[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 192 (Wednesday, October 4, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58583-58584]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-16395]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

A-570-825


Sebacic Acid from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court 
Decision Not in Harmony with Final Results of Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On September 18, 2006, the United States Court of 
International Trade (``the Court'') sustained the Department of 
Commerce's (``the Department'') final remand redetermination on its 
entirety. See Guangdong Chemicals Import & Export Corporation v. United 
States, Ct. No. 05-00023, Slip Op. 06-142 (Ct. Int'l Trade September 
18, 2006) (``Guangdong II''). This case arises out of the Department's 
final determination of Sebacic Acid from the People's Republic of 
China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 69 FR 
75303 (December 16, 2004) (``Final Results''). The final judgment in 
this case was not in harmony with the Department's Final Results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 4, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Moats, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 
Washington DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-5047.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    In the Final Results, the Department selected a surrogate value for 
sebacic acid in order to determine the portion of the factors of 
production attributable to sebacic acid and its co-product, capryl 
alcohol. See section 773(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 
(``the Act''). To obtain a surrogate value for sebacic acid, the 
Department used information from Indian import statistics rather than 
the use of data maintained by the publication Chemical Weekly in its 
Chemicals Import and Export trade database index (``ChemImpEx'') placed 
on the record and proposed by Guangdong Chemicals Import & Export 
Corporation (``Guangdong''). Additionally, the Department changed its 
methodology between the Preliminary Results (see Sebacic Acid from the 
People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and Notice of Partial Recision,

[[Page 58584]]

69 FR 47409 (August 5, 2004) (``Preliminary Results'')) and the Final 
Results, and applied a by-product offset to reflect Guangdong's sale of 
fatty acid and glycerine made in the production process.
    Before the Court, Guangdong challenged the Department's selection 
of Indian import statistics as the surrogate to value sebacic acid, and 
its determination to apply the by-product offset after the application 
of the surrogate financial ratio to manufacturing costs in the Final 
Results. On January 25, 2006, the Court issued a remand in Guangdong 
Chemicals Import & Export Corporation v. United States, Ct. No. 05-
00023 Slip Op. 06-13 (January 25, 2006). The Court stated that the 
Department did not justify its decision to abandon a more product-
specific data source. See id. at 19. The Court specifically pointed out 
that a remand was necessary because the Department did not address the 
data Guangdong used to corroborate its ChemImpEx data, and the 
Department did not explain why the Department's use of the Indian 
import statistics was not aberrational given that the data was 
comprised of a basket category. See id. at 19 and 20. The Court 
concluded that the Department failed to present substantial evidence 
supporting its surrogate value for sebacic acid. See id. at 22.
    Additionally, the Court granted the Department's request for a 
voluntary remand to give interested parties an opportunity to comment 
on the application of the by-product offset which was changed between 
the Preliminary Results and the Final Results without allowing parties 
the opportunity to comment on this change. See id. at 22.
    In order to comply with the Court's remand order, the Department 
reviewed its choice of surrogate value for sebacic acid and made 
changes to the Indian import statistics to eliminate a value that the 
Department determined to be aberrational. Also, the Department provided 
additional explanation of its by-product methodology and provided 
interested parties an opportunity to comment on its methodology for the 
redetermination on remand. On May 3, 2006, the Department issued its 
Final Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand (``Final 
Redetermination'').
    Guangdong continued to challenge the Department's determination in 
the Final Redetermination. On September 18, 2006, the Court found that 
the Department duly complied with the Court's remand order and 
sustained the Final Redetermination. See Guangdong II, Slip Op. 06-142 
(September 18, 2006). The Court found that the Department's elimination 
of aberrational values constituted a reasonable step to compensate for 
some weaknesses in the Indian import statistics. See id. at 10. 
Therefore, the Court found that the Department's selection of surrogate 
value for sebacic acid is supported by substantial evidence. See id. at 
12. Also, the Court found that the Department's analysis of the 
reliability of the Indian import statistics in view of the 
corroborating evidence submitted by Guangdong was reasonable. See id. 
at 15. Additionally, the Court upheld the Department's decision to 
account for separable costs associated with by-product sales by 
applying a by-product credit after the application of financial ratios 
to manufacturing costs. See id. at 21. Therefore, the Department's 
Final Redetermination was sustained in its entirety by the Court. 
Consequently, the antidumping duty rate for Guangdong will be 19.82 
percent.

Timken Notice

    In its decision in Timken Co., v. United States, 893 F.2d 337, 341 
(Fed. Cir. 1990) (``Timken''), the United States Court of Appeals for 
the Federal Circuit held that, pursuant to section 516A(e) of the Act 
of 1930, the Department must publish a notice of a court decision that 
is not ``in harmony'' with a Department determination, and must suspend 
liquidation of entries pending a ``conclusive'' court decision. The 
Court's decision in Guangdong II on September 18, 2006, constitutes a 
final decision of that court that is not in harmony with the 
Department's final results of administrative review. This notice is 
published in fulfillment of the publication requirements of Timken. 
Accordingly, the Department will continue the suspension of liquidation 
of the subject merchandise pending the expiration of the period of 
appeal, or, if appealed, upon a final and conclusive court decision.
    This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 
516A(c)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: September 28, 2006.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Acting Assistant Secretaryfor Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E6-16395 Filed 10-3-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S