[Federal Register: November 7, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 215)]
[Notices]
[Page 62813-62814]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr07no07-30]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-867]
Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value and Antidumping Duty Order Pursuant to Court Decision: Certain
Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields from the People's Republic of
China
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: November 7, 2007.
SUMMARY: On June 28, 2007, the United States Court of International
Trade (``Court'') entered a final judgement in Xinyi Automotive Glass
v. United
[[Page 62814]]
States, Ct. No. 02-00321, Judgment (CIT, June 28, 2007) (``Xinyi 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' Republic of China
(``PRC'') in Slip Op. 06-21 (CIT, February 15, 2006). This case arises
out of the Department's Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Automotive
Replacement Glass Windshields from the People's Republic of China, 67
FR 16087 (April 4, 2002) (``AD Order''). As there is now a final and
conclusive court decision in this case, the Department is amending the
final determination and antidumping duty order of this investigation.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Stolz or Robert Bolling, 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-
4474 and (202) 482-3434, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
This case arises out of the Department's AD Order and 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. Following
publication of the Final Determination, Fuyao Glass Industry Group Co.,
Ltd. et al. (``Fuyao''), Xinyi Automotove Glass (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd.
(``Xinyi''),\1\ Shenzhen Benxun Automotove Glass Co., Ltd. (Benxun),\2\
and Changchun Pilkington Safety Glass, Co., Ltd., Guilin Pilkington
Safety Glass Co., Ltd., and Wuhan Yao hua Pilkington Safety Glass Co.,
Ltd. (collectively ``Pilkington'') filed lawsuits with the Court
challenging the Department's Final Determination.\3\ Plaintiffs, Fuyao,
Xinyi, Benxun, and Pilkington, initially in separate lawsuits,
contested several aspects of the Final Determination, including the
Department's decision to disregard certain market economy inputs. On
August 2, 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. On
February 15, 2006, while the cases were still consolidated, the Court
issued its third remand concerning the Department's decision concerning
certain market economy inputs. See Fuyao Glass Industry Group Co. v.
United States, Consol. Court No. 02-00282, Slip Op. 2006-21, (CIT,
February 15, 2006). 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.''
Id. at 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 . . .'' Id. at 7. The Court
concluded that it does not find the Department's determination, that
prices from South Korea and Indonesia are subsidized, is supported by
substantial record evidence. Id. at 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 South 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 South 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 South Korea and
Indonesia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Fuyao and Xinyi were mandatory respondents during the POI.
\2\ The Department determined that Shenzhen CSG Automotive Glass
Co., Ltd. is a successor-in-interest to Benxun. See Notice of Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review: Automotive
Replacement Glass Windshields From the People's Republic of China,
69 FR 43388 (July 20, 2004).
\3\ Court Nos. 02-00282, 02-00312, 02-00320, and 02-00321.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, Xinyi v. United States. On September 13, 2007, consistent with
the decision in Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir.
1990), the Department notified the public that the Court's decision was
not in harmony with the Department's final determination. See Certain
Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields from The People's Republic of
China: Notice of Decision of the Court of International Trade Not in
Harmony, 72 FR 52344 (September 13, 2007). No party appealed the
Court's decision. As there is now a final and conclusive court decision
in this case, we are amending our Final Determination.
Amended Final Determination
As the litigation in this case has concluded, the Department is
amending the Final Determination to reflect the results of our third
remand determination. The revised dumping margin in the amended final
determination is as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xinyi Automotive Glass (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd................. 0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The PRC-wide rate continues to be 124.5 percent as determined in the
Department's Final Determination. The Department intends to issue
instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') fifteen
days after publication of this notice, to revise the cash deposit rates
for the company listed above, effective as of the publication date of
this notice. Because Xinyi obtained a preliminary injunction, we will
also instruct CBP to liquidate all entries, without regard to
antidumping duties.
This notice is published in accordance with sections 735(d) and
777(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.
Dated: October 31, 2007.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E7-21876 Filed 11-6-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S