[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 52 (Monday, March 19, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12759-12760]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4949]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-803]


Notice of Amended Final Results in Accordance With Court 
Decision: Heavy Forged Hand Tools from the People's Republic of China

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 19, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Martin or Mark Manning; AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
3936 or (202) 482-5253, respectively.
SUMMARY: On March 10, 2007, the appeals period expired with respect to 
a decision of the United States Court of International Trade (``CIT''), 
which had sustained the final results in part, and the remand 
determination in part, of the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') in the administrative review of the antidumping duty 
orders on heavy forged hand tools (``HFHTs'') from the People's 
Republic of China (``PRC''), covering the period February 1, 2001, 
through January 31, 2002. See Shandong Huarong Machinery Co. v. United 
States and Ames True Temper, Slip Op. 07-3 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2007) 
(``Shandong Huarong II''). As there is now a final court decision, we 
are amending the final results of the review in this matter. We will 
instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') to liquidate 
entries subject to these amended final results.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On September 10, 2003, the Department published in the Federal 
Register the final results of review for the eleventh review of HFHTs 
from the PRC. See Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With 
or Without Handles, From the People's Republic of China: Final Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of the Order on Bars and 
Wedges, 68 FR 53347 (September 10, 2003) (``Final Results''). The 
period of review (``POR'') was February 1, 2001, through January 31, 
2002. Shandong Huarong Machinery Co. (``Huarong'') filed a summons on 
September 18, 2003, and filed a complaint on September 25, 2003, 
challenging the Department's Final

[[Page 12760]]

Results. Ames True Temper \1\ (``Ames'') filed a summons on October 10, 
2003, and filed a complaint on November 10, 2003, also challenging the 
Department's Final Results. The Court consolidated the two cases on 
December 23, 2003. On February 17, 2004, Ames filed, with a supporting 
brief, a motion for judgment upon the agency record. On February 18, 
2004, Huarong filed, with a supporting brief, its motion for judgment 
upon the agency record. In their briefs, Ames and Huarong challenged 
several aspects of the Final Results. See Ames's February 17, 2004, 
proposed order and brief in support of motion for judgment upon the 
agency record (``Ames Motion for Judgment''); see also Huarong's 
February 18, 2004, proposed order and brief in support of motion for 
judgment upon the agency record (``Huarong Motion for Judgment''). On 
April 26, 2004, the Department filed its opposition to both the Huarong 
Motion for Judgment and the Ames Motion for Judgment. Ames filed an 
opposition to the Huarong Motion for Judgment on April 27, 2004. 
Huarong filed its reply to the Department's opposition and Ames's 
opposition on May 21, 2004. The Court issued a remand order on May 2, 
2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Ames True Temper is a domestic interested party to the 
proceeding, and was the petitioner in the underlying review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Shandong Huarong Machinery Co. v. United States, 2005 Ct. Intl. 
Trade LEXIS 57, Slip Op. 2005-54 (Ct. Int'l Trade, 2005) (``Shandong 
Huarong I''), the CIT remanded the underlying final results to the 
Department to: (1) reopen the record in order to afford Huarong a 
second opportunity to provide a scrap offset in which its scrap sales 
are allocated to the production of bars/wedges; (2) explain why its 
methodology of including distances greater than the distance from the 
nearest port to the factory, when calculating the weighted-average 
freight distance for multiple suppliers of one particular factor of 
production (``FOP''), satisfies the reasoning in Sigma Corp. v. United 
States, 117 F.3d 1401 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (``Sigma'') and Lasko Metal 
Products Inc. v. United States, 43 F.3d 1442, 1446 (Fed. Cir. 1994) 
(``Lasko''), or adjust its methodology; (3) explain its decision to 
disregard the effect of subsidies from the United States and other 
countries, in light of Fuyao Glass Indus. Group Co. v. United States, 
Slip Op. 2003-169 (Ct. Int'l Trade, 2003) (``Fuyao I'') and Fuyao Glass 
Indus. Group Co. v. United States, Slip Op. 2005-06 (Ct. Int'l Trade, 
2005) (``Fuyao II''); (4) supply a more complete explanation to support 
its determination that labor costs and other factor inputs for making 
steel pallets are included in the cost of brokerage and handling; and 
(5) provide a more complete explanation to support its decision that 
the cost of movement from the truck to the container yard, demurrage 
and storage charges, and other port charges are included in the 
brokerage and handling cost.
    The Department released the Draft Results of Redetermination 
Pursuant to Court Remand (``Draft Redetermination'') to Huarong and 
Ames for comment on October 7, 2005. The Department received timely 
filed comments from both Huarong and Ames on October 14, 2005, and 
rebuttal comments from Huarong on October 19, 2005. The Department 
filed its Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand 
(``Final Redetermination'') with the CIT on November 30, 2005. In the 
Final Redetermination the Department did the following: (1) reopened 
the record, and applied a steel scrap offset in its calculation of 
normal value to adjust for sales of steel scrap that was generated from 
the production of the subject bars and wedges; (2) applied the Sigma 
cap in its analysis and capped the distance for each supplier before 
calculating the weighted-average inland freight distance; (3) explained 
its decision in the Final Results to not exclude U.S. export data from 
the Indian import statistics used as the surrogate value because it 
would have resulted in an insignificant adjustment to normal value; (4) 
revised its FOP methodology to include labor costs and other factor 
inputs for making steel pallets in normal value; and (5) explained its 
reasoning for finding that movement expenses incurred at the port of 
export were included in the calculation of brokerage and handing 
expenses. The Department recalculated the antidumping duty rate 
applicable to Huarong, and included the changes noted above. On January 
9, 2007, the CIT sustained all aspects of the remand redetermination 
made by the Department pursuant to the CIT's remand of the Final 
Results.

Amended Final Results of Review

    The time period for appealing the CIT's final decision to the Court 
of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has expired and no party has 
appealed this decision. As there is now a final and conclusive court 
decision with respect to litigation for Huarong, we are amending the 
final results of review to reflect the findings of the remand results, 
pursuant to section 516A(e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 
(``the Act''). The amended weighted-average margin is:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Manufacturer/Exporter                       Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shandong Huarong Machinery Co.:
Bars/Wedges.........................................               31.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment Rates

    The Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 
351.212(b)(1), we have calculated importer-specific assessment rates. 
Where the importer-specific assessment rate is above de minimis on an 
ad valorem basis, calculated by dividing the dumping margins found on 
examined subject merchandise by the estimated entered value, we will 
instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on that importer's entries of 
subject merchandise. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will 
instruct CBP to liquidate without regard to antidumping duties any 
entries for which the importer-specific assessment rate is de minimis 
(i.e., less than 0.5 percent ad valorem). Since the actual entered 
value of the merchandise was not reported to us, we have divided, where 
applicable, the total dumping margins (calculated as the difference 
between normal value and export price) for each importer by the total 
number of units sold to the importer. We will direct CBP to assess the 
resulting unit dollar amount against each unit of subject merchandise 
entered by the importer during the POR. The Department will issue 
appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after 
publication of these amended final results of review.
    These amended final results of administrative review are issued and 
published in accordance with section 516A(c)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: March 12, 2007.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E7-4949 Filed 3-16-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S