[Federal Register: November 7, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 215)]
[Notices]
[Page 62815-62816]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr07no07-31]
[[Page 62815]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
DATES: Effective Date: November 7, 2007.
SUMMARY: On May 10, 2007, the United States Court of International
Trade (``Court'') sustained the Final Results of Redetermination
Pursuant to Court Remand, Fuyao Glass Industry Group Co., Ltd. et al.,
v. United States (February 15, 2006) (``Third Remand Redetermination'')
made by the Department of Commerce (``the Department'') pursuant to the
Court's third remand of the final determination of the less-than-fair-
value investigation of Certain Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields
from the People's Republic of China (``PRC''). See Fuyao Glass Industry
Group Co. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 02-00282, Slip Op. 06-21
(CIT February 15, 2006) (``Fuyao Glass III''). 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 arose out of the Department's Antidumping Duty Order on
Certain Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields From the PRC, 67 FR
16087 (April 4, 2002) and 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. Following publication of the Final
Determination, in separate actions, Fuyao Glass Industry Group Co.,
Ltd. et al. (``Fuyao''), Xinyi Automotive Glass (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd.
(``Xinyi''),\1\ Shenzhen Benxun Automotive 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\ Collectively, the
plaintiffs contested several aspects of the Final Determination,
including the Department's decision to disregard certain market economy
inputs. On August 2, 2002, all lawsuits 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 a third remand order to the Department concerning its
decision regarding certain market economy inputs. See Fuyao Glass III.
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. See 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, Fuyao's action was severed from the
consolidated action. See Court Order of January 8, 2007, in Ct. No. 02-
00282. On May 10, 2007, the Court issued a final judgment wherein it
affirmed the Department's third remand results with respect to Fuyao's
action. On May 30, 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
29969 (May 30, 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)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuyao Glass Industry Group 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 Fuyao 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.
[[Page 62816]]
Dated: October 31, 2007.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E7-21877 Filed 11-6-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P