[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 19 (Friday, January 29, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4769-4770]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-1866]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-891]


Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof 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, 
Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: On October 22, 2008, the United States Court of International 
Trade (``CIT'' or ``Court'') sustained the final remand determination 
made by the Department of Commerce (``the Department'') pursuant to the 
Court's remand of the scope ruling of the antidumping duty order on 
hand trucks from the People's Republic of China (``PRC''). See Gleason 
Industrial Products, Inc. v. United States, Ct. No. 06-00089, Slip Op. 
08-115 (Ct. Int'l Trade October 22, 2008) (``Gleason III''). This case 
arises out of the Department's antidumping duty order on hand trucks 
and certain parts thereof from the People's Republic of China. The 
final judgment in this case was not in harmony with the Department's 
February 2006 final scope ruling.

DATES: Effective Date: November 1, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laurel LaCivita, 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) 482-4243.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In December 2004, the Department placed an 
antidumping duty order on certain varieties of hand trucks manufactured 
in the People's Republic of China. See Antidumping Duty Order on Hand 
Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China, 
69 FR 70122 (December 2, 2004) (``Order''). In December 2005, Central 
Purchasing, LLC (``Central Purchasing''), requested the Department to 
determine whether two of the welding carts that it imported, models 
93851 and 43615, were within the scope of the order. See Central 
Purchasing's Scope Ruling Request (December 19, 2005). The Petitioners, 
Gleason Industrial Products, Inc. and Precision Products, Inc. 
(``Gleason''), responded that both models of Central Purchasing's carts 
should be included within the scope of the Order. See Gleason's 
Response to Central Purchasing's Scope Request (January 4, 2006).
    In an unpublished ruling, the Department found that both models of 
Central Purchasing's carts were outside the scope of the antidumping 
duty order. See Memorandum from Hilary E. Sadler, Case Analyst, though 
Wendy J. Frankel, Office Director, to Stephen J. Claeys, Acting Deputy 
Assistant Secretary for AD/CVD Operations: ``Final Scope Ruling for 
Central Purchasing, LLC's Two Models of Welding Carts,'' dated February 
15, 2006 (``Final Scope Ruling '').
    On March 17, 2006, Gleason filed its summons with the Court 
alleging that the Final Scope Ruling was not supported by substantial 
evidence or otherwise in accordance with law. The Department requested 
a voluntary remand in November 2006 to reconsider its original 
determination, which the trial court granted. See Gleason Indus.

[[Page 4770]]

Prods., Inc. v. United States, Ct. No. 06-00089, Slip Op. 07-40 (Ct. 
Int'l Trade March 16, 2007) (``Gleason I'').
    On first remand, the Department reevaluated its position and 
determined that both models of welding carts were subject to the Order. 
The trial court affirmed the first remand results for model number 
93851 in April 2008, but remanded the matter to Commerce to reexamine 
its findings for model 43615. See Gleason Indus. Prods., Inc. v. United 
States, 556 F. Supp. 2d 1344, 1347-49 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2008) (``Gleason 
II''). Commerce subsequently issued a second set of remand results in 
July 2008 in which it concluded that model 43615 lies outside of the 
scope of the antidumping duty order on hand trucks from the PRC. The 
trial court sustained Commerce's second remand results on October 22, 
2008. See Gleason III. The United States Court of Appeals for the 
Federal Circuit subsequently affirmed the CIT's judgment in November 
2009. See Gleason Indus. Prods. Inc. v. United States, Ct. No. 2009-
1150 (Fed. Cir. November 4, 2009).

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 Gleason III on 
October 22, 2008, constitutes a final decision of that court that is 
not in harmony with the Department's scope ruling. This notice is 
effective as of November 1, 2008 and 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: January 22, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-1866 Filed 1-28-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P