You are on page 1of 4

34596 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No.

115 / Thursday, June 15, 2006 / Notices

Dated: May 24, 2006. Regulations and the Iranian Docketing Center, and the letter
Joseph N. Ingolia, Transactions Regulations 4 of the provided the address of the Docketing
Chief Administrative Law Judge. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Center. On March 9, 2006, Counsel for
[FR Doc. 06–5434 Filed 6–14–06; 8:45 am] Assets Control (OFAC). BIS notified Teepad by letter and by
BILLING CODE 3510–33–M
The charging letter also alleged that, facsimile to the facsimile number
on or about December 17, 2001, on or provided by Teepad that Teepad was
about March 7, 2002, Teepad aided and/ required to file a formal answer to the
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE or abetted the doing of an act that was charging letter with the ALJ. In the same
prohibited by the Regulations. letter, BIS notified Teepad that it must
Bureau of Industry and Security Specifically, BIS alleged that Teepad contact the Office of Chief Counsel for
[Docket No. 05–BIS–19]
forwarded telecommunications devices Industry and Security, by March 22,
manufactured by a U.S. company that 2006, if Teepad wished to enter into
In the Matter of: Teepad Electronic were subject to both the Regulations and settlement negotiations. Teepad did not
General Trading, P.O. Box #13708, the Iranian Transactions Regulations of file an answer with the ALJ and did not
Murshed Bazar, Dubai, UAE, OFAC through the UAE to Iran without contact the Office of Chief Counsel to
Respondent; Decision and Order authorization from OFAC as required by discuss settlement. In the
Section 746.7 of the Regulations. Recommended Decision and Order, the
On November 22, 2005, the Bureau of Finally, the BIS charging letter alleged ALJ found that Teepad did not answer
Industry and Security, U.S. Department that in connection with the transactions the charging letter in the manner
of Commerce (‘‘BIS’’), issued a charging occurring on or about December 17, required by Sections 766.5(a) and 766.6
letter initiating this administrative 2001, and on or about March 7, 2002, of the Regulations.
enforcement proceeding against Teepad Teepad transferred items exported from Pursuant to the default procedures set
Electronic General Trading (‘‘Teepad’’). the United States with knowledge, or forth in Section 766.7 of the
The charging letter alleged that Teepad reason to know, that a violation of the Regulations, BIS filed a Motion for
committed five violations of the Export Regulations would occur. Specifically, Default Order on April 11, 2006. Under
Administration Regulations (currently BIS alleged that Teepad transferred the Section 766.7(a) of the Regulations,
codified at 15 CFR parts 730–774 telecommunications devices described ‘‘[f]ailure of the respondent to file an
(2006)) (the ‘‘Regulations’’),1 issued the above to Iran when Teepad knew or had answer within the time provided
Export Administration Act of 1979, as reason to know that they had been constitutes a waiver of the respondent’s
amended (50 U.S.C. App. §§ 2401–2420 exported from the United States without right to appear,’’ and ‘‘on BIS’s motion
(2000)) (the ‘‘Act’’).2 proper export authorization. and without further notice to the
The charging letter alleged that Section 766.3(b)(1) of the Regulations respondent, [the ALJ] shall find the facts
Teepad conspired and acted in concert provides that notice of the issuance of to be as alleged in the charging letter.’’
with others, known and unknown, to a charging letter shall be served on a Based upon the record before him, the
bring about an act that constitutes a respondent by mailing a copy by ALJ held Teepad in default.
violation of the Regulations, namely the registered or certified mail addressed to On May 22, 2006, the ALJ issued a
export of telecommunications devices to the respondent at the respondent’s last Recommended Decision and Order in
Iran without the required licenses. BIS known address. In accordance with the which he found the facts to be as alleged
alleged that the goal of the conspiracy Regulations, on November 22, 2005, BIS in the charging letter, and determined
was to obtain telecommunications mailed the notice of issuance of a that those facts establish that Teepad
devices, including devices charging letter by registered mail to committed one violation of Section
manufactured by a U.S. company, Teepad. BIS submitted evidence that 764.2(d), two violations of Section
including an Adit 600 Chassis, FXO establishes the charging letter was 764.2(b), and two violations of Section
Channel Cards, and ABI FXO Ports received by Teepad on or about 764.2(e) of the Regulations. The ALJ
(ECCN 5A9913), on behalf of an Iranian December 7, 2005. recommended that Teepad be denied
end-user and to export those Section 766.6(a) of the Regulations export privileges for a period of ten
telecommunications devices to Iran, by provides, in pertinent part, that ‘‘[t]he years.
way of the United Arab Emirates (UAE). respondent must answer the charging On May 30, 2006, Teepad submitted
These items were subject to both the letter within 30 days after being served an e-mail to the Office of Chief Counsel
with notice of issuance of the charging for Industry and Security that Counsel
1 The charged violations occurred in 2001 and letter’’ initiating the administrative for BIS has supplied to me. In that e-
2002. The Regulations governing the violations at enforcement proceeding. Furthermore, mail, Teepad denies all wrongdoing. For
issue are found in the 2001 and 2002 versions of the charging letter informed Teepad that reasons stated previously in this
the Code of Federal Regulations (15 CFR parts 730–
774 (2001–2002)). a failure to follow this requirement Decision, this e-mail does not constitute
2 From August 21, 1994 through November 12, would result in default. a properly filed or timely response to
2000, the Act was in lapse. During that period, the On December 24, 2005, Teepad sent a the charges against Teepad (See,
President, through Executive Order 12924, which letter to BIS’s Director of the Office of Sections 766.5–6 of the Regulations).
was extended by successive Presidential Notices, The ALJ’s Recommended Decision
the last of which was August 3, 2000 (3 CFR, 2000
Export Enforcement in which Teepad
Comp, 397 (2001)), continued the Regulations in stated that it believed it was in and Order, together with the entire
effect under the International Emergency Economic compliance with international law. record in this case, has been referred to
Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701–06 (2000)) (‘‘IEEPA’’). Teepad did not file this letter with the me for final action under Section 766.22
On November 13, 2000, the Act was reauthorized of the Regulations. I find that the record
and it remained in effect through August 20, 2001.
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
Since August 21, 2001, the Act has been in lapse Docketing Center in accordance with supports the ALJ’s findings of fact and
and the President, through Executive Order 13222 Section 766.6(a). I note that charging conclusions of law with respect to each
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES

of August 17, 2001 (3 CFR, 2001 Comp. 783 (2002)), letter informed Teepad that, in of the above-referenced charges brought
as extended by the Notice of August 2, 2005 (70 FR against Teepad. I also find that the
45,273 (August 5, 2005)), has continued the
accordance with the Regulations, the
Regulations in effect under IEEPA. answer must be filed with the ALJ penalty recommended by the ALJ is
3 The term ‘‘ECCN’’ refers to Export Control appropriate, given the nature of the
Classification Number. See 15 CFR 772.1 (2006). 4 31 CFR part 560 (2006). violations, the importance of preventing

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:47 Jun 14, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\15JNN1.SGM 15JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 115 / Thursday, June 15, 2006 / Notices 34597

future unauthorized exports, and the transaction whereby the Denied Person Dated: June 9, 2006.
lack of any mitigating factors. I note that acquires or attempts to acquire such David H. McCormick,
Iran is a country against which the ownership, possession or control; Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry
United States maintains an economic C. Take any action to acquire from or and Security.
embargo because of its support for
to facilitate the acquisition or attempted Department of Commerce—Bureau of
international terrorism. Although the
acquisition from the Denied Person of Industry and Security
imposition of monetary penalties is an
appropriate option, I agree with the ALJ any item subject to the Regulations that [Docket No.: OS–BIS–19]
that in this case such a penalty may not has been exported from the United
States; In the Matter of: Teepad Electronic
be effective, given the difficulty of
General Trading, P.O. Box #13708,
collecting payment against a party D. Obtain from the Denied Person in
Murshed Bazar, Dubai, UAE,
outside the United States. the United States any item subject to the
Based on my review of the entire Respondent; Recommended Decision
Regulations with knowledge or reason and Order
record, I affirm the findings of fact and to know that the item will be, or is
conclusions of law in the ALJ’s intended to be, exported from the On November 22, 2005, the Bureau of
Recommended Decision and Order. United States; or Industry and Security, U.S. Department
Accordingly, it is therefore ordered, of Commerce (‘‘BIS’’), issued a charging
First, that, for a period of ten years E. Engage in any transaction to service letter initiating this administrative
from the date this Order is published in any item subject to the Regulations that enforcement proceeding against Teepad
the Federal Register, Teepad Electronic has been or will be exported from the Electronic General Trading (‘‘Teepad’’).
General Trading, P.O. Box #13708, United States and that is owned, The Charging Letter alleged that Teepad
Murshed Bazar, Dubai, United Arab possessed or controlled by the Denied committee five violations of the Export
Emirates, and all of its successors and Person, or service any item, of whatever Administration Regulations (currently
assigns, and, when acting for or on origin, that is owned, possessed or codified at 15 CFR parts 730–774
behalf of Teepad, its officers, controlled by the Denied Person if such (2006)) (the ‘‘Regulations’’),1 issued
representatives, agents, and employees service involves the use of any item under the Export Administration Act of
(‘‘Denied Person’’), may not, directly or subject to the Regulations that has been 1979, as amended (50 U.S.C. App.
indirectly, participate in any way in any or will be exported from the United §§ 2401–2420 (2000)) (the ‘‘Act’’).2
transaction involving any commodity, States. For purposes of this paragraph, Specifically, the Charging Letter
software or technology (hereinafter servicing means installation, alleged that Teepad conspired and acted
collectively referred to as ‘‘item’’) maintenance, repair, modification or in concert with others, known and
exported or to be exported from the testing. unknown, to bring about an act that
United States that is subject to the constitutes a violation of the
Regulations, or in any other activity Third, that, after notice and
Regulations, namely the export of
subject to the Regulations, including, opportunity for comment as provided in telecommunications devices to Iran
but not limited to: Section 766.23 of the Regulations, any without the required licenses. BIS
A. Applying for, obtaining, or using person, firm, corporation, or business alleged that the goal of the conspiracy
any license, License Exception, or organization related to the Denied was to obtain telecommunications
export control document; Person by affiliation, ownership, devices, including devices
B. Carrying on negotiations control, or position of responsibility in manufactured by a U.S. company,
concerning, or ordering, buying, the conduct of trade or related services including an Adit 600 Chassis, FXO
receiving, using, selling, delivering, may also be made subject to the Channel Cards, and ABI FXO Ports
storing, disposing of, forwarding, provisions of this Order. (ECCN 5A991 3), items subject to both
transporting, financing, or otherwise the Regulations and the Iranian
Fourth, that this Order does not
servicing in any way, any transaction Transactions Regulations 4 of the
prohibit any export, reexport, or other
involving any item exported or to be Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign
exported from the United States that is transaction subject to the Regulations
where the only items involved that are Assets Control (OFAC), on behalf of an
subject to the Regulations, or in any
other activity subject to the Regulations; subject to the Regulations are the 1 The charged violations occurred in 2001 and

or foreign-produced direct product of U.S.- 2002. The Regulations governing the violations at
C. Benefiting in any way from any origin technology. issue are found in the 2001 and 2002 versions of
transaction involving any item exported the Code of Federal Regulations (15 CFR parts 730–
Fifth, that this Order shall be served 774 (2001–2002)). The 2006 Regulations establish
or to be exported from the United States on the Denied Person and on BIS, and the procedures that apply to this matter.
that is subject to the Regulations, or in shall be published in the Federal 2 From August 21, 1994 through November 12,

any other activity subject to the Register. In addition, the ALJ’s 2000, the Act was in lapse. During that period, the
Regulations. President, through Executive Order 12924, which
Recommended Decision and Order, was extended by successive Presidential Notices,
Second, that no person may, directly except for the section related to the the last of which was August 3, 2000 (3 CFR, 2000
or indirectly, do any of the following: Recommended Order, shall be Comp. 397 (2001)), continued the Regulations in
A. Export or reexport to or on behalf effect under the International Emergency Economic
of the Denied Person any item subject to published in the Federal Register. Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701–06 (2000)) (‘‘IEEPA’’).
the Regulations; This Order, which constitutes the On November 13, 2000, the Act was reauthorized
and it remained in effect through August 20, 2001.
B. Take any action that facilitates the final agency action in this matter, is Since August 21, 2001, the Act has been in lapse
acquisition or attempted acquisition by effective upon publication in the and the President, through Executive Order 13222
the Denied Person of the ownership, Federal Register. of August 17, 2001 (3 CFR, 2001 Comp. 783 (2002)),
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES

possession, or control of any item as extended by the Notice of August 2, 2005 (70 FR
45,273 (August 5, 2005)), has continued the
subject to the Regulations that has been Regulations in effect under IEEPA.
or will be exported from the United 3 The term ‘‘ECCN’’ refers to Export Classification
States, including financing or other Number. See 15 CFR 772.1 (2006).
support activities related to a 4 31 CFR part 560 (2006).

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:47 Jun 14, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\15JNN1.SGM 15JNN1
34598 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 115 / Thursday, June 15, 2006 / Notices

Iranian end-user and to export those On December 24, 2005, Teepad sent a BIS suggested these sanctions because
telecommunications devices to Iran. letter to BIS’s Director of the Office of Teepad’s knowing violation in
(Charge 1). Export Enforcement. Teepad did not file transferring controlled
The Charging Letter also alleged that, this letter with the ALJ Docketing Center telecommunications devices to Iran
on or about December 17, 2001, and on in accordance with Section 766.6(a).6 In without prior authorization evidences a
or about March 7, 2002, Teepad aided the letter, Teepad provided factual serious disregard for U.S. export control
and/or abetted the doing of an act that information and stated, inter alia, that laws. Furthermore, BIS noted that Iran
was prohibited by the Regulations. Teepad believed it was in compliance is a country against which the United
Specifically, BIS alleged that Teepad with international law. (Gov’t Ex. 2). On States maintains an economic embargo
forwarded telecommunications devices March 9, 2006, BIS notified Teepad via because of Iran’s support of
manufactured by a U.S. company, letter and facsimile 7 that Teepad was international terrorism. BIS believes that
including an Adit 600 Chassis, FXO required to file a formal answer to the the imposition of a civil monetary
Channel Cards, and ABI FXO Ports, Charging Letter with the ALJ. In that penalty in this case may be ineffective,
items subject to both the Regulations same letter, BIS notified Teepad that it given the difficulty of collecting
(ECCN 5A991) and the Iranian must contact the Office of Chief Counsel payment against a party outside of the
Transactions Regulations of Treasury for Industry and Security, by March 22, United States. In light of these
Department’s OFAC, that had been 2006, in the event that Teepad wished circumstances, BIS believes that the
exported from the United States, to discuss settlement of this matter. denial of Teepad’s export privileges for
through the United Arab Emirates to (Gov’t Ex. 3). To date, Teepad has not ten years is an appropriate sanction.
Iran without authorization from OFAC filed an answer with the ALJ and has On this basis, the undersigned
as required by Section 746.7 of the not contacted the Office of Chief concurs with BIS and recommends that
Regulations. (Charges 2 and 3). Counsel to discuss settlement. the Under Secretary enter an Order
Finally, the BIS Charging Letter Accordingly, Teepad has not answered denying Teepad’s export privileges for a
alleged that in connection with the the Charging Letter in the manner period of ten years. Such a denial order
transactions occurring on or about required by Sections 766.5(a) and 766.6 is consistent with penalties imposed in
December 17, 2001, and on or about of the Regulations. past cases under the Regulations
March 7, 2002, Teepad transferred items involving shipment to Iran. See In the
exported from the United States with Pursuant to the default procedures set Matter of Petrom GmbH International
knowledge that a violation of the forth in Section 766.7 of the Trade, 70 FR 32,743 (June 6, 2005)
Regulations would occur. Specifically, Regulations, the undersigned finds the (affirming the recommendations of the
BIS alleged that Teepad transferred the facts to be as alleged in the Charging Administrative Law Judge that a twenty
telecommunications devices described Letter, and hereby determines that those year denial order and a civil monetary
above to Iran when Teepad knew or had facts establish that Teepad committed sanction of $143,000 were appropriate
reason to know that they had been one violation of Section 764.2(d), two where knowing violations involved a
exported from the United States, violations of Section 764.2(b), and two shipment of EAR99 items to Iran); In the
without authorization from OFAC. violations of Section 764.2(e) of the Matter of Arian Transportvermittlungs,
(Charges 4 and 5). Regulations. GmbH, 69 FR 28,120 (May 18, 2004)
Section 766.3(b)(1) of the Regulations Section 764.3 of the Regulations sets (affirming the recommendation of the
provides that notice of the issuance of forth the sanctions BIS may seek for Administrative Law Judge that a ten
a charging letter shall be served on a violations of the Regulations. The year denial order was appropriate where
respondent by mailing a copy by applicable sanctions are: (i) A monetary knowing violations involved a shipment
registered or certified mail addressed to penalty, (ii) suspension from practice of a controlled item to Iran); In the
the respondent at the respondent’s last before the Bureau of Industry and Matter of Jabal Damavand General
known address. In accordance with the Security, and (iii) a denial of export Trading Company, 67 FR 32,009 (May
Regulations, on November 22, 2005, BIS privileges under the Regulations. See 13, 2002) (affirming the
mailed the notice of issuance of a CFR 764.3 (2001–2002). Because Teepad recommendation of the Administrative
charging letter by registered mail to knowingly violated the Regulations by Law Judge that a ten year denial order
Teepad at its last known address: transferring items that were subject to was appropriate where knowing
Teepad Electronic General Trading, P.O. the Regulations with knowledge that a violations involved shipment of EAR99
Box #13708, Murshed Bazar, Dubai, violation of the Regulations would items to Iran); In the Matter of
UAE. BIS submitted evidence that occur, BIS requests that the undersigned Adbulamire Mahdi, 68 FR 57,406
establishes the Charging Letter was recommends to the Under Secretary of (October 3, 2003) (affirming the
received by Teepad on or about Commerce for Industry and Security 8 recommendation of the Administrative
December 7, 2005.5 These actions that Teepad’s export privileges be Law Judge that a twenty year denial
constitute service under the denied for ten years. order was appropriate where knowing
Regulations. violations involved shipments of EAR99
Section 766.6(a) of the Regulations 6 The Charging Letter provided the address of the
items to Iran as a part of a conspiracy
provides, in pertinent part, that ‘‘[t]he ALJ Docketing Center and specified that the answer to ship such items through Canada to
respondent must answer the charging must be filed in accordance with 15 CFR 766.5(a) Iran). A ten year denial of Teepad’s
letter within 30 days after being served to the ALJ Docketing Center. export privileges is warranted because
7 BIS’s letter of March 9, 2006 was successfully
with notice of issuance of the charging Teepad’s violations, like those of the
sent to the facsimile number provided by Teepad.
letter’’ initiating the administrative (Gov’t Ex. 4).
defendants in the above-cited case, were
enforcement proceeding. Furthermore, 8 Pursuant to Section 13(c)(1) of the Export deliberate acts done is violation of U.S.
BIS informed Teepad that a failure to Administration Act and Section 766.17(b)(2) of the export control laws.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES

follow this requirement would result in Regulations, in export control enforcement cases, The terms of the denial of export
the Administrative Law Judge makes recommended privileges against Teepad should be
default. (Charging Letter, at 3). findings of fact and conclusions of law that the
Under Secretary must affirm, modify or vacate. The
consistent with the standard language
5 Government Exhibit A of the January 5, 2006 Under Secretary’s action is the final decision for the used by BIS in such orders. The
Certificate Regarding Service. U.S. Commerce Department. language is:

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:47 Jun 14, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\15JNN1.SGM 15JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 115 / Thursday, June 15, 2006 / Notices 34599

[Redacted Section] We did not receive a notice of intent subject merchandise prior to the
[Redacted Section] to participate from domestic interested effective date of revocation will
parties in any of these sunset reviews by continue to be subject to suspension of
[Redacted Section] the deadline date. As a result, in liquidation and antidumping duty
Accordingly, the undersigned refers accordance with 19 CFR deposit requirements. The Department
this Recommended Decision and Order 351.218(d)(1)(iii)(A), the Department will complete any pending
to the Under Secretary of Commerce for determined that no domestic interested administrative reviews of these orders
Industry and Security for review and party intends to participate in the sunset and will conduct administrative reviews
final action for the agency, without reviews, and on April 24, 2006, we of subject merchandise entered prior to
further notice to the respondent, as notified the International Trade the effective date of revocation in
provided in Section 766.7 of the Commission, in writing, that we response to appropriately filed requests
Regulations. intended to issue final determinations for review.
Within 30 days after receipt of this revoking these antidumping duty These five-year (sunset) reviews and
Recommended Decision and Order, the orders. See 19 CFR notice are in accordance with sections
Under Secretary shall issue a written 351.218(d)(1)(iii)(B)(2). 751(c) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
order affirming, modifying, or vacating Scope of the Orders Dated: June 9, 2006.
the Recommended Decision and Order. David M. Spooner,
See 15 CFR 766.22(c). For purposes of these orders, the term
‘‘stainless steel angle’’ includes hot– Assistant Secretary for Import
Dated: May 22, 2006. rolled, whether or not annealed or Administration.
Joseph N. Ingolia, descaled, stainless steel products of [FR Doc. E6–9367 Filed 6–14–06; 8:45 am]
Chief Administrative Law Judge. equal leg length angled at 90 degrees, BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
[FR Doc. 06–5435 Filed 6–14–06; 8:45 am] that are not otherwise advanced. The
BILLING CODE 3510–33–M stainless steel angle subject to these
orders is currently classifiable under DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
subheadings 7222.40.30.20 and
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 7222.40.30.60 of the Harmonized Tariff International Trade Administration
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). [A–428–830]
International Trade Administration Specifically excluded from the scope of
[A–588–856, A–580–846, A–469–810] these orders is stainless steel angle of Notice of Extension of Final Results of
unequal leg length. Although the Antidumping Duty Administrative
Stainless Steel Angle From Japan, the HTSUS subheadings are provided for Review: Stainless Steel Bar from
Republic of Korea, and Spain: Final convenience and customs purposes, our Germany
Results of Sunset Reviews and written description of the scope of these AGENCY: Import Administration,
Revocation of Orders orders is dispositive. International Trade Administration,
AGENCY: Import Administration, Determination to Revoke Department of Commerce.
International Trade Administration, Pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(A) of the EFFECTIVE DATE: June 15, 2006.
Department of Commerce. Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
SUMMARY: On April 3, 2006, the Brandon Farlander or Natalie Kempkey,
and 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(iii)(B)(3), if no
Department of Commerce (Department) domestic interested party files a notice at (202) 482–0182 or (202) 482–1698,
initiated the sunset reviews of the of intent to participate, the Department respectively; AD/CVD Operations,
antidumping duty orders on stainless shall, within 90 days after the initiation Office 1, Import Administration,
steel angle from Japan, the Republic of of the review, issue a final International Trade Administration,
Korea (Korea), and Spain (71 FR 16551). determination revoking the order. U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Because the domestic interested parties Because the domestic interested parties Street & Constitution Avenue, NW.,
did not participate in these sunset did not file a notice of intent to Washington, DC 20230.
reviews, the Department is revoking participate in these sunset reviews, the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
these antidumping duty orders. Department finds that no domestic
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 18, 2006. Background
interested party is participating in these
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jill sunset reviews. Therefore, consistent On February 3, 2006, the Department
Pollack or Brandon Farlander, Import with 19 CFR 351.222(i)(1)(i) and section of Commerce (‘‘the Department’’)
Administration, International Trade 751(c)(3) of the Act, we are revoking published the preliminary results of the
Administration, U.S. Department of these antidumping duty orders. The administrative review of the
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution effective date of revocation is May 18, antidumping order on stainless steel bar
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 2006, the fifth anniversary of the date from Germany for the period March 1,
telephone: (202) 482–4593 or (202) 482– the Department published these 2004, through February 28, 2005 (See
0182, respectively. antidumping duty orders. See 19 CFR Stainless Steel Bar from Germany:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 351.222(i)(2)(i). Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Administrative Review, 71 FR 5811
Background Effective Date of Revocation (February 3, 2006) (‘‘Preliminary
On May 18, 2001, the Department Pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(A) of the Results’’)). On May 11, 2006, the
issued antidumping duty orders on Act and 19 CFR 351.222(i)(2)(i), the Department published its first extension
stainless steel angle from Japan, Korea, Department will instruct U.S. Customs of the time limit for the final results of
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES

and Spain (66 FR 27628). On April 3, and Border Protection to terminate the this administrative review (See Notice
2006, the Department initiated sunset suspension of liquidation of the of Extension of Final Results of
reviews of these orders. See Initiation of merchandise subject to these orders Antidumping Duty Administrative
Five-year (Sunset) Reviews, 71 FR 16551 entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, Review: Stainless Steel Bar from
(Apr. 3, 2006). on or after May 18, 2006. Entries of Germany, 71 FR 27465 (May 11, 2006)).

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:47 Jun 14, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\15JNN1.SGM 15JNN1