[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 215 (Wednesday, November 7, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62815-62816]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-21877]



[[Page 62815]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-867]


Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value and Antidumping Duty Order Pursuant to Court Decision: Certain 
Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields From the People's Republic of 
China

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

DATES: Effective Date: November 7, 2007.
SUMMARY: On May 10, 2007, the United States Court of International 
Trade (``Court'') sustained the Final Results of Redetermination 
Pursuant to Court Remand, Fuyao Glass Industry Group Co., Ltd. et al., 
v. United States (February 15, 2006) (``Third Remand Redetermination'') 
made by the Department of Commerce (``the Department'') pursuant to the 
Court's third remand of the final determination of the less-than-fair-
value investigation of Certain Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields 
from the People's Republic of China (``PRC''). See Fuyao Glass Industry 
Group Co. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 02-00282, Slip Op. 06-21 
(CIT February 15, 2006) (``Fuyao Glass III''). As there is now a final 
and conclusive court decision in this case, the Department is amending 
the final determination and antidumping duty order of this 
investigation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Stolz or Robert Bolling, 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 and (202) 482-3434, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    This case arose out of the Department's Antidumping Duty Order on 
Certain Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields From the PRC, 67 FR 
16087 (April 4, 2002) and 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. Following publication of the Final 
Determination, in separate actions, Fuyao Glass Industry Group Co., 
Ltd. et al. (``Fuyao''), Xinyi Automotive Glass (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. 
(``Xinyi''),\1\ Shenzhen Benxun Automotive Glass Co., Ltd. (Benxun),\2\ 
and Changchun Pilkington Safety Glass, Co., Ltd., Guilin Pilkington 
Safety Glass Co., Ltd., and Wuhan Yao hua Pilkington Safety Glass Co., 
Ltd. (collectively ``Pilkington'') filed lawsuits with the Court 
challenging the Department's Final Determination.\3\ Collectively, the 
plaintiffs contested several aspects of the Final Determination, 
including the Department's decision to disregard certain market economy 
inputs. On August 2, 2002, all lawsuits challenging the Final 
Determination, including Xinyi's lawsuit, were consolidated into Fuyao 
Glass Industry Group Co., Ltd. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 02-
00282. On February 15, 2006, while the cases were still consolidated, 
the Court issued a third remand order to the Department concerning its 
decision regarding certain market economy inputs. See Fuyao Glass III. 
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.'' Id. at 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 * * *.'' Id. at 7. The 
Court concluded that it does not find the Department's determination, 
that prices from South Korea and Indonesia are subsidized, is supported 
by substantial record evidence. See id. at 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 South 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 South 
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 South Korea and 
Indonesia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Fuyao and Xinyi were mandatory respondents during the POI.
    \2\ The Department determined that Shenzhen CSG Automotive Glass 
Co., Ltd. is a successor-in-interest to Benxun. See Notice of Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review: Automotive 
Replacement Glass Windshields From the People's Republic of China, 
69 FR 43388 (July 20, 2004).
    \3\ Court Nos. 02-00282, 02-00312, 02-00320, and 02-00321.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 8, 2007, Fuyao's action was severed from the 
consolidated action. See Court Order of January 8, 2007, in Ct. No. 02-
00282. On May 10, 2007, the Court issued a final judgment wherein it 
affirmed the Department's third remand results with respect to Fuyao's 
action. On May 30, 2007, consistent with the decision in Timken Co. v. 
United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 1990), the Department notified 
the public that the Court's decision was not in harmony with the 
Department's final determination. See Certain Automotive Replacement 
Glass Windshields From the People's Republic of China: Notice of 
Decision of the Court of International Trade Not in Harmony, 72 FR 
29969 (May 30, 2007). No party appealed the Court's decision. As there 
is now a final and conclusive court decision in this case, we are 
amending our Final Determination.

Amended Final Determination

    As the litigation in this case has concluded, the Department is 
amending the Final Determination to reflect the results of our third 
remand determination. The revised dumping margin in the amended final 
determination is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                          Exporter                            (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuyao Glass Industry Group Co., Ltd........................         0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The PRC-wide rate continues to be 124.5 percent as determined in 
the Department's Final Determination. The Department intends to issue 
instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') fifteen 
days after publication of this notice, to revise the cash deposit rates 
for the company listed above, effective as of the publication date of 
this notice. Because Fuyao obtained a preliminary injunction, we will 
also instruct CBP to liquidate all entries without regard to 
antidumping duties.
    This notice is published in accordance with sections 735(d) and 
777(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.


[[Page 62816]]


    Dated: October 31, 2007.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
 [FR Doc. E7-21877 Filed 11-6-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P