[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