45212 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 150 / Monday, August 4, 2008 / Notices 

1 120 days from August 1, 2008, is November 29, 

2008. However, Department practice dictates that 

where a deadline falls on a weekend, the 

appropriate deadline is the next business day. See 

Notice of Clarification: Application of ‘‘Next 

Business Day’’ Rule for Administrative 

Determination Deadlines Pursuant to the Act, 70 FR 

24533 (May 10, 2005). 

1 In the third administrative review, the 

Department collapsed Valle Frio with its affiliated 

producer, Agricola Framparque (Framparque). See 

Memorandum to Susan Kuhbach, Director, 

‘‘Collapsing of Sociedad Agroindustrial Valle Frio 

Ltda.,’’ dated July 31, 2006. See Notice of 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, Notice of Intent to Revoke 

in Part: Certain Individually Quick Frozen Red 

Raspberries from Chile (unchanged in final) (Third 

Administrative Review of Raspberries from Chile), 

71 FR 45000, 45001 (Aug. 8, 2006). There has been 

no change in the facts since then, so for the instant 

administrative review, we are treating Valle Frio 

and Framparque as a single entity. 

month of the date of publication of the 

order. The Act further provides, 

however, that the Department may 

extend that 245-day period to 365 days 

if it is not practicable to complete the 

review within the foregoing time period. 

The Department finds that it is not 

practicable to complete the preliminary 

results by the current deadline of 

August 1, 2008. The Department has 

gathered and must analyze a significant 

amount of information pertaining to 

each company’s corporate structure and 

ownership, sales practices, and 

manufacturing methods. Furthermore, 

this review involves the extraordinarily 

complicated intermediate input 

methodology issue. Therefore, the 

Department requires additional time to 

analyze the questionnaire responses and 

to issue supplemental questionnaires. 

Therefore, in accordance with section 

751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department 

is extending the time limit for the 

preliminary results by 120 days until no 

later than December 1, 2008,1 which is 

367 days after the last day of the 

anniversary month of the date of 

publication of the order. Unless 

extended, the final results continue to 

be due 120 days after the publication of 

the preliminary results, pursuant to 

section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 

section 351.213(h)(1) of the 

Department’s regulations. 

This notice is issued and published in 

accordance to sections 751(a)(1) and 

777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: July 21, 2008. 

Stephen J. Claeys, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E8–17831 Filed 8–1–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–337–806] 

Notice of Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review: Certain Individually Quick 

Frozen Red Raspberries from Chile 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

is conducting an administrative review 

of the antidumping duty order on 

certain individually quick frozen (IQF) 

red raspberries from Chile. The period 

of review (POR) is July 1, 2006, through 

June 30, 2007. This review covers sales 

of IQF red raspberries by producer/ 

exporter Sociedad Agroindustrial Valle 

Frio Ltda. We preliminarily find that, 

during the POR, sales of IQF red 

raspberries were not made below 

normal value. Interested parties are 

invited to comment on these 

preliminary results. We will issue the 

final results not later than 120 days from 

the date of publication of this notice. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 4, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Alexander Montoro or Nancy Decker, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20230; 

telephone (202) 482–0238 and (202) 

482–0196, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On July 9, 2002, the Department of 

Commerce (Department) published an 

antidumping duty order on certain IQF 

red raspberries from Chile. See Notice of 

Antidumping Duty Order: IQF Red 

Raspberries From Chile, 67 FR 45460 

(July 9, 2002). On July 3, 2006, the 

Department published a notice of 

opportunity to request administrative 

review of this order. See Antidumping 

or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, 

or Suspended Investigation; 

Opportunity to Request Administrative 

Review, 72 FR 36420 (July 3, 2007). On 

July 31, 2007, we received a request for 

review from Sociedad Agroindustrial 

Valle Frio Ltda. (Valle Frio).1 On August 

30, 2006, we initiated the fourth 

administrative review for Valle Frio. See 

Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Request for Revocation in 

Part, 72 FR 48613 (Aug. 24, 2007). On 

September 17, 2007, the Department 

issued an antidumping questionnaire to 

Valle Frio. Valle Frio submitted its 

initial responses to the antidumping 

questionnaire from October 2007 

through November 2007. 

On March 7, 2008, we requested that 

Valle Frio respond to the Constructed 

Value (CV) portion of the Department’s 

questionnaire. For further discussion, 

see ‘‘Calculation of Normal Value Based 

on Constructed Value’’ section of this 

notice. 

On March 21, 2008, the Department 

published in the Federal Register an 

extension of the time limit for the 

completion of the preliminary results of 

this review until no later than July 30, 

2008, in accordance with section 

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

amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 

351.213(h)(2). See Certain Individually 

Quick Frozen Red Raspberries from 

Chile: Notice of Extension of Time Limit 

for Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 

15134 (Mar. 21, 2008). 

On March 13, 2008, the Department 

issued a supplemental questionnaire to 

Valle Frio, and Valle Frio submitted its 

response on April 7, 2008. On April 1, 

2008, Valle Frio submitted a response to 

Department’s request for CV 

information. After analyzing these 

responses, we issued a second 

supplemental questionnaire to Valle 

Frio on June 13, 2008. We received a 

timely filed response on July 07, 2008. 

Scope of the Order 

The products covered by this order 

are imports of IQF whole or broken red 

raspberries from Chile, with or without 

the addition of sugar or syrup, 

regardless of variety, grade, size or 

horticulture method (e.g., organic or 

not), the size of the container in which 

packed, or the method of packing. The 

scope of the order excludes fresh red 

raspberries and block frozen red 

raspberries (i.e., puree, straight pack, 

juice stock, and juice concentrate). 

The merchandise subject to this order 

is currently classifiable under 

subheading 0811.20.2020 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS). Although the 

HTSUS subheading is provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

written description of the merchandise 

under the order is dispositive. 

Fair Value Comparisons 

To determine whether sales of IQF red 

raspberries from Chile to the United 

States were made at less than normal 

value (NV), we compared export price 

(EP) to NV, as described in the ‘‘Export 

Price’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of 

this notice. We note that we continue to 

have outstanding sales reconciliation 

issues with Valle Frio’s responses. For 

purposes of calculating these 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 150 / Monday, August 4, 2008 / Notices 45213 

2See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value: IQF Red Raspberries from 

Chile, 67 FR 35790 (May 21, 2002) (‘‘Final 

Determination’’). 

preliminary results, we are accepting 

the data provided by Valle Frio. 

However, we intend to ask for further 

information following publication of 

these preliminary results to determine 

whether the aforementioned responses 

accurately reflect Valle Frio’s sales. 

Product Comparison 

In accordance with section 771(16) of 

the Act, we considered all products sold 

by the respondent in the comparison 

market covered by the description in the 

‘‘Scope of the Order’’ section, above, to 

be foreign–like products for purposes of 

determining appropriate product 

comparisons to U.S. sales. In accordance 

with section 773(a)(1)(C)(ii) of the Act, 

in order to determine whether there was 

a sufficient volume of sales in the home 

market to serve as a viable basis for 

calculating NV, we compared the 

respondent’s volume of home market 

sales of the foreign–like product to the 

volume of its U.S. sales of the subject 

merchandise. See the ‘‘Normal Value’’

section, below, for further details. 

Normally, we compare U.S. sales to 

monthly weighted average prices of 

contemporaneous sales made in the 

comparison market. The Department 

determined that for merchandise sold in 

the United States, Valle Frio did not 

have valid comparison market sales 

matches because the calculated 

difference–in-merchandise (DIFMER) 

was greater than twenty percent for all 

matches for reported U.S. sales control 

numbers (CONNUMs). See 

Memorandum to the File, ‘‘Difference–

in-merchandise Calculation for 

Sociedad Agroindustrial Valle Frio 

Ltda.’’ dated March 7, 2008; and 

Memorandum from Yasmin Nair, 

International Trade Compliance 

Analyst, to Susan Kuhbach, Director, 

Office 1, ‘‘Request for Constructed 

Value’’ dated March 7, 2008. Since there 

were no sales of identical or similar 

merchandise made in the ordinary 

course of trade in the comparison 

market, we compared U.S. sales to 

constructed value (CV). In making 

product comparisons, consistent with 

our determination in the original 

investigation, we matched foreign like 

products based on the physical 

characteristics reported by the 

respondent in the following order: 

grade, variety, form, cultivation method, 

and additives. See Notice of Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less than Fair 

Value and Postponement of Final 

Determination: IQF Red Raspberries 

from Chile, 66 FR 67510, 67511 (Dec. 

31, 2001) unchanged in Final 

Determination.2

Normally, the Department employs 

invoice date as the date of sale. See 19 

CFR 351.401(i). However, if the 

Department determines that another 

date reflects the date on which the 

exporter or producer establishes the 

material terms of sale, the Department 

may use this date. See id. Valle Frio 

ships the subject merchandise on or 

before the date of invoice. We are using 

the date of shipment (i.e., guia de 

despacho/dispatch note date) as the 

date of sale, because this is the date on 

which the material terms of sale were 

established. See, e.g., Certain Cold–

Rolled and Corrosion–Resistant Carbon 

Steel Flat Products From Korea: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Reviews, 63 FR 13170, 

13172–73 (March 18, 1998). 

Export Price 

For sales to the United States, we 

calculated Export Price (EP), in 

accordance with section 772 of the Act. 

Section 772(a) of the Act defines EP as 

the price at which the subject 

merchandise is first sold before the date 

of importation by the exporter or 

producer outside the United States to an 

unaffiliated purchaser in the United 

States, or to an unaffiliated purchaser 

for exportation to the United States. 

We calculated EP because the 

merchandise was sold by the exporter or 

producer outside the United States to an 

unaffiliated purchaser in the United 

States prior to importation and because 

constructed export price methodology 

was not otherwise warranted. We based 

EP on the packed, FOB price to 

unaffiliated purchasers in the United 

States. We made deductions from the 

starting price for movement expenses in 

accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of 

the Act. These included, where 

appropriate, inland freight incurred in 

transporting merchandise to the Chilean 

port and domestic brokerage and 

handling expenses. 

Normal Value 

Home Market Viability 

Section 773(a)(1) of the Act directs 

that NV be based on the price at which 

the foreign–like product is sold in the 

home market, provided that the 

merchandise is sold in sufficient 

quantities (or value, if quantity is 

inappropriate) and that there is no 

particular market situation that prevents 

a proper comparison with the EP. 

Quantities (or value) will normally be 

considered insufficient if they are less 

than five percent of the aggregate 

quantity (or value) of sales of the subject 

merchandise to the United States. See 

19 CFR 351.404(b)(2). 

Valle Frio reported that its home 

market sales of IQF red raspberries 

during the POR were less than five 

percent of its sales of IQF red 

raspberries to the United States. 

Therefore, Valle Frio did not have a 

viable home market for purposes of 

calculating NV. Valle Frio reported sales 

to France, which was its largest third 

country market. Valle Frio reported that 

no other third country markets were 

viable and sales to France exceeded five 

percent of its sales to the United States. 

Accordingly, for purposes of calculating 

NV, Valle Frio reported its sales to 

France. 

To derive NV, we made the 

adjustments detailed in the ‘‘Calculation 

of Normal Value Based on Comparison 

Market Prices’’ and ‘‘Calculation of 

Normal Value Based on Constructed 

Value’’ sections, below. 

A. Calculation of Normal Value Based 

on Comparison Market Prices 

Even though, as explained above, 

Valle Frio did not have valid 

comparison market sales matches, we 

calculated NV for purposes of 

determining selling expenses and profit 

to be included in CV. To calculate the 

CV profit percentage, we based 

comparison market prices on the packed 

prices to unaffiliated purchasers in 

France. We adjusted the starting price 

by deducting movement expenses, 

including, where appropriate, inland 

freight from the plant to the port, 

international freight, and container 

handling/brokerage charges. We also 

deducted direct and indirect selling 

expenses incurred for comparison 

market sales (e.g., commissions, 

microbiological/pesticide testing, label 

expenses), and comparison market 

packing expenses. We then deducted 

total comparison market cost of 

production from the net comparison 

market price, and divided by total 

comparison market cost of production to 

arrive at the CV profit percentage. See 

Memorandum to the File, ‘‘Preliminary 

Results Calculation Memorandum for 

Sociedad Agroindustrial Valle Frio 

Ltda.,’’ dated July 28, 2008 (Valle Frio 

Preliminary Calculation Memorandum), 

which is on file in the Department’s 

Central Records Unit, Room 1117 of 

the–main Department building. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
45214 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 150 / Monday, August 4, 2008 / Notices 

B. Calculation of Normal Value Based 

on Constructed Value 

Section 773(a)(4) of the Act provides 

that where NV cannot be based on 

comparison–market sales, NV may be 

based on CV. As noted above, the 

Department determined that for 

merchandise sold in the United States, 

Valle Frio did not have valid 

comparison market sales matches 

because the calculated DIFMER was 

greater than the twenty percent for all 

matches for reported U.S. sales 

CONNUMs. See Memorandum to the 

File, ‘‘Difference–in-merchandise 

Calculation for Sociedad Agroindustrial 

Valle Frio Ltda.’’ dated March 7, 2008; 

and Memorandum from Yasmin Nair, 

International Trade Compliance 

Analyst, to Susan Kuhbach, Director, 

Office 1, ‘‘Request for Constructed 

Value’’ dated March 7, 2008. 

Accordingly, we based NV on the CV. 

Section 773(e) of the Act provides that 

the CV shall be based on the sum of the 

cost of materials and fabrication for the 

imported merchandise, plus amounts 

for selling, general and administrative 

(SG&A) expenses, profit, and U.S. 

packing costs. We based SG&A expenses 

and profit on the actual amounts 

incurred and realized by the respondent 

in connection with the production and 

sale of the foreign–like product in the 

ordinary course of trade for 

consumption in the comparison market, 

in accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) 

of the Act. We used U.S. packing costs 

as described in the ‘‘Export Price’’

section, above. 

We relied on the CV data submitted 

by Valle Frio. We note that we continue 

to have outstanding cost reconciliation 

and valuation issues with Valle Frio’s 

responses. For purposes of calculating 

these preliminary results, we are 

accepting the data provided by Valle 

Frio. However, we intend to ask for 

further information following 

publication of these preliminary results 

to determine whether the 

aforementioned responses accurately 

reflect Valle Frio’s constructed value. 

We made adjustments to CV for 

differences in Circumstances of Sale 

(COS) in accordance with section 

773(a)(8) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. 

For comparisons to EP, we made COS 

adjustments by deducting direct selling 

expenses incurred on comparison 

market sales from, and adding U.S. 

direct selling expenses to, CV. We also 

made adjustments, in accordance with 

19 CFR 351.410(e), for indirect selling 

expenses incurred on comparison 

market or U.S. sales where commissions 

were granted on sales in one market but 

not in the other (the commission offset). 

Specifically, where commissions were 

granted in the U.S. market but not in the 

comparison market, we made a 

downward adjustment to NV for the 

lesser of: (1) the amount of the 

commission paid in the U.S. market; or 

(2) the amount of indirect selling 

expenses incurred in the comparison 

market. If commissions were granted in 

the comparison market but not in the 

U.S. market, we made an upward 

adjustment to NV (based on CV) 

following the same methodology. 

Currency Conversion 

We made currency conversions in 

accordance with section 773A(a) of the 

Act based on the exchange rates in effect 

on the date of the U.S. sale as reported 

by the Federal Reserve Bank. 

Preliminary Results of Review 

We preliminarily find the following 

weighted–average dumping margin: 

Exporter/manufacturer Weighted–average 

margin percentage 

Sociedad Agroindustrial 

Valle Frio Ltda./ 

Agricola Framparque 0.28 (de minimis) 

Public Comment and Disclosure 

Within ten days of publicly 

announcing the preliminary results of 

this review, we will disclose to 

interested parties any calculations 

performed in connection with the 

preliminary results. See 19 CFR 

351.224(b). Any interested party may 

request a hearing within 30 days of 

publication of this notice. Any hearing, 

if requested, will be held 37 days after 

the publication of this notice, or the first 

business day thereafter. Issues raised in 

the hearing will be limited to those 

raised in the case and rebuttal briefs. 

Interested parties may submit case briefs 

within 30 days of the date of publication 

of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.309(c). 

Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited 

to issues raised in the case briefs, may 

be filed not later than five days after the 

date for filing case briefs. See 19 CFR 

351.309(d). Parties who submit case 

briefs or rebuttal briefs in this 

proceeding are requested to submit with 

each argument: (1) a statement of the 

issue; (2) a brief summary of the 

argument with an electronic version 

included; and (3) a table of statutes, 

regulations, and cases cited. See 19 CFR 

351.309(c)(2). 

The Department will issue the final 

results of this administrative review, 

including the results of its analysis of 

issues raised in any such written briefs 

or hearing, within 120 days of 

publication of these preliminary results. 

Assessment Rates 

Upon completion of the 

administrative review, the Department 

shall determine, and Customs and 

Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.212(b)(1), for all sales made by Valle 

Frio for which it has reported the 

importer of record and the entered value 

of the U.S. sales, we have calculated 

importer–specific assessment rates 

based on the ratio of the total amount of 

antidumping duties calculated for the 

examined sales to the total entered 

value of those sales. Where the 

respondent did not report the entered 

value for U.S. sales, we have calculated 

importer–specific assessment rates for 

the merchandise in question by 

aggregating the dumping margins 

calculated for all U.S. sales to each 

importer and dividing this amount by 

the total quantity of those sales. 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 based on the 

estimated entered value. Where the 

assessment rate is above de minimis, we 

will instruct CBP to assess duties on all 

entries of subject merchandise by that 

importer. Pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to 

liquidate without regard to antidumping 

duties any entries for which the 

assessment rate is de minimis (i.e., less 

than 0.50 percent). The Department will 

issue assessment instructions directly to 

CBP within 15 days of publication of the 

final results of this review. 

The Department clarified its 

‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on 

May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 

Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 

FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This 

clarification will apply to entries of 

subject merchandise during the POR 

produced by the respondent for which 

it did not know its merchandise was 

destined for the United States. In such 

instances, we will instruct CBP to 

liquidate unreviewed entries at the all–

others rate if there is no rate for the 

intermediate company(ies) involved in 

the transaction. For a full discussion of 

this clarification, see Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 

Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 

FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

On July 20, 2007, the Department 

published a Federal Register notice 

that, inter alia, revoked this order, 

effective July 9, 2007. See IQF Red 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 150 / Monday, August 4, 2008 / Notices 45215 

Raspberries from Chile: Final Results of 

Sunset Review and Revocation of Order, 

72 FR 39793 (July 20, 2007). Therefore, 

there will be no need to issue new cash 

deposit instructions pursuant to the 

final results of this administrative 

review. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice also serves as a 

preliminary 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 antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties. 

We are issuing and publishing these 

results in accordance with sections 

751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: July 28, 2008. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E8–17810 Filed 8–1–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–469–814] 

Chlorinated Isocyanurates from Spain: 

Notice of Rescission of Antidumping 

Duty New Shipper Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In response to a request from 

Inquide Flix S.A. (Inquide), on February 

13, 2008, the Department of Commerce 

(the Department) published in the 

Federal Register a notice announcing 

the initiation of a new shipper review of 

the antidumping duty order on 

chlorinated isocyanurates from Spain, 

covering the period June 1, 2007, 

through November 30, 2007. On July 22, 

2008, Inquide withdrew its request for 

a new shipper review and, therefore, we 

are rescinding this review. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 4, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Scott Lindsay, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 6, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–0780. 

Background 

The Department received a timely 

request from Inquide, in accordance 

with section 751(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 

19 CFR 351.214(c), for a new shipper 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on chlorinated isocyanurates from 

Spain. On February 13, 2008, the 

Department found that the request for 

review with respect to Inquide met all 

of the regulatory requirements set forth 

in 19 CFR 351.214(b) and initiated an 

antidumping duty new shipper review. 

See Chlorinated Isocyanurates from 

Spain: Initiation of Antidumping Duty 

New Shipper Review, 73 FR 8290 

(February 13, 2008) (Initiation Notice). 

However, the Department noted in the 

initiation notice that it had concerns 

with Inquide’s eligibility for a new 

shipper review, specifically regarding 

Inquide’s certification that it had never 

been affiliated with any producers or 

exporters of subject merchandise. See 

Initiation Notice. 

On February 14, 2008, the Department 

issued a questionnaire requesting that 

Inquide clarify whether it has ever been 

affiliated with any exporter or producer 

who exported subject merchandise to 

the United States during the original 

period of investigation. Included in this 

questionnaire was documentation from 

the first administrative review of 

chlorinated isocyanurates from Spain, 

which called into question Inquide’s 

certification regarding its affiliations. 

See the Department’s February 14, 2008 

questionnaire. Inquide responded to our 

questionnaire on February 26, 2008. 

On July 22, 2008, Inquide withdrew 

its request for a new shipper review. 

Rescission of New Shipper Review 

Section 351.214(f)(1) of the 

Department’s regulations provides that 

the Department may rescind a new 

shipper review if the party that 

requested the review withdraws its 

request for review within 60 days of the 

date of publication of the notice of 

initiation of the requested review. 

Although Inquide withdrew its request 

after the 60–day deadline, we find it 

reasonable to extend the deadline 

because we have not yet committed 

significant resources to the Inquide new 

shipper review. Specifically, we have 

not issued the initial questionnaire. 

Further, Inquide was the only party to 

request this review. Finally, we have not 

received any submissions opposing the 

withdrawal of the request for the 

review. For these reasons, we are 

rescinding the new shipper review of 

the antidumping duty order on 

chlorinated isocyanurates from Spain 

with respect to Inquide in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.214(f)(1). 

Notification 

As the Department is rescinding this 

antidumping duty new shipper review, 

normally, the all–others rate in effect at 

the time of entry, 24.83 percent ad 

valorem, would apply to all exports of 

chlorinated isocyanurates from Spain by 

Inquide entered, or withdrawn, from 

warehouse for consumption during the 

period of review (June 1, 2007, through 

November 30, 2007). However, a request 

for a review of Inquide’s shipments has 

also been made for the administrative 

review of chlorinated isocyanurates 

from Spain, covering the period June 1, 

2007 through May 31, 2008. Because the 

sale(s) from this new shipper review 

also fall within the period of review of 

the administrative review, the 

Department will not issue assessment 

instructions to U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) at this time. Upon the 

completion of the June 1, 2007 through 

May 31, 2008 administrative review, the 

Department will issue assessment 

instructions to CBP as appropriate. 

This notice also serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective orders 

(‘‘APO’’) of their responsibility 

concerning the disposition of 

proprietary information disclosed under 

APO in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.305(a)(3). Timely written 

notification of the return/destruction of 

APO material 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 sanctions. 

This new shipper rescission and 

notice are published in accordance with 

sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i)(1) of the 

Act. 

Dated: July 25, 2008. 

Stephen J. Claeys, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E8–17816 Filed 8–1–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XJ41 

Endangered Species; File No. 1549 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES