearance. 

On January 25, 2005, and January 26, 

2005, the GOI and Nima, respectively, 

submitted questionnaire responses. On 

March 3, 2005, we issued a 

supplemental questionnaire to Nima. 

On March 31, 2005, Nima submitted its 

response to our supplemental 

questionnaire. 

On April 25, 2005, we extended the 

period for the completion of the 

preliminary results pursuant to section 

751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (the Act). See Certain In–shell 

Roasted Pistachios from the Islamic 

Republic of Iran: Extension of Time 

Limit for Preliminary Results of 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Review, 70 FR 22299 (April 29, 2005). 

On May 2, 2005, we issued a 

supplemental questionnaire to the GOI. 

On May 31, 2005, the GOI submitted its 

supplemental questionnaire response. 

On September 7, 2005, we issued a 

second supplemental questionnaire to 

Nima. On September 30, 2005, Nima 

submitted its supplemental 

questionnaire response. On September 

15, 2005, we issued a second 

supplemental questionnaire to the GOI. 

On October 4, 2005, the GOI submitted 

its supplemental questionnaire 

response. On October 6, 2005, we 

extended the time limit for Nima to 

respond to the Department’s second 

supplemental questionnaire. On October 

12, 2005, Nima submitted its complete 

supplemental questionnaire response. 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.213(b), this administrative review 

covers only those producers or exporters 

for which a review was specifically 

requested. Accordingly, this 

administrative review covers Nima and 

its grower, Razi Domghan Agricultural 

and Animal Husbandry Company (Razi), 

and ten programs for the POR January 

1, 2003, through December 31, 2003. 

Scope of Order 

The product covered by this order is 

all roasted in–shell pistachio nuts, 

whether roasted in Iran or elsewhere, 

from which the hull has been removed, 

leaving the inner hard shells and the 

edible meat, as currently classifiable in 

the HTSUS under item number 

0802.50.20.00. The written description 

of the scope of this proceeding is 

dispositive. 

Use of Facts Available 

During the course of this proceeding, 

we have repeatedly sought information 

pertaining to Nima and Razi’s use of the 

subsidy programs under review, 

including information on any and all 

loans that the companies received from 

the GOI. See pages III–3, III–7 through 

8, and III–10 of the Department’s 

December 20, 2004, initial 

questionnaire, pages 3–4 of the 

Department’s March 3, 2005, 

supplemental questionnaire to Nima, 

and pages 1–2 of the Department’s 

September 7, 2005, second 

supplemental questionnaire to Nima. In 

addition, we have repeatedly requested 

information from the GOI regarding 

loans made to Nima and Razi. See pages 

II–4 through II–5 and II–7 through II–8 

of the Department’s December 20, 2004, 

initial questionnaire, pages 3 and 5–6 of 

the Department’s May 2, 2005, 

supplemental questionnaire to the GOI, 

and page 2 of the Department’s 

September 15, 2005, second 

supplemental questionnaire to the GOI. 

In response to these inquiries relating 

to the Provision of Credit program, the 

GOI and Nima repeatedly stated that 

neither Nima nor Razi obtained any 

loans during or prior to the POR. See, 

e.g., page 21 of Nima’s January 26, 2005, 

questionnaire response and pages 10–13 

of Nima’s March 31, 2005, supplemental 

questionnaire response. However, in its 

October 12, 2005, response to the 

Department’s second supplemental 

questionnaire, Nima revealed for the 

first time that on December 13, 2003, 

Razi obtained a short–term loan from 

the Bank of Agriculture (Bank 

Keshavarzi), a GOI–owned bank. 

Section 776(a) of the Act requires the 

use of 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 required. As 

described above, Nima and the GOI 

failed to provide information regarding 

the Provision of Credit program in a 

timely manner, as requested by the 

Department. The Department works 

within a limited time frame, as provided 

in section 751(a) of the Act. Because 

Nima only disclosed its loan to the 

Department on October 12, 2005, the 

Department is unable to ask clarifying 

questions concerning the loan in 

question prior to its issuance of the 

preliminary results. Thus, due to the 

67454 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 214 / Monday, November 7, 2005 / Notices 

untimely response of Nima and the GOI 

concerning the Provision of Credit 

program, we preliminarily determine 

that their answers on this matter are 

inadequate. Therefore, we must resort to 

the use of facts otherwise available. 

Furthermore, section 776(b) of the Act 

provides that in selecting from among 

the facts available, the Department may 

use an inference that is adverse to the 

interests of a party if it determines that 

a party has failed to cooperate to the 

best of its ability. The Department finds 

that, by not providing necessary 

information specifically requested by 

the Department in a timely fashion, 

despite numerous opportunities, the 

GOI and Nima have failed to cooperate 

to the best of their abilities. Therefore, 

in selecting from among the facts 

available, the Department determines 

that an adverse inference is warranted. 

When employing an adverse inference 

in an administrative review, the Act 

indicates that the Department may rely 

upon information derived from a variety 

of sources. See 19 CFR 351.308(c). In 

applying adverse facts available in the 

instant review, we have used 

information on the record of this 

administrative review. As discussed in 

the ‘‘Analysis of Programs’’ section 

below, as adverse facts available, we 

have relied upon a benchmark interest 

rate of 24 percent, which the GOI 

reported in its questionnaire responses 

was the highest lending rate a 

commercial bank in Iran would charge 

pistachio producers. 

As discussed above, we learned of 

Razi’s receipt of a government loan in 

Nima’s October 12, 2005, supplemental 

questionnaire response. Razi’s 

admission of receipt of the government 

loan at this stage of the proceeding 

raises the concern of whether Razi and 

Nima have fully reported all subsidies 

that they may have received during the 

POR under the GOI programs subject to 

this administrative review. Therefore, 

subsequent to these preliminary results 

we will continue to examine whether 

the GOI, Nima and Razi have properly 

identified any and all subsidies that the 

companies may have received during 

the POR. Furthermore, we will continue 

to examine the appropriateness of the 

rate we are assigning as adverse facts 

available in this administrative review. 

Analysis of Programs 

I. Programs Preliminarily Determined to 

Confer Subsidies 

A. Provision of Credit 

As noted above, although Nima and 

Razi repeatedly stated that they did not 

receive any loans from the GOI during 

the POR of the instant review, in Nima’s 

October 12, 2005, second supplemental 

questionnaire response, Nima revealed 

for the first time that on December 13, 

2003, Razi obtained a short–term loan 

from the Bank of Agriculture (Bank 

Keshavarzi), a GOI–owned bank. 

We find that Nima failed to provide 

us with the information we requested in 

a timely manner. Therefore, as 

discussed above in the ‘‘Use of Facts 

Available’’ section of this notice, we 

preliminarily determine that an adverse 

inference is warranted. 

In the original investigation, we found 

that, under this program, the GOI 

provides loans at below market interest 

rates to members of the agricultural 

sector. See Roasted Pistachios. Although 

the original determination was made on 

the basis of best information available 

(BIA), no new information or evidence 

of changed circumstances has been 

presented to cause us to revisit this 

determination. The Department 

preliminarily finds this program to be 

specific under section 771(5A)(D)(iii)(I) 

of the Act because the preferential credit 

was made available to a limited number 

of customers. Moreover, we 

preliminarily determine that this 

program provides a financial 

contribution within the meaning of 

section 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act in the 

form of a loan. To determine the benefit 

conferred on Nima/Razi by this 

program, we compared the actual 

interest paid on the loan during the POR 

with the amount of interest that would 

have been paid at the applicable 

benchmark interest rate. As adverse 

facts available, we applied a benchmark 

interest rate of 24 percent, which the 

GOI reported in its questionnaire 

responses was the highest lending rate 

a commercial bank in Iran would charge 

pistachio producers. We then divided 

the benefit derived by the value of 

Razi’s total sales. On this basis, we 

preliminarily calculated a net 

countervailable subsidy of less than 

0.005 percent ad valorem for Nima/Razi. 

II. Programs Preliminarily Determined to 

Be Not Used 

Based on the information supplied by 

Nima on behalf of itself and its grower, 

Razi, we preliminarily determine that 

the programs listed below were not used 

during the POR. 

A. Provision of Fertilizer and 

Machinery 

B. Tax Exemptions 

C. Provision of Water and Irrigation 

Equipment 

D. Technical Support 

E. Duty Refunds on Imported Raw or 

Intermediate Materials Used in the 

Production of Export Goods 

F. Program to Improve Quality of 

Exports of Dried Fruit 

G. Iranian Export Guarantee Fund 

H. GOI Grants and Loans to Pistachio 

Farmers 

I. Crop Insurance for Pistachios 

Preliminary Results of Review 

In accordance with sections 751(a)(1) 

and 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.221(b)(4)(i), we have calculated an 

individual subsidy rate for Nima, the 

only exporter subject to this 

administrative review, for the POR, i.e., 

calendar year 2003. We preliminarily 

determine that the total estimated net 

countervailable subsidy rate is 0.00 

percent ad valorem. 

As Nima is the exporter, but not the 

producer, of subject merchandise, the 

Department’s final results of review will 

apply to subject merchandise exported 

by Nima and produced by Nima’s 

supplier of pistachios, Razi. See 19 CFR 

351.107(b). Therefore, we intend to 

issue the following cash deposit 

requirements, effective upon 

publication of the notice of final results 

of review for all shipments of subject 

merchandise entered, or withdrawn 

from warehouse, for consumption on or 

after the date of publication: (1) for 

merchandise exported by Nima and 

produced by Razi, the cash deposit rate 

will be the ad valorem rate calculated in 

the final results of the instant 

administrative review; (2) for 

merchandise exported by Nima and 

produced by Maghsoudi Farms, the cash 

deposit rate will be 23.18 percent, the 

rate calculated for Nima and Maghsoudi 

Farms in the new shipper reviews (see 

Certain In–Shell Pistachios (C–507–501) 

and Certain Roasted In–Shell Pistachios 

(C–507–601) from the Islamic Republic 

of Iran: Final Results of New Shipper 

Countervailing Duty Reviews, 68 FR 

4997 (January 31, 2003) (New Shipper 

Reviews); (3) for merchandise exported 

by Nima but not produced by Razi or 

Maghsoudi Farms, the cash deposit rate 

will be the ‘‘all others’’ rate established 

in the original CVD investigation (see 51 

FR 8344 (March 11, 1986)); (4) if the 

exporter is not a firm covered in this 

review, a prior review, or the original 

CVD investigation, but the producer is, 

the cash deposit rate will be the rate 

established for the most recent period 

for the producer of the merchandise; 

and (5) if neither the exporter nor 

producer is a firm covered in this 

review or the original investigation, the 

cash deposit rate for all other producers 

or exporters of the subject merchandise 

will continue to be 99.52 percent ad 

valorem. This rate is the ‘‘all others’’

rate from the final determination in the 

original investigation. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 214 / Monday, November 7, 2005 / Notices 67455 

If the final results of this review 

remain the same as these preliminary 

results, the Department intends to 

instruct U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP), within 15 days of 

publication of the final results of this 

review, to liquidate without regard to 

countervailing duties all shipments of 

subject merchandise exported by Nima 

and produced by Razi, entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption during the POR. Should 

the final results of this review remain 

the same as these preliminary results, 

the Department will also instruct CBP 

not to collect cash deposits of estimated 

countervailing duties on all shipments 

of the subject merchandise exported by 

Nima and produced by Razi, entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the date of 

publication of the final results of this 

review. 

Because the Uruguay Round 

Agreements Act (URAA) replaced the 

general rule in favor of a country–wide 

rate with a general rule in favor of 

individual rates for investigated and 

reviewed companies, the procedures for 

establishing countervailing duty rates, 

including those for non–reviewed 

companies, are now essentially the same 

as those in antidumping cases, except as 

provided for in section 777A(e)(2)(B) of 

the Act. The requested review will 

normally cover only those companies 

specifically named. See 19 CFR 

351.213(b). Pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.212(c), for all companies for which 

a review was not requested, duties must 

be assessed and cash deposits must 

continue to be collected at the cash 

deposit rate previously ordered. As 

such, the countervailing duty cash 

deposit rate applicable to a company 

can no longer change, except pursuant 

to a request for a review of that 

company. See Federal–Mogul 

Corporation and The Torrington 

Company v. United States, 822 F. Supp. 

782 (CIT 1993), and Floral Trade 

Council v. United States, 822 F. Supp. 

766 (CIT 1993) (interpreting 19 CFR 

353.22(e), the old antidumping 

regulation on automatic assessment, 

which is identical to the current 

regulation, 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(ii)). 

Therefore, the cash deposit rates for all 

companies except those covered by this 

review will be unchanged by the results 

of this review. 

We will instruct CBP to continue to 

collect cash deposits for non–reviewed 

companies at the most recent company–

specific or country–wide rate applicable 

to the company. Accordingly, the cash 

deposit rates that will be applied to 

non–reviewed companies covered by 

this order will be the rate for that 

company established in the most 

recently completed administrative 

proceeding. See Certain In–Shell 

Pistachios from the Islamic Republic of 

Iran: Final Results of Countervailing 

Duty Administrative Review, 68 FR 

41310 (July 11, 2003). These cash 

deposit rates shall apply to all non–

reviewed companies until a review of a 

company assigned these rates is 

requested. 

Public Comment 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the 

Department will disclose to parties to 

the proceeding any calculations 

performed in connection with these 

preliminary results within five days 

after the date of the public 

announcement of this notice. Pursuant 

to 19 CFR 351.309, interested parties 

may submit written comments in 

response to these preliminary results. 

Unless otherwise indicated by the 

Department, case briefs must be 

submitted within 30 days after the 

publication of these preliminary results. 

Rebuttal briefs, which are limited to 

arguments raised in case briefs, must be 

submitted no later than five days after 

the time limit for filing case briefs, 

unless otherwise specified by the 

Department. Parties who submit 

argument in this proceeding are 

requested to submit with the argument: 

(1) a statement of the issue, and (2) a 

brief summary of the argument. Parties 

submitting case and/or rebuttal briefs 

are requested to provide the Department 

copies of the public version on disk. 

Case and rebuttal briefs must be served 

on interested parties in accordance with 

19 CFR 351.303(f). Also, pursuant to 19 

CFR 351.310, within 30 days of the date 

of publication of this notice, interested 

parties may request a public hearing on 

arguments to be raised in the case and 

rebuttal briefs. Unless the Secretary 

specifies otherwise, the hearing, if 

requested, will be held two days after 

the date for submission of rebuttal 

briefs. 

Representatives of parties to the 

proceeding may request disclosure of 

proprietary information under 

administrative protective order no later 

than 10 days after the representative’s 

client or employer becomes a party to 

the proceeding, but in no event later 

than the date the case briefs, under 19 

CFR 351.309(c)(ii), are due. The 

Department will publish the final 

results of this administrative review, 

including the results of its analysis of 

issues raised in any case or rebuttal brief 

or at a hearing. 

This administrative review and notice 

are issued and published in accordance 

with sections 751(a)(1), 751(a)(3) and 

777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.221(b)(4). 

Dated: October 31, 2005. 

Joseph A. Spetrini, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 05–22145 Filed 11–4–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

(C–489–502) 

Certain Welded Carbon Steel Standard 

Pipe from Turkey: Extension of Time 

Limit for Preliminary Results of 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 7, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kristen Johnson, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 3, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue NW, 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–4793. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background Information 

On April 22, 2005, the U.S. 

Department of Commerce (‘‘the 

Department’’) published a notice of 

initiation of the administrative review of 

the countervailing duty order on certain 

welded carbon steel standard pipe from 

Turkey covering the period of review 

January 1, 2004, through December 31, 

2004. See Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews, 70 FR 20862 (April 22, 2005). 

The preliminary results are currently 

due no later than December 1, 2005. 

Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary 

Results 

Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’), 

requires the Department to make a 

preliminary determination within 245 

days after the last day of the anniversary 

month of an order or finding for which 

a review is requested. Section 

751(a)(3)(A) of the Act further states that 

if it is not practicable to complete the 

review within the time period specified, 

the administering authority may extend 

the 245-day period to issue its 

preliminary results by up to 120 days.