[Federal Register: September 13, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 177)]
[Notices]
[Page 52344-52345]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr13se07-27]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-867]
Certain Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields from The
People's Republic of China: Notice of Decision of the Court of
International Trade Not in Harmony
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On June 28, 2007, the United States Court of International
Trade (``Court'') entered a final judgment in Xinyi Automotive Glass v.
United States sustaining the third remand results made by the
Department of Commerce (``the Department'') pursuant to the Court's
remand of the final determination with respect to Certain Automotive
Replacement Glass Windshields from the People's Republic of China
(``PRC'') in Slip Op. 06-21 (CIT February 15, 2006). See Xinyi
Automotive Glass v. United States, Ct. No. 02-00321, Judgment (Ct.
Int'l Trade June 28, 2007) (``Xinyi''). This case arises out of the
Department's Antidumping Duty Order on Certain
[[Page 52345]]
Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields from the People's Republic of
China, 67 FR 16087 (April 4, 2002) (``Order''). The final judgment in
this case was not in harmony with the Department's Final Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Automotive Replacement Glass
Windshields From the People's Republic of China, 67 FR 6482 (February
12, 2002) (``Final Determination''), and accompanying Issues and
Decisions Memorandum (``Decision Memo''), as amended at 67 FR 11670
(March 15, 2002), covering the period of investigation (``POI''), July
1, 2000 through December 31, 2000.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 8, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gene Degnan, AD/CVD Operations, Office
8, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW,
Washington DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-0414.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Plaintiffs, Fuyao Glass Industry Group Co., Ltd. (``Fuyao'') and
Xinyi Automotive Glass Co., Ltd. (``Xinyi''), initially in separate
lawsuits, contested several aspects of the Final Determination,
including the Department's decision to disregard certain market economy
inputs. On August 6, 2002, all law suits challenging the Final
Determination, including Xinyi's lawsuit, were consolidated into Fuyao
Glass Industry Group Co., Ltd. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 02-
00282, 2006 Ct. Int'l Trade Lexis 21, Slip Op. 2006-21 (CIT February
15, 2006) (``Fuyao Glass III''). On February 15, 2006, while the cases
were still consolidated, the court remanded the Department's decision
regarding certain market economy inputs to the Department. In its
remand to the Department, the Court concluded with respect to the
standard applied in the Department's analysis, that the Department must
conduct its analysis ``in accordance with the court's finding with
respect to the use of the word 'are' rather than 'may be' when applying
its subsidized price methodology.'' Fuyao Glass III, Slip Op. P. 9. The
Court further directed the Department to either (1) ``concur with the
court's conclusions with respect to substantial evidence, or (2) re-
open the record . . .'' Fuyao Glass III, Slip Op. p. 7. The Court
concluded that it does not find the Department's determination, that
prices from Korea and Indonesia are subsidized, is supported by
substantial record evidence. See Fuyao Glass III, Slip Op. p. 16.
Pursuant to the Court's ruling, and under respectful protest, the
Department concurred that the record evidence does not contain
substantial evidence to support a conclusion that prices from Korea and
Indonesia are subsidized. See Viraj Group v. United States, 343 F.3d
1371, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Because the Court found that the evidence
on the record does not support the Department's determination to
disregard prices from Korea and Indonesia, in the remand results, the
Department determined to calculate the dumping margin for Fuyao and
Xinyi based upon prices the plaintiffs actually paid to suppliers
located in Korea and Indonesia.
On January 8, 2007, Xinyi's action was severed from the
consolidated action. See Court Order of January 8, 2007, in Ct. No. 02-
00282. On June 28, 2007, the court issued a final judgment, wherein it
affirmed the Department's third remand results with respect to Xinyi's
action.
Timken Notice
In its decision in Timken Co., v. United States, 893 F.2d 337, 341
(Fed. Cir. 1990) (``Timken''), the United States Court of Appeals for
the Federal Circuit held that, pursuant to section 516A(e) of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''), the Department must
publish a notice of a court decision that is not ``in harmony'' with a
Department determination. The Court's decision in Xinyi on June 28,
2007, constitutes a final decision of that court that is not in harmony
with the Department's Final Determination. This notice is published in
fulfillment of the publication requirements of Timken. Accordingly, the
Department will issue revised instructions to U.S. Customs and Border
Protection if the Court's decision is not appealed or if it is affirmed
on appeal.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with section
516A(c)(1) of the Act.
Dated: September 7, 2007.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E7-18069 Filed 9-12-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S