[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 103 (Wednesday, May 30, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29969-29970]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-10380]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-867]


Certain Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields from The 
People's Republic of China: Notice of Decision of the Court of 
International Trade Not in Harmony

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On May 10, 2007, the United States Court of International 
Trade (``Court'') entered a final judgment sustaining the third remand 
results made by the Department of Commerce (``the Department'') 
pursuant to the Court's remand of the antidumping duty order on Certain 
Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields from the People's Republic of 
China (``PRC'') in Slip Op. 06-21 (CIT February 15, 2006). See Fuyao 
Glass Industry Group Co. v. United States, Ct. No. 02-00282, Slip Op. 
06-21 (Ct. Int'l Trade May 10, 2007) (``Fuyao Glass''). This case 
arises out of the Department's Antidumping Duty Order on Certain 
Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields from the People's Republic of 
China, 67 FR 16087 (April 4, 2002) (``Order''). The final judgment in 
this case was not in harmony with the Department's Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Automotive Replacement Glass 
Windshields From the People's Republic of China, 67 FR 6482 (February 
12, 2002) (``Final Determination''), and accompanying Issues and 
Decisions Memorandum (``Decision Memo''), as amended at 67 FR 11670 
(March 15, 2002), covering the period of investigation (``POI''), July 
1, 2000 through December 31, 2000.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 30, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Stolz, 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) 482-4474.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Plaintiffs, Fuyao Glass Industry Group Co., Ltd. (``Fuyao'') and 
Xinyi Automotive Glass Co., Ltd. (``Xinyi''), contested several aspects 
of the Final Determination, including the Department's decision to 
disregard certain market economy inputs. On February 15, 2006, the 
court remanded the Department's decision regarding certain market 
economy inputs to the Department. See Fuyao Glass Industry Group Co., 
Ltd. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 02-00282, 2006 Ct. Int'l Trade 
Lexis 21, Slip Op. 2006-21 (CIT February 15, 2006) (``Fuyao Glass 
III''). In its remand to the Department, the Court concluded with 
respect to the standard applied in the Department's analysis, that the 
Department must conduct its analysis ``in accordance with the court's 
finding with respect to the use of the word 'are' rather than 'may be' 
when applying its subsidized price methodology.'' Fuyao Glass III, Slip 
Op. P. 9. The Court further directed the Department to either (1) 
``concur with the court's conclusions with respect to substantial 
evidence, or (2) re-open the record . . .'' Fuyao Glass III, Slip Op. 
p. 7. The Court concluded that it does not find the Department's 
determination, that prices from Korea and Indonesia are subsidized, is

[[Page 29970]]

supported by substantial record evidence. See Fuyao Glass III, Slip Op. 
p. 16. Pursuant to the Court's ruling, and under respectful protest, 
the Department concurred that the record evidence does not contain 
substantial evidence to support a conclusion that prices from Korea and 
Indonesia are subsidized. See Viraj Group v. United States, 343 F.3d 
1371, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Because the Court found that the evidence 
on the record does not support the Department's determination to 
disregard prices from Korea and Indonesia, in the remand results, the 
Department determined to calculate the dumping margin for Fuyao and 
Xinyi based upon prices the plaintiffs actually paid to suppliers 
located in Korea and Indonesia.

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 
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''), the Department must 
publish a notice of a court decision that is not ``in harmony'' with a 
Department determination. The Court's decision in Fuyao Glass III on 
May 10, 2007, constitutes a final decision of that court that is not in 
harmony with the Department's Final Determination. This notice is 
published in fulfillment of the publication requirements of Timken. 
Accordingly, the Department will issue revised instructions to U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection if the Court's decision is not appealed 
or if it is affirmed on appeal.
    This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 
516A(c)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: May 21, 2007.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E7-10380 Filed 5-29-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S