5792 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 21 / Thursday, January 31, 2008 / Notices 

a regulatory flexibility analysis has not 

been prepared. 

Dated: January 25, 2008. 

Deborah A. Jefferson, 

Director for Human Resources Management, 

Department of Commerce. 

[FR Doc. E8–1659 Filed 1–30–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–BS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

A–570–888 

Floor–standing, Metal–top Ironing 

Tables and Certain Parts Thereof from 

the People’s Republic of China: Notice 

of Extension of Time Limit for Final 

Results of Second Antidumping 

Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 31, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Bobby Wong, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 9, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–0409. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On September 11, 2007, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) published in the Federal 

Register the preliminary results of this 

antidumping administrative review. 

Floor–Standing, Metal–Top Ironing 

Tables and Certain Parts Thereof from 

the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 

51781 (September 11, 2007). On 

December 28, 2007, the Department 

extended the deadline for these results 

by 23 days. Floor–standing, Metal–top 

Ironing Tables and Certain Parts 

Thereof from the People’s Republic of 

China: Notice of Extension of Time 

Limit for Final Results of Second 

Antidumping Administrative Review, 72 

FR 73758 (December 28, 2007). The 

period of review for this administrative 

review is August 1, 2005, to July 31, 

2006. 

Extension of Time Limits for Final 

Results 

Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the 

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

and section 351.213(h)(1) of the 

Department’s regulations, the 

Department shall issue the preliminary 

results of an administrative review 

within 245 days after the last day of the 

Error! Main Document Only.anniversary 

month of the date of publication of the 

order. The Act further provides that the 

Department shall issue the final results 

of review within 120 days after the date 

on which the notice of the preliminary 

results was published in the Federal 

Register. However, if the Department 

determines that it is not practicable to 

complete the review within this time 

period, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act 

and section 351.213(h)(2) of the 

Department’s regulations allow the 

Department to extend the 245–day 

period to 365 days and the 120–day 

period to 180 days. 

In the instant review, the Department 

finds that the current deadline for the 

final results of February 1, 2008, is not 

practicable. The Department requires 

additional time to conduct surrogate 

value research and review and analyze 

interested party comments. As a result, 

the Department has determined to 

extend the current time limits of this 

administrative review by an additional 

37 days. Since a 37–day extension 

would result in the deadline for the 

final results falling on March 9, 2008, 

which is a Sunday, the new deadline for 

the final results will be the next 

business day, March 10, 2008. Notice of 

Clarification: Application of ‘‘Next 

Business Day’’ Rule for Administrative 

Determination Deadlines Pursuant to 

the Tariff Act of 1930, As Amended, 70 

FR 24533 (May 10, 2005). 

This notice is issued and published in 

accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A) 

and 777(I) of the Act. 

Dated: January 24, 2008. 

Stephen J. Claeys, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E8–1800 Filed 1–30–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

A–549–813 

Canned Pineapple Fruit from Thailand: 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On August 8, 2007, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) published the preliminary 

results of its administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order on canned 

pineapple fruit (CPF) from Thailand. 

See Canned Pineapple Fruit from 

Thailand: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 72 FR 44490 (August 8, 2007) 

(Preliminary Results). This review 

covers shipments of subject 

merchandise to the United States for the 

period July 1, 2005 through June 30, 

2006, made by Vita Food Factory (1989) 

Ltd. (Vita) and Tropical Food Industries 

Co. Ltd. (Trofco). 

The Department determines that Vita 

and Trofco made sales to the U.S. at less 

than normal value. The final results are 

listed below in the section titled ‘‘Final 

Results of Review’’. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 31, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Douglas Kirby or Myrna Lobo, 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) 482–3782 or (202) 482–

2371, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On August 8, 2007, the Department of 

Commerce (the Department) published 

the preliminary results of the 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on CPF from 

Thailand. See Preliminary Results. We 

conducted a sales and cost verification 

of Vita from September 17 through 

September 25, 2007. See Verification of 

the U.S. and Comparison Market Sales 

Information and the Cost Information in 

the Response of Vita Food Factory 

(1989) Co., Ltd. for the 2005–06 

Administrative Review of Canned 

Pineapple Fruit (CPF) from Thailand, 

issued on November 30, 2007 (Vita 

Verification Report). Furthermore, we 

conducted a sales verification of Trofco 

on September 26 through September 28, 

2007. See Verification of the U.S. and 

Comparison Market Sales Information 

of Tropical Food Industries Co., Ltd. for 

the 2005–06 Administrative Review of 

Canned Pineapple Fruit (CPF) from 

Thailand, issued on November 30, 2007 

(Trofco Verification Report). We invited 

interested parties to comment on the 

preliminary results and the verification 

reports. We received no comments. 

Scope of the Antidumping Duty Order 

The product covered by this order is 

CPF, defined as pineapple processed 

and/or prepared into various product 

forms, including rings, pieces, chunks, 

tidbits, and crushed pineapple, that is 

packed and cooked in metal cans with 

either pineapple juice or sugar syrup 

added. CPF is currently classifiable 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 21 / Thursday, January 31, 2008 / Notices 5793 

under subheadings 2008.20.0010 and 

2008.20.0090 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’). HTSUS 2008.20.0010 

covers CPF packed in a sugar–based 

syrup; HTSUS 2008.20.0090 covers CPF 

packed without added sugar (i.e., juice–

packed). Although these HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and for customs purposes, 

the written description of the scope is 

dispositive. There have been no scope 

rulings for the subject order. 

Changes Since the Preliminary Results 

Based on our findings at verification, 

we have made minor adjustments in the 

methodology that was used in the 

Preliminary Results for Trofco and Vita 

and accounted for corrections to their 

reported data. 

At verification, Vita provided minor 

corrections relating to its reported 

commissions in the comparison market. 

Moreover, the Department identified 

additional minor corrections to Vita’s 

reported commissions data. As a result, 

we have made adjustments to certain 

comparison market commissions made 

by Vita. Vita also provided minor 

corrections to its packing expenses and 

its direct selling expenses. As a result, 

we have made adjustments to Vita’s 

packing expenses and direct selling 

expenses. For a further explanation of 

these changes, see Vita Verification 

Report at pages 3–4. Furthermore, based 

on information obtained since the 

preliminary results of this review, we 

have determined that Vita’s reported 

commissions are more appropriately 

treated as discounts for the majority of 

sales by Vita to the United States. See 

Vita Verification Report at page 7; see 

also the Memorandum to the File, from 

Douglas Kirby through Dana 

Mermelstein (Program Manager) re: 

Analysis of Vita for the Final Results, 

dated January 24, 2008, on file in the 

Central Record Unit, room B–099 of the 

main Department of Commerce building 

(CRU). 

Trofco also provided minor 

corrections at verification to its reported 

packing expenses. As a result, we have 

revised Trofco’s packing expenses. 

Furthermore, Trofco provided minor 

corrections to its direct selling expenses 

for U.S. sales. As a result, we have 

revised Trofco’s direct selling expenses 

for U.S. sales. See Trofco Verification 

Report at page 2; see also the 

Memorandum to the File, from Myrna 

Lobo through Dana Mermelstein 

(Program Manager) re: Analysis of 

Trofco for the Final Results, dated 

January 24, 2008, on file in the Central 

Record Unit, room B–099 of the main 

Department of Commerce building 

(CRU). 

Final Results of Review 

As a result of this review, we 

determine that the following weighted–

average dumping margins exist for the 

period July 1, 2005 through June 30, 

2006: 

Manufacturer/Exporter Weighted Average 

Margin 

Vita Food Factory 

(1989) Ltd. ................. 7.13 percent 

Tropical Food Industries 

Co., Ltd. .................... 10.40 percent 

Assessment 

The Department will determine, and 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties 

on all appropriate entries, pursuant to 

section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 

1930 (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.212(b). 

The Department calculated importerspecific duty assessment rates (or, when 

the importer was unknown by the 

respondent, customer–specific duty 

assessment rates) on the basis of the 

ratio of the total amount of antidumping 

duties calculated for the examined sales 

observations involving each importer to 

the total entered value of the examined 

sales observations for that importer. The 

Department intends to issue assessment 

instructions to CBP 15 days after the 

date of publication of these final results 

of review. 

The Department clarified its 

‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on 

May 6, 2003. This clarification will 

apply to entries of subject merchandise 

during the POR produced by companies 

included in these final results of review 

for which the reviewed companies did 

not know their 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 discussion of this 

clarification, see Notice of Policy 

Concerning Assessment of Antidumping 

Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). 

Cash Deposits 

Furthermore, the following deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of these final results of this 

administrative review for all shipments 

of canned pineapple fruit from Thailand 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the 

publication date of these final results, as 

provided by section 751(a) of the Act: 

(1) for companies covered by this 

review, the cash deposit rate will be the 

rate listed above; (2) for previously 

reviewed or investigated companies not 

listed above, the cash deposit rate will 

continue to be the company–specific 

rate published for the most recent 

period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm 

covered in this review, a prior review, 

or the investigation, but the producer is, 

the cash deposit rate will be that 

established for the producer of the 

merchandise in these final results of 

review, a prior review, or in the final 

determination; and (4) if neither the 

exporter nor the producer is a firm 

covered in this review, a prior review, 

or the investigation, the cash deposit 

rate will be 24.64 percent, the ‘‘all–

others’’ rate established in the less–

than-fair–value investigation. These 

deposit requirements shall remain in 

effect until publication of the final 

results of the next administrative 

review. 

Certificate on Reimbursement 

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 antidumping duties 

occurred, and in the subsequent 

assessment of double antidumping 

duties. 

Notification Regarding Administrative 

Protective Orders 

This notice is the only reminder to 

parties subject to the administrative 

protective order (APO) of their 

responsibility concerning the return or 

destruction of proprietary information 

disclosed under the APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely written 

notification of the return or destruction 

of APO materials or conversion to 

judicial protective order is hereby 

requested. Failure to comply with the 

regulations and the terms of an APO is 

a sanctionable violation. 

We are issuing and publishing these 

results and this notice in accordance 

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

the Act. 

Dated: January 24, 2008. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E8–1794 Filed 1–30–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES