[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 217 (Monday, November 10, 1997)] [Notices] [Pages 60471-60472] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 97-29626] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-201-504] Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware From Mexico; Notice of Court Decision AGENCY: International Trade Administration/Import Administration, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of court decision. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: On September 16, 1997, the United States Court of International Trade affirmed the Department of Commerce's redetermination on remand regarding its determination to rely on the transfer price of enamel frit submitted by Cinsa, S.A. de C.V. for purposes of constructed value for the administrative review covering the period December 1, 1989 through November 30, 1990. This notice is published because this Court determination was not in harmony with the Department of Commerce's original determination in this review. EFFECTIVE DATE: November 10, 1997. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lorenza Olivas or Kelly Parkhill, Office of CVD/AD Enforcement VI, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th & Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2786. [[Page 60472]] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On August 16, 1993, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published in the Federal Register (58 FR 43,327) the final results of its fourth administrative review of the antidumping duty order on porcelain-on-steel cooking ware from Mexico. That review covered the period December 1, 1989 through November 30, 1990. Cinsa, the respondent in this review, subsequently appealed the Department's determination before the United States Court of International Trade (CIT) on four issues. The CIT issued a remand with respect to one issue only and directed the Department to determine whether the transfer price for enamel frit provided to the Department in that review constituted an arm's-length transaction as prescribed by the statue and previous practice. Cinsa, S.A. de C.V. v. United States (Cinsa I) Slip. Op. 97-41 (April 4, 1997). Although the Court agreed with the Department that the burden was on the respondent to ``establish that the transfer price for the purchase of raw material from the related party reflects an arm's-length price,'' it found that Cinsa fulfilled its burden by supplying the Department with the requested explanation of how it determined the transfer price to be representative of a fair market price and of how it determined that transfer prices were above the cost of production. Id., at 12. The Court found that Cinsa effectively shifted the burden to the Department by providing the requested explanations for the discount in the transfer price. Id., at 13. The Department filed its redetermination on July 2, 1997. Although the Department respectfully disagreed with the Court's conclusion that Cinsa fulfilled its burden of proving the arm's-length nature of the related party transfer price, the Department determined that, for purposes of the remand, it should use Cinsa's reported transfer price for enamel frit from its related supplier to calculate constructed value because, in that review, the Department did not request that Cinsa provide any documentation in support of its claim that the extent of differences between the transfer prices for frit and the prices at which frit was sold to unrelated firms were fully accounted for. Thus, the Department agreed that Cinsa had done all that was asked of it in that review. The CIT affirmed the redetermination on September 16, 1997. Cinsa, S.A. de C.V. v. United States (Cinsa II), Slip Op. 97-131 (CIT September 16, 1997). In its decision in Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (Timken), the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1516a(e) the Department must publish a notice of a court decision which is not ``in harmony'' with a Department determination, and must suspend liquidation of entries pending a ``conclusive'' decision. The CIT's opinion in Cinsa II, constitutes a decision not in harmony with the Department's final results of antidumping duty administrative review. Publication of this notice fulfills the Timken requirement. Accordingly, the Department will continue to suspend liquidation pending the expiration of the period of appeal, or, if appealed, until there is a ``conclusive'' court decision. Dated: November 3, 1997. Robert S. LaRussa, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. 97-29626 Filed 11-7-97; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P