Re: softwood lumber update

[ken hanly <northsunm@xxxxxxxxx>]

OK. What does it all mean. After reading it it is not
at all clear to me that it says a thing about
rescinding the duty only recission of a shipper review
of some entity called International Forest Products
Corp. because it is not the first in the chain that
knew the products came from Canada and were bound for
the US.


--- Eubulides <autoplectic@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> [Federal Register: April 20, 2006 (Volume 71, Number
> 76)]
> [Notices]
> [Page 20389-20390]
> From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access
> [wais.access.gpo.gov]
> [DOCID:fr20ap06-22]
>
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
>
> International Trade Administration
>
> [A-122-838]
>
>
> Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada: Notice
> of
> Rescission of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review
>
> AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade
> Administration,
> Department of Commerce.
>
> EFFECTIVE DATE: April 20, 2006.
> SUMMARY: On December 28, 2005, the Department of
> Commerce (the
> Department) published in the Federal Register (70 FR
> 76774) a notice
> announcing the initiation of a new shipper review of
> the antidumping
> duty order on certain softwood lumber products from
> Canada, covering
> the period May 1, 2005, to October 31, 2005. The
> review covers
> International Forest Products Corporation (IFP
> Corp.). We are now
> rescinding this review as a result of our
> determination that IFP Corp.
> was not the first party in the chain of distribution
> with knowledge
> that the merchandise was destined for the United
> States.
>
> FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Layton or
> Constance Handley at
> (202) 482-0371 or (202) 482-0631, respectively,
> AD/CVD Operations,
> Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade
> Administration,
> U.S. Department of Commerce, 14\th\ Street &
> Constitution Avenue, NW.,
> Washington, DC 20230.
>
> SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
>
> Background
>
>     On November 28, 2005, the Department received a
> request to conduct
> a new shipper review of the antidumping duty (AD)
> order on certain
> softwood lumber from Canada. On December 21, 2005,
> the Department
> initiated this new shipper antidumping review
> covering the period May
> 1, 2005, to October 31, 2005. See Certain Softwood
> Lumber Products from
> Canada: Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty New
> Shipper Review, 70
> FR 76774 (December 28, 2005). In that notice the
> Department stated that
> it intended to solicit and carefully examine
> information concerning the
> first party in the chain of distribution with
> knowledge of U.S.
> destination.
>
> [[Page 20390]]
>
>     On January 5, 2006, the Department issued a
> letter to the
> respondent, IFP Corp., to solicit this information.
> IFP Corp. responded
> on January 11, 2006. On February 6, 2006, the
> Department issued a
> memorandum expressing its intent to rescind the new
> shipper review. See
> memorandum from Constance Handley, Program Manager
> to Susan H. Kuhbach,
> Director, Office 1, re: New Shipper Review: Intent
> to rescind the
> Review of International Forest Products Corporation
> (Rescission Memo).
> On February 24, 2006, the Department received
> comments from IFP Corp.
>
> Analysis of Comments Received
>
>     In the Rescission Memo, the Department expressed
> its intent to
> rescind the review, because IFP Corp., the company
> from which the
> request for review had been received, was not the
> first party in the
> chain of distribution with knowledge that the
> merchandise was destined
> for the United States. Information provided by the
> producer, Terrace
> Lumber Company (Terrace), indicated that it had
> knowledge that the
> merchandise was destined for the United States. IFP
> Corp. does not
> dispute that Terrace was aware that its lumber was
> destined for the
> United States. However, it argues that the review
> request was intended
> to be for Terrace as well as for IFP.
>     According to IFP Corp., the request was made
> ``on behalf'' of IFP
> Corp. because, by agreement with Terrace, IFP Corp.
> was responsible for
> paying the legal fees incurred in participating in
> the review. IFP
> Corp. maintains that it clearly identified Terrace
> as the producer and
> as one of the two requesters on the front of the
> petition and in the
> supporting documents. IFP Corp. distinguishes this
> case from Pasta from
> Italy and Garlic from the PRC\1\ in that in those
> cases, no request was
> made to review the producer's sales. Finally, IFP
> Corp. argues that
> Terrace's only sales are to IFP Corp., and
> therefore, the only sales of
> Terrace's which could be reviewed are sales to IFP
> and the only post-
> tariff sales to U.S. customers for review are from
> IFP.
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>     \1\ See Certain Pasta From Italy: Termination of
> New Shipper
> Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 66602
> (December 19,
> 1997); see also Fresh Garlic from the People's
> Republic of China;
> Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
> Administrative Review and
> Partial Termination of Administrative Review.
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>     Section 751(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Tariff Act of
> 1930, as amended (the
> Act), provides that the Department will conduct a
> new shipper review if
> it receives a request from an exporter or producer
> of the subject
> merchandise. We disagree with IFP Corp.'s contention
> that the request
> for this review was received from both IFP Corp. and
> Terrace. The
> letter submitted to the Department states ``On
> behalf of International
> Forest Products Corporation, we submit the attached
> request for new
> shipper review . . .'' In the same paragraph it goes
> on to state ``IFP
> {Corp.{time}  requests a new shipper review. . .''
> Although Terrace is
> identified as the producer in the request, nowhere
> in the document does
> it specifically state that a review is being
> requested for Terrace. On
> the cover page to the request, and on page 4, IFP
> Corp. is clearly
> identified as the ``exporter and requester'' and
> Terrace as the
> ``producer.'' In addition, the request specifically
> identifies IFP
> Corp.'s first sale of Terrace-produced lumber to IFP
> Corp.'s customer
> and provides an invoice for that sale, further
> indicating that IFP
> Corp. was requesting a review of its sales to its
> customers. Section
> 751(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Act and the Department's
> regulations at
> 351.214(b) specify that an exporter may request a
> new shipper review.
> IFP Corp. made the request for this review, and the
> Department
> initiated a review based on that request from IFP
> Corp. However, the
> relevant sale for the purposes of conducting an
> antidumping duty
> review, is the sale from Terrace to IFP Corp., not
> the sale from IFP
> Corp. to its customer. Therefore, IFP Corp. does not
> qualify
=== message truncated ===