[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 113 (Monday, June 14, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32986-32987]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-13237]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration


North American Free Trade Agreement, Article 1904 NAFTA Panel 
Reviews; Notice of Panel Decision

AGENCY: NAFTA Secretariat, United States Section, International Trade 
Administration, Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of panel decision.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On June 7, 2004, the binational panel issued its decision in 
the review of the final results of the affirmative countervailing duty 
re-determination on remand made by the International Trade 
Administration (ITA) respecting Certain Softwood Lumber Products from 
Canada (Secretariat File No. USA-CDA-2002-1904-03) affirmed in part and 
remanded in part the determination of the Department of Commerce. The 
Department will return the second determination on remand no later than 
July 30, 2004. A copy of the complete panel decision is available from 
the NAFTA Secretariat.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Caratina L. Alston, United States 
Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat, Suite 2061, 14th and Constitution Avenue, 
Washington, DC 20230, (202) 482-5438.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Chapter 19 of the North American Free-Trade 
Agreement (``Agreement'') establishes a mechanism to replace domestic 
judicial review of final determinations in antidumping and 
countervailing duty cases involving imports from the other country with 
review by independent binational panels. When a Request for Panel 
Review is filed, a panel is established to act in place of national 
courts to review expeditiously the final determination to determine 
whether it conforms with the antidumping or countervailing duty law of 
the country that made the determination.
    Under Article 1904 of the Agreement, which came into force on 
January 1, 1994, the Government of the United States, the Government of 
Canada and the Government of Mexico established Rules of Procedure for 
Article 1904 Binational Panel Reviews (``Rules''). These Rules were 
published in the Federal Register on February 23, 1994 (59 FR 8686).

Panel Decision

    On March 5, 2004, the Binational Panel remanded the Department of 
Commerce's final countervailing duty determination on remand. The 
following issues were remanded to the Department at the Department's 
request:
    With the exception of its requests to correct a conversion factor, 
which is rendered moot by our decision, and to revise its profit 
adjustment with respect to Alberta, which is addressed in our 
discussion of profit adjustments, the Panel grants the remand sought by 
the Department to reconsider certain

[[Page 32987]]

limited implementation issues. The issues for which this remand is 
granted are as follows:
    (1) To consider the issue of adjustment for harvesting costs for 
Manitoba and Saskatchewan;
    (2) To re-examine the calculation of the numerator in British 
Columbia;
    (3) To correct its omission of Douglas-fir from the Vancouver Log 
Market prices used as domestic log prices in the British Columbia Coast 
species matching;
    (4) To exclude the following categories of building logs in the 
Vernon price list from the benchmark calculation in Interior British 
Columbia: ``spruce bldg logs,'' ``spruce bldg logs (dry),'' ``white 
pine (dry) bldg logs,'' pine bldg logs'' and ``cedar bldg logs;''
    (5) To exclude from the benchmark calculation for British Columbia 
the Revelstoke Community Forest Corp Log Sale Prices;
    (6) To make the adjustments both downward and upward with respect 
to certain harvesting costs in Quebec;
    (7) To re-evaluate whether Quebec mills use pulpwood imports to 
produce softwood lumber; and
    (8) To exclude price listings for ``pine'' logs that were actually 
listings for ``White Pine'' logs in calculating the benchmark in 
Ontario.
    The Panel further remanded on the following issues:
    (1) The Department is directed to recalculate the benchmark price 
for stumpage in British Columbia taking into account the actual market 
conditions that govern the sale of timber harvesting authority in that 
province, including the fact that Crown stumpage fees are charged for 
stands rather than for the individual species.
    (2) The Department is directed to recalculate the benchmark price 
in Ontario taking into account the actual market conditions that govern 
the sale of timber harvesting authority in that province.
    (3) The Department is directed to recalculate the benchmark log 
prices for Quebec without use of the Sawlog Journal data. In the 
recalculation the Department must weight-average the import and 
Syndicates prices.
    (4) The Department is directed to recalculate the Ontario 
benchmarks, without use of the Sawlog Journal data, and weight-average 
the imports with the KPMG domestic log sales information.
    (5) The Department is directed to recalculate the benchmark log 
price for Manitoba without use of the import data.
    (6) The Department is directed to recalculate the benchmark log 
price for Saskatchewan without use of the import data.
    (7) The Department is directed to recalculate the benchmark log 
price for Alberta without use of the import data.
    (8) The Department is directed to recalculate the benchmark for 
British Columbia and to explain the basis for its action. If the 
Department is able to calculate a benchmark with weight-averaging of 
the domestic and import data, it is directed to calculate a benchmark 
with weight-averaging of the domestic and import prices. In its 
recalculation the Department must determine whether there is 
substantial evidence to support the Douglas fir benchmark.
    (9) The Department is directed to reconsider the adjustment for 
profit with respect to the benchmarks for all provinces. The Panel 
recognizes that it may not be unreasonable for the Department to 
reconsider the method used to estimate profit in Alberta, and 
accordingly, grants the remand request on this point. However, if the 
Investigating Authority cannot determine a better estimate of the 
amount of profit for Alberta, it is not authorized to change it.
    (10) The Department is directed to recalculate the denominator to 
include the appropriate proportion of the production of smaller 
sawmills in all provinces, and to provide a reasoned explanation of any 
deviation from the proportion included in respect of the production of 
the large sawmills.
    (11) The Department is directed to recalculate its exclusion 
analysis for Materiaux Blanchet's St. Pamphile Border Mill on a mill-
based subsidy rate as it had determined in the original investigation.
    The Investigating Authority is ordered to complete its remand 
determination by the firm date of July 30, 2004.

    Dated: June 7, 2004.
Caratina L. Alston,
United States Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat.
[FR Doc. 04-13237 Filed 6-10-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-GT-P