[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 238 (Tuesday, December 13, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73726-73727]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-7275]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

A-533-810


Stainless Steel Bar from India: Notice of Court Decision Not in 
Harmony and Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On October 20, 2005, in Slater Steels Corp. v. United States, 
Consol. Court No. 02-00551, Slip Op. 05-137 (CIT October 20, 2005) 
(``Slater III''), a lawsuit challenging the Department of Commerce's 
(``the Department'') Notice of Amended Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Bar from India, 67 FR 53336 
(August 15, 2002) (``Final Results'') and the accompanying Issues and 
Decision Memorandum (July 5, 2002) (``Decision Memorandum''), the Court 
of International Trade (``CIT'') affirmed the Department's third remand 
determination and entered a judgment order. In the remand 
determination, the Department did not collapse Viraj Alloys Limited 
(``VAL'') with Viraj Impoexpo Limited (``VIL'') and Viraj Forgings 
Limited (``VFL''). The Department calculated an individual antidumping 
duty margin for VIL/VFL. The Department did not calculate an individual 
antidumping duty margin for VAL because it did not export the subject 
merchandise to the United States during the period of review. The 
resulting antidumping duty margin for VIL/VFL is 0.84 percent.
    Consistent with the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
Federal Circuit (``Federal Circuit'') in Timken Co. v. United States, 
893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (``Timken''), the Department will 
continue to order the suspension of liquidation of the subject 
merchandise until there is a ``conclusive'' decision in this case. If 
the case is not appealed, or if it is affirmed on appeal, the 
Department will instruct the U.S. Customs and Border Protection 
(``CBP'') to liquidate all relevant entries of subject merchandise for 
VIL/VFL.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 30, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Williams, AD/CVD Enforcement 
Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4619.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    In the underlying administrative review covering the period 
February 1, 2000, though January 31, 2001, the Department collapsed 
VAL, VIL, and VFL pursuant to 19 USC Sec.  1677(33) and 19 CFR Sec.  
351.401(f) (2000). See Final Results; see also Decision Memorandum at 
Comment 1. As a collapsed entity, VAL/VIL/VFL received a de minimis 
dumping margin.
    Based upon the record evidence, the Department found that VAL, VIL, 
and VFL ``meet the regulations' collapsing requirements.'' Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 1. First, the Department found that ``VAL and VIL 
can produce subject merchandise (i.e., similar or identical products) 
and can continue to do so, independently or under existing leasing 
agreements, without substantial

[[Page 73727]]

retooling of their production facilities.'' Id. Second, the Department 
found ``a significant potential for the manipulation of price and 
production among VIL, VAL, and VFL.'' Id. Slater Steels Corporation, 
Carpenter Technology Corporation, Electralloy Corporation, and Crucible 
Specialty Metals Division of Crucible Materials Corporation 
(collectively, the ``plaintiffs''/``defendant-intervenors'') challenged 
this determination before the CIT, arguing that the Department 
misapplied its collapsing regulation.
    The CIT determined that the Department's decision to collapse VAL, 
VIL, and VFL was not supported by substantial evidence on the record. 
Therefore, the CIT remanded the Final Results to the Department to 
reconsider its analysis of the collapsing issue and, if necessary, 
revise the dumping margin calculation accordingly. See Slater Steels 
Corp. v. United States, 279 F. Supp. 2d 1370 (CIT August 21, 2003) 
(``Slater I''). Pursuant to the CIT's order in Slater I, the Department 
filed its Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Remand (``Remand 
I''). In Remand I, the Department determined that its decision to 
collapse VAL, VIL, and VFL was supported by substantial evidence and in 
accordance with the law, and therefore, the Department did not revise 
its dumping margin calculations.
    Upon review of Remand I, the CIT again remanded the Final Results 
to the Department for further review of its collapsing determination, 
citing certain issues for the Department to reexamine. See Slater 
Steels Corp. v. United States, Court No. 02-00551, Slip Op. 04-22 (CIT 
March 8, 2004) (``Slater II''). In response to the CIT's instructions 
in Slater II, the Department filed its Final Results of Redetermination 
Pursuant to Remand (``Remand II''). In Remand II, the Department 
addressed the concerns raised by the CIT in Slater II and found that 
the decision to collapse VAL, VIL, and VFL was supported by substantial 
evidence and in accordance with the law, and therefore, the Department 
did not revise its dumping margin calculations.
    Upon review of Remand II, the CIT again remanded the Final Results 
to the Department with specific instructions that the Department 
calculate individual dumping margins. See Slater III Slip Op. 05-137 at 
15. The CIT found that the Department's decision to collapse VAL, VIL, 
and VFL in the Final Results was not consistent with the Department's 
decision not to collapse VAL, VIL, and VFL in previous reviews. See 
Slater III Slip Op. 05-137 at 15. In Final Results of Redetermination 
Pursuant to Remand (``Remand III''), the Department did not collapse 
VAL with VIL/VFL. See Remand III at 5-6. The Department collapsed VIL 
and VFL because the plaintiffs agreed in the underlying review that VIL 
and VFL should be collapsed. See Remand III at 5. VIL/VFL's resulting 
antidumping duty margin is 0.84 percent. Id. at 26. The CIT affirmed 
the Department's Remand III on October 20, 2005. See Slater III Slip 
Op. 05-137 at 4-5.

Suspension of Liquidation

    The Federal Circuit, in Timken, held that the Department must 
publish notice of a decision of the CIT or the Federal Circuit which is 
not ``in harmony'' with the Department's Final Results. Publication of 
this notice fulfills that obligation. The Federal Circuit also held 
that the Department must suspend liquidation of the subject merchandise 
until there is a ``conclusive'' decision in the case. Therefore, 
pursuant to Timken, the Department must continue to suspend liquidation 
pending the expiration of the period to appeal the CIT's October 20, 
2005, decision or, if that decision is appealed, pending a final 
decision by the Federal Circuit.
    The Department will instruct CBP to liquidate relevant entries 
covering the subject merchandise, in the event that the CIT's ruling is 
not appealed, or if appealed and upheld by the Court of Appeals for the 
Federal Circuit.

    Dated: December 7, 2005.
Joesph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E5-7275 Filed 12-12-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S