[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 76 (Thursday, April 20, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20389-20390]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-5949]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-122-838]


Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada: Notice of 
Rescission of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 20, 2006.
SUMMARY: On December 28, 2005, the Department of Commerce (the 
Department) published in the Federal Register (70 FR 76774) a notice 
announcing the initiation of a new shipper review of the antidumping 
duty order on certain softwood lumber products from Canada, covering 
the period May 1, 2005, to October 31, 2005. The review covers 
International Forest Products Corporation (IFP Corp.). We are now 
rescinding this review as a result of our determination that IFP Corp. 
was not the first party in the chain of distribution with knowledge 
that the merchandise was destined for the United States.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Layton or Constance Handley at 
(202) 482-0371 or (202) 482-0631, respectively, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14\th\ Street & Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On November 28, 2005, the Department received a request to conduct 
a new shipper review of the antidumping duty (AD) order on certain 
softwood lumber from Canada. On December 21, 2005, the Department 
initiated this new shipper antidumping review covering the period May 
1, 2005, to October 31, 2005. See Certain Softwood Lumber Products from 
Canada: Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 70 
FR 76774 (December 28, 2005). In that notice the Department stated that 
it intended to solicit and carefully examine information concerning the 
first party in the chain of distribution with knowledge of U.S. 
destination.

[[Page 20390]]

    On January 5, 2006, the Department issued a letter to the 
respondent, IFP Corp., to solicit this information. IFP Corp. responded 
on January 11, 2006. On February 6, 2006, the Department issued a 
memorandum expressing its intent to rescind the new shipper review. See 
memorandum from Constance Handley, Program Manager to Susan H. Kuhbach, 
Director, Office 1, re: New Shipper Review: Intent to rescind the 
Review of International Forest Products Corporation (Rescission Memo). 
On February 24, 2006, the Department received comments from IFP Corp.

Analysis of Comments Received

    In the Rescission Memo, the Department expressed its intent to 
rescind the review, because IFP Corp., the company from which the 
request for review had been received, was not the first party in the 
chain of distribution with knowledge that the merchandise was destined 
for the United States. Information provided by the producer, Terrace 
Lumber Company (Terrace), indicated that it had knowledge that the 
merchandise was destined for the United States. IFP Corp. does not 
dispute that Terrace was aware that its lumber was destined for the 
United States. However, it argues that the review request was intended 
to be for Terrace as well as for IFP.
    According to IFP Corp., the request was made ``on behalf'' of IFP 
Corp. because, by agreement with Terrace, IFP Corp. was responsible for 
paying the legal fees incurred in participating in the review. IFP 
Corp. maintains that it clearly identified Terrace as the producer and 
as one of the two requesters on the front of the petition and in the 
supporting documents. IFP Corp. distinguishes this case from Pasta from 
Italy and Garlic from the PRC\1\ in that in those cases, no request was 
made to review the producer's sales. Finally, IFP Corp. argues that 
Terrace's only sales are to IFP Corp., and therefore, the only sales of 
Terrace's which could be reviewed are sales to IFP and the only post-
tariff sales to U.S. customers for review are from IFP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Certain Pasta From Italy: Termination of New Shipper 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 66602 (December 19, 
1997); see also Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China; 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and 
Partial Termination of Administrative Review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 751(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 
Act), provides that the Department will conduct a new shipper review if 
it receives a request from an exporter or producer of the subject 
merchandise. We disagree with IFP Corp.'s contention that the request 
for this review was received from both IFP Corp. and Terrace. The 
letter submitted to the Department states ``On behalf of International 
Forest Products Corporation, we submit the attached request for new 
shipper review . . .'' In the same paragraph it goes on to state ``IFP 
{Corp.{time}  requests a new shipper review. . .'' Although Terrace is 
identified as the producer in the request, nowhere in the document does 
it specifically state that a review is being requested for Terrace. On 
the cover page to the request, and on page 4, IFP Corp. is clearly 
identified as the ``exporter and requester'' and Terrace as the 
``producer.'' In addition, the request specifically identifies IFP 
Corp.'s first sale of Terrace-produced lumber to IFP Corp.'s customer 
and provides an invoice for that sale, further indicating that IFP 
Corp. was requesting a review of its sales to its customers. Section 
751(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Act and the Department's regulations at 
351.214(b) specify that an exporter may request a new shipper review. 
IFP Corp. made the request for this review, and the Department 
initiated a review based on that request from IFP Corp. However, the 
relevant sale for the purposes of conducting an antidumping duty 
review, is the sale from Terrace to IFP Corp., not the sale from IFP 
Corp. to its customer. Therefore, IFP Corp. does not qualify for a new 
shipper review and, accordingly, we are rescinding the review at this 
time.

Rescission of New Shipper Review

    For the reasons stated in the Rescission Memo and as outlined 
above, and pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.214(f), we are rescinding this new shipper review.

Notification

    Bonding is no longer permitted to fulfill security requirements for 
shipments of certain softwood lumber products from Canada produced and 
exported by IFP Corp., entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption in the United States on or after the publication of this 
rescission notice in the Federal Register.
    This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written 
notification of the return/destruction of APO material or conversion to 
judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with 
the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to 
sanctions.
    This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 
751(a)(2)(B)(iv) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(f)(3).

    Dated: April 13, 2006.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretaryfor Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E6-5949 Filed 4-19-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S