Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 174 / Monday, September 8, 2008 / Notices 52021 

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 this 

determination in accordance with 

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

Act. 

Dated: September 2, 2008. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E8–20755 Filed 9–5–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

A–570–506 

Porcelain–on-Steel Cooking Ware from 

the People’s Republic of China: Notice 

of Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

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 

antidumping duty order on porcelain–

on-steel cooking ware from the People’s 

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

period December 1, 2006, to November 

30, 2007. The Department has 

preliminarily determined to apply 

adverse facts available to the PRC–wide 

entity, which includes Xiamen Songson 

Plastic Hardware Co., Ltd. (‘‘Songson’’), 

the only respondent in this review. If 

these preliminary results are adopted in 

the final results of this review, the 

Department will instruct U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to assess 

antidumping duties on entries of subject 

merchandise during the period of 

review (‘‘POR’’). Interested parties are 

invited to comment on these 

preliminary results. See the 

‘‘Preliminary Results of Review’’ section 

of this notice. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 8, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Toni 

Dach or Scot Fullerton, AD/CVD 

Operations, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–1655 or (202) 482–1386, 

respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

In response to a request from 

Columbian Home Products, LLC 

(‘‘petitioner’’) and OXO International 

Ltd., an importer of the subject 

merchandise, the Department of 

Commerce (the ‘‘Department’’) initiated 

an administrative review of Songson’s 

exports of merchandise covered by the 

antidumping duty order on porcelain–

on-steel cooking ware from the PRC. See 

Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Request for Revocation in 

Part, 73 FR 4829 (January 28, 2008) 

(‘‘Initiation Notice’’). 

On January 31, 2008, the Department 

issued its sections A, C and D 

antidumping duty questionnaire to 

Songson. The section A response was 

due on February 21, 2008, and the 

sections C and D response, as well as 

U.S. sales and factors of production 

(‘‘FOP’’) reconciliations, were due on 

March 10, 2008. On February 19, 2008, 

Songson requested an extension, until 

March 6, 2008, to file its section A 

response, and until March 24, 2008, to 

submit its sections C and D responses. 

On February 20, 2008, the Department 

granted Songson’s extension request. 

We received the company’s response to 

section A via regular mail on March 6, 

2008. On March 14, 2008, the 

Department rejected Songson’s section 

A response, as it was not filed in 

accordance with the Department’s 

regulations. See Letter from the 

Department of Commerce to Xiamen 

Songson Plastic Hardware Co., Ltd., Re: 

Rejection of Section A Questionnaire 

Response (March 14, 2008). We granted 

Songson a second opportunity to file a 

complete section A response, and 

Songson submitted its revised section A 

response on March 28, 2008 (‘‘Songson 

section A response’’). Songson did not 

submit its sections C and D responses, 

or the required sales and FOP 

reconciliations by the extended due 

date, or on any date thereafter. 

Period of Review 

The POR is December 1, 2006, 

through November 30, 2007. 

Scope of Order 

The merchandise covered by this 

order is porcelain–on-steel cooking ware 

from the PRC, including tea kettles, 

which do not have self–contained 

electric heating elements. All of the 

foregoing are constructed of steel and 

are enameled or glazed with vitreous 

glasses. The merchandise is currently 

classifiable under the United States 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule (‘‘USHTS’’) 

item 7323.94.00. USHTS item numbers 

are provided for convenience and 

customs purposes. The written 

description of the scope remains 

dispositive. 

Non–Market-Economy Country 

The Department considers the PRC to 

be a non–market economy (‘‘NME’’) 

country. See, e.g., Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Postponement of Final 

Determination: Coated Free Sheet Paper 

from the People’s Republic of China, 72 

FR 30758, 30760 (June 4, 2007), 

unchanged in Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Coated 

Free Sheet Paper from the People’s 

Republic of China, 72 FR 60632 

(October 25, 2007). In accordance with 

section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any 

determination that a foreign country is 

an NME country shall remain in effect 

until revoked by the administering 

authority. No party has challenged the 

designation of the PRC as an NME 

country in this investigation. Therefore, 

we continue to treat the PRC as an NME 

country for purposes of this preliminary 

determination. 

Separate Rates 

A designation of a country as an NME 

remains in effect until it is revoked by 

the Department. See section 

771(18)(C)(i) of the Act. Accordingly, 

there is a rebuttable presumption that 

all companies within the PRC are 

subject to government control and, thus, 

should be assessed a single antidumping 

duty rate. It is the Department’s 

standard policy to assign all exporters of 

the merchandise subject to review in 

NME countries a single rate unless an 

exporter can affirmatively demonstrate 

an absence of government control, both 

in law (de jure) and in fact (de facto), 

with respect to exports. 

To establish whether a company 

operating in a non–market economy 

country (‘‘NME’’) is sufficiently 

independent from government control 

to be entitled to a separate rate, the 

Department analyzes each exporting 

entity under the test established in the 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the 

People’s Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 

(May 6, 1991), as amplified by the Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 

Value: Silicon Carbide from the People’s 

Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 

1994). Under the separate rates criteria, 

the Department assigns separate rates in 

NME cases only if the respondent can 

demonstrate the absence of both de jure 

and de facto governmental control over 

export activities. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

52022 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 174 / Monday, September 8, 2008 / Notices 

De Jure Control 

Evidence supporting, though not 

requiring, a finding of absence of de jure 

government control over export 

activities includes: (1) an absence of 

restrictive stipulations associated with 

an individual exporter’s business and 

export licenses; (2) any legislative 

enactments decentralizing control of 

companies; and (3) any other formal 

measures by the government 

decentralizing control of companies. 

As evidence of the absence of de jure 

government control over Songson’s 

export activities, the Department 

requested that Songson provide any 

legislative enactments or other formal 

measures by the government that 

centralize or decentralize control of its 

export activities. In response, Songson 

responded ‘‘N/A’’ and did not provide 

the required laws applicable to 

Songson’s export activities. See Songson 

section A response at 8. In addition, the 

Department requested that Songson 

describe the licensing process, provide 

the dates of any license applications, as 

well as all copies of paperwork and 

proposals submitted to government 

authorities regarding the license. 

Although Songson provided the 

Department with a copy of its approved 

business license, it did not provide any 

of the additional requested information 

noted above. See Id. Therefore, based on 

the record evidence, the Department 

cannot determine that there is an 

absence of de jure control over the 

export activities of Songson. 

De Facto Control 

A determination of absence of de 

facto government control over exports is 

based on the following four factors: (1) 

whether the exporter sets its own export 

prices independently of the government 

and without the approval of a 

government authority; (2) whether the 

exporter retains the proceeds from its 

sales and makes independent decisions 

regarding the disposition of profits or 

financing of losses; (3) whether the 

exporter has the authority to negotiate 

and sign contracts and other 

agreements; and (4) whether the 

exporter has autonomy from the 

government regarding the selection of 

management. See e.g. Final 

Determination of Sales at Less than Fair 

Value: Certain Cut–to-Length Carbon 

Steel Plate from Ukraine, 62 FR 61754, 

61758 (November 19, 1997). 

Songson asserted that it: (1) it 

establishes its own export prices; (2) 

negotiates contracts without guidance 

from any governmental entities or 

organizations; (3) makes its own 

personnel decisions; and (4) retains the 

proceeds of its export sales, uses profits 

according to its business needs, and has 

the authority to sell its assets and to 

obtain loans. See Songson section A 

response. However, Songson did not 

provide the Department with adequate 

information or documentation to 

support these claims in order to 

demonstrate that the company is not 

under the de facto control of the PRC 

government with respect to its export 

activities. For example, although the 

Department requested in its section A 

questionnaire that Songson provide 

evidence of price negotiations for its 

POR sales, Songson did not provide this 

requested documentation, and provided 

no explanation as to why it did not do 

so. See Id. at 9–10. In addition, although 

the Department requested that Songson 

describe how it negotiates sales to the 

United States, it provided no such 

description of its sales negotiations. See 

Id. at 14. The Department also requested 

that Songson describe how its 

management is selected. Although 

Songson stated that its general manager 

was appointed ‘‘by the board meeting,’’

it provided no description of who 

selects its other managers, and provided 

no description of how the board selects 

the general manager. See Id. at 10. In 

addition, Songson has asserted that it 

established its own export prices. 

However, in response to the 

Department’s request for a description 

of the process by which Songson sets 

prices with its U.S. customers, Songson 

replied ‘‘N/A.’’ See Id. at 9–10. 

Because we have been unable to fully 

analyze the level of de facto control over 

Songson’s export activities due to the 

numerous deficiencies in Songson’s 

Section A response, the Department 

concludes that the company has not 

satisfactorily demonstrated the absence 

of de facto control by the PRC 

government. Therefore, the Department 

has determined that Songson has not 

demonstrated that it qualifies for a 

separate rate. Because Songson did not 

demonstrate its eligibility for a separate 

rate, we have preliminarily determined 

that it is part of the PRC–wide entity. In 

the initiation notice, the Department 

stated that if one of the companies that 

we initiated a review on does not 

qualify for a separate rate, all other 

exporters of porcelain–on-steel cooking 

ware from the PRC who have not 

qualified for a separate rate are deemed 

to be covered by this review as part of 

the single PRC–wide entity, of which 

the named exporter is a part. See 

Initiation Notice at footnote 6. As a 

result, we determine that it is necessary 

to review the PRC–wide entity, 

including Songson, in this segment of 

the proceeding. 

Application of Adverse Facts Available 

As discussed below, we find that it is 

appropriate to apply facts otherwise 

available on the record to the PRC–wide 

entity pursuant to section 776(a) of the 

Act. Section 776(a)(2) of the Act 

provides that, if an interested party: (A) 

withholds information that has been 

requested by the Department; (B) fails to 

provide such information in a timely 

manner or in the form or manner 

requested subject to sections 782(c)(1) 

and (e) of the Act; (C) significantly 

impedes a proceeding under the 

antidumping statute; or (D) provides 

such information, but the information 

cannot be verified, the Department 

shall, subject to section 782(d) of the 

Act, use facts otherwise available in 

reaching the determination. In the 

instant case, Songson, which is part of 

the PRC–wide entity, has withheld 

information by not providing (1) capital 

verification reports, see Songson section 

A response at 3.f.; (2) a description of 

the process by which it sets prices with 

its U.S. customers, see Songson section 

A response at 4.h.; (3) a description, and 

copies of, its agreements for sales to the 

U.S., see Songson section A response at 

4.c.; (4) a description of the companies 

accounting and financial reporting 

practices, see Songson section A 

response at 5.a.; (5) a chart of accounts, 

see Songson section A response at 5.b.; 

(6) a description of the licensing 

process, or copies of paperwork and 

proposals submitted to the government 

in order to obtain a business license, see 

Songson section A response at 2.e.(iv); 

and (7) sales or FOP reconciliations as 

requested at Appendix V of the 

Department’s questionnaire. The 

Department requires this information to 

evaluate U.S. sales and FOP 

reconciliations, as well as the nature 

and extent of a respondent’s affiliations, 

which may impact the way export sales 

are treated in the calculation of a 

dumping margin. In addition, Songson 

did not provide a section C and D 

questionnaire response, which the 

Department requires to calculate a 

dumping margin. As the Department 

was not provided with this information, 

we have no information with which to 

calculate an antidumping duty margin. 

Therefore, the Department finds that 

facts available pursuant to sections 

776(a)(2)(A) and (C) of the Act is 

warranted for the PRC–wide entity, 

including Songson, as Songson has 

withheld the information noted above 

that was requested by the Department, 

and has significantly impeded the 

proceeding by not providing 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 174 / Monday, September 8, 2008 / Notices 52023 

1See Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware from the 

People’s Republic of China; Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 51 FR 36419 

(October 10, 1986). 

information necessary to complete this 

administrative review. 

Section 776(b) of the Act provides 

that if the Department determines that a 

party has failed to cooperate to the best 

of its ability, in selecting from among 

the facts available, the Department may 

use an inference that is adverse to the 

interests of that party. As noted above, 

Songson did not provide the 

Department with a complete section A 

response or a sections C and D 

questionnaire response. Therefore, by 

failing to provide the necessary 

information within its possession, the 

PRC–wide entity, including Songson, 

has failed to cooperate to the best of its 

ability, and we find it appropriate 

pursuant to sections 776(a)(2) and 

776(b) of the Act, to apply total AFA to 

the PRC–wide entity for these 

preliminary results. 

Selection of AFA Rate 

In deciding which facts to use as 

AFA, section 776(b) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.308(c)(1) authorize the 

Department to rely on information 

derived from: (1) the petition; (2) a final 

determination in the investigation; (3) 

any previous review or determination; 

or (4) any information placed on the 

record. In reviews, it is the Department’s 

practice to select, as AFA, the highest 

rate determined for any respondent in 

any segment of the proceeding. See, e.g., 

Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the 

People’s Republic of China; Notice of 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 68 FR 19504, 

19506 (April 21, 2003). 

The Court of International Trade 

(‘‘CIT’’) and the Federal Circuit have 

consistently upheld the Department’s 

practice. See Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. 

United States, 899 F.2d 1185, 1190 (Fed. 

Cir. 1990) (‘‘Rhone Poulenc’’); NSK Ltd. 

v. United States, 346 F. Supp. 2d 1312, 

1335 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2004) (upholding a 

73.55% total AFA rate, the highest 

available dumping margin from a 

different respondent in a less than fair 

value investigation); see also Kompass 

Food Trading Int’l v. United States, 24 

CIT 678, 689 (2000) (upholding a 

51.16% total AFA rate, the highest 

available dumping margin from a 

different, fully cooperative respondent); 

and Shanghai Taoen International 

Trading Co., Ltd. v. United States, 360 

F. Supp. 2d 1339 (CIT February 17, 

2005) (upholding a 223.01 percent total 

AFA rate, the highest available dumping 

margin from a different respondent in a 

previous administrative review). 

The Department’s practice when 

selecting an adverse rate from among 

the possible sources of information is to 

ensure that the margin is sufficiently 

adverse ‘‘as to effectuate the purpose of 

the facts available role to induce 

respondents to provide the Department 

with complete and accurate information 

in a timely manner.’’ See Static Random 

Access Memory Semiconductors from 

Taiwan; Final Determination of Sales at 

Less than Fair Value, 63 FR 8909, 8932 

(February 23, 1998). The Department’s 

practice also ensures Athat the party 

does not obtain a more favorable result 

by failing to cooperate than if it had 

cooperated fully.@ See Statement of 

Administrative Action (‘‘SAA’’) 

accompanying the URAA, H.R. Rep. No. 

103–316 at 870 (1994). See also Final 

Determination of Sales at Less than Fair 

Value: Certain Frozen and Canned 

Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil, 69 FR 

76910 (December 23, 2004); see also 

D&L Supply Co. v. United States, 113 

F.3d 1220, 1223 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In 

choosing the appropriate balance 

between providing respondents with an 

incentive to respond accurately and 

imposing a rate that is reasonably 

related to the respondent’s prior 

commercial activity, selecting the 

highest prior margin reflects a common 

sense inference that the highest prior 

margin is the most probative evidence of 

current margins, because, if it were not 

so, the respondent, knowing of the rule, 

would have produced current 

information showing the margin to be 

less. Rhone Poulenc, 899 F.2d at 1190. 

Consistent with section 776(b)(3) of 

the Act, court precedent, and its 

practice, the Department has assigned 

the rate of 66.65 percent, calculated in 

the less–than-fair–value investigation,1

the highest rate assigned in any segment 

of the proceeding, to the PRC–wide 

entity, including Songson, as AFA. See, 

e.g., Brake Rotors from the People=s 

Republic of China: Rescission of Second 

New Shipper Review and Final Results 

and Partial Rescission of First 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 64 FR 61581, 61584 (November 

12, 1999). As discussed further below, 

this rate has been corroborated. 

Corroboration of Secondary 

Information Used as AFA 

Section 776(c) of the Act provides that 

when the Department selects from 

among the facts otherwise available and 

relies on ‘‘secondary information,’’ the 

Department shall, to the extent 

practicable, corroborate that information 

from independent sources reasonably at 

the Department’s disposal. The SAA 

states that ‘‘corroborate’’ means to 

determine that the information used has 

probative value. See SAA at 870. The 

Department has determined that to have 

probative value, information must be 

reliable and relevant. See Certain Tissue 

Paper Products from the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Results and 

Final Rescission, In Part, of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 72 FR 58642 (October 16, 2007) 

and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 6. The SAA 

also states that independent sources 

used to corroborate such evidence may 

include, for example, published price 

lists, official import statistics and 

customs data, and information obtained 

from interested parties during the 

particular investigation. See SAA at 870; 

see also Final Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value: Live Swine from 

Canada, 70 FR 12181, 12184 (March 11, 

2005). 

To be considered corroborated, 

information must be found to be both 

reliable and relevant. Unlike other types 

of information, such as input costs or 

selling expenses, there are no 

independent sources for calculated 

dumping margins. The only sources for 

calculated margins are administrative 

determinations. The AFA rate we are 

applying in the current review was 

calculated during the Less Than Fair 

Value Investigation. See Porcelain–onSteel Cooking Ware from the People’s 

Republic of China; Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 51 FR 

36419 (October 10, 1986) (‘‘LTFV 

Investigation’’). The Department 

corroborated the information used to 

calculate the 66.65 percent rate in the 

LTFV investigation, finding the rate to 

be both reliable and relevant. 

Furthermore, the AFA rate we are 

applying for the current review was 

applied in reviews subsequent to the 

LTFV Investigation and the Department 

received no information that warranted 

revisiting the issue. See, e.g., Porcelain–

on-Steel Cooking Ware from the 

People’s Republic of China: Notice of 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 71 FR 24641 

(April 26, 2006). No information has 

been presented in the current review 

that calls into question the reliability of 

this information. Thus, the Department 

finds that the information is reliable. 

With respect to the relevance aspect 

of corroboration, the Department will 

consider information reasonably at its 

disposal to determine whether a margin 

continues to have relevance. Where 

circumstances indicate that the selected 

margin is not appropriate as AFA, the 

Department will disregard the margin 

and determine an appropriate margin. 

See Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico: 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

52024 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 174 / Monday, September 8, 2008 / Notices 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812 

(February 22, 1996), (where the 

Department disregarded the highest 

margin in that case as adverse best 

information available (the predecessor 

to facts available) because the margin 

was based on another company’s 

uncharacteristic business expense, 

resulting in an unusually high margin). 

Similarly, the Department does not 

apply a margin that has been 

discredited. See D & L Supply Co. v. 

United States, 113 F.3d 1220, 1221 (Fed. 

Cir. 1997) (the Department will not use 

a margin that has been judicially 

invalidated). There is no information 

reasonably available at our disposal in 

this review to corroborate the relevance 

of the AFA rate in question, which, as 

discussed above, was last corroborated 

in the LTFV Investigation. We cannot 

use the margin calculations of other 

companies because there are no other 

respondents in this review. Therefore, 

because there is no record evidence 

calling into question the relevance of 

the selected AFA rate, we find that it is 

relevant for use in this administrative 

review. 

Because the AFA rate, 66.65 percent, 

is both reliable and relevant, we 

determine that it has probative value. As 

a result, the Department determines that 

the 66.65 percent rate is corroborated for 

the purposes of this administrative 

review and may reasonably be applied 

to the PRC–wide entity, as AFA. 

Preliminary Results of the Review 

The Department preliminarily finds 

that the following margins exist for the 

following exporters under review during 

the period December 1, 2006, through 

November 30, 2007: 

PORCELAIN–ON-STEEL COOKING WARE

FROM THE PRC 

Manufacturer/Exporter Weighted–Average 

Margin (Percent) 

PRC–Wide Entity 

(which includes 

Xiamen Songson 

Plastic Hardware Co., 

Ltd.) ........................... 66.65 

Any interested party may request a 

hearing within 30 days of publication of 

this notice. Interested parties who wish 

to request a hearing or to participate if 

one is requested, must submit a written 

request to the Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration within 30 days 

of the date of publication of this notice. 

Requests should contain: (1) the party’s 

name, address, and telephone number; 

(2) the number of participants; and (3) 

a list of issues to be discussed. See 19 

CFR 351.310(c). 

Issues raised in the hearing will be 

limited to those raised in case and 

rebuttal briefs. Case briefs from 

interested parties may be submitted not 

later than 30 days of the date of 

publication of this notice, pursuant to 

19 CFR 351.309(c). Rebuttal briefs, 

limited to issues raised in the case 

briefs, will be due five days later, 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties 

who submit case or rebuttal briefs in 

this proceeding are requested to submit 

with each argument (1) a statement of 

the issue and (2) a brief summary of the 

argument. Parties are also encouraged to 

provide a summary of the arguments not 

to exceed five pages and a table of 

statutes, regulations, and cases cited. 

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 at the hearing, if held, no later than 

120 days after the date of publication of 

this notice, pursuant to section 

751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. 

Assessment of Antidumping Duties 

The Department will determine, and 

CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on 

all appropriate entries. The Department 

intends to issue appropriate assessment 

instructions directly to CBP 15 days 

after the date of publication of the final 

results of this review. If these 

preliminary results are adopted in our 

final results of the review, we will direct 

CBP to assess the resulting rate against 

the entered customs value for the 

subject merchandise on each importer’s/ 

customer’s entries during the POR, as 

appropriate. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash–deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of the final results for 

shipments of the subject merchandise 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the 

publication date of the final results, as 

provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the 

Act: (1) for subject merchandise 

exported by the PRC, including 

Songson, the cash–deposit rate will be 

equal to 66.65 percent; (2) the cash–

deposit rate for PRC exporters who 

received a separate rate in a prior 

segment of the proceeding will continue 

to be the rate assigned in that segment 

of the proceeding; (3) for all other PRC 

exporters of subject merchandise which 

have not been found to be entitled to a 

separate rate, the cash–deposit rate will 

be the PRC–wide rate of 66.65 percent; 

(4) for all non–PRC exporters of subject 

merchandise, the cash–deposit rate 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 to Importers 

This notice 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. 

This administrative review and notice 

is in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) 

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

351.221(b)(4). 

Dated: September 2, 2008. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E8–20748 Filed 9–5–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

North American Free-Trade 

Agreement, Article 1904 NAFTA Panel 

Reviews; Request for Panel Review 

AGENCY: NAFTA Secretariat, United 

States Section, International Trade 

Administration, Department of 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of first request for panel 

review. 

SUMMARY: On August 29, 2008, Nacional 

de Acero S.A. de C.V. (‘‘Nacional’’) filed 

a First Request for Panel Review with 

the United States Section of the NAFTA 

Secretariat pursuant to Article 1904 of 

the North American Free Trade 

Agreement. Panel review was requested 

of the Final Injury Determination made 

by the United States International Trade 

Commission respecting Light-Walled 

Rectangular Pipe and Tube from China, 

Korea, and Mexico. The determination 

was published in the Federal Register 

(73 FR 45244) on August 4, 2008. The 

NAFTA Secretariat has assigned Case 

Number USA–MEX–2008–1904–04 to 

this request. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Valerie Dees, United States Secretary, 

NAFTA Secretariat, Suite 2061, 14th 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES