26574 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 89 / Monday, May 8, 2000 / Notices

Dated: April 27, 2000.

Troy H. Cribb,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–11463 Filed 5–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–570–803]

Heavy Forged Hand Tools From the

People’s Republic of China; Amended

Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Reviews in Accordance

With Court Decision

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of amended final results

of antidumping duty administrative

review in accordance with court

decision.

SUMMARY: On February 8, 2000, the

Court of International Trade (CIT)

affirmed the remand determination of

the Department of Commerce (the

Department) arising from the

administrative reviews of the

antidumping duty orders on heavy

forged hand tools (HFHTs) from the

People’s Republic of China (PRC). See

Fujian Machinery & Equipment Import

& Export Corp., et. al. v. United

States, CIT , Slip Op. 00–15

(February 8, 2000). No party appealed

this decision. As there is now a final

and conclusive court decision in this

segment, we are amending the final

results of reviews in this matter and will

instruct the U.S. Customs Service to

liquidate entries subject to these

amended final results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 8, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael Strollo or Maureen Flannery,

Antidumping/Countervailing Duty

Enforcement, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW,

Washington DC 20230; telephone (202)

482–5255 and (202) 482–3020,

respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On February 1, 1991, the Department

issued antidumping duty orders on

HFHTs from the PRC. See Antidumping

Duty Orders: Heavy Forged Hand Tools,

Finished or Unfinished, With or Without

Handles from the People’s Republic of

China, 56 FR 6622 (February 19, 1991)

Antidumping Duty Orders). On October

1, 1996, the Department published its

final results of the fourth administrative

review of HFHTs for two PRC exporters,

Fujian Machinery and Equipment

Import and Export Corporation (FMEC)

and Shandong Machinery Import and

Export Corporation (SMC). See Heavy

Forged Hand Tools, Finished or

Unfinished, With or Without Handles,

From the People’s Republic of China;

Final Results of Antidumping

Administrative Review, 61 FR 51269

(October 1, 1996). On May 5, 1997, the

Department published its amended final

results of the fourth administrative

review of HFHTs. See Heavy Forged

Hand Tools from the People’s Republic

of China; Amendment of Final Result of

Antidumping Administrative Review, 62

FR 24416 (May 5, 1997).

On September 7, 1999, the

Department filed with the CIT a consent

motion for voluntary remand so that the

Department may exclude statistics used

as surrogate values that were found to

be aberrational by the Department in the

Final Results of Redetermination

Pursuant to Court Remand relating to

the second administrative review. The

CIT granted the motion and remanded

to the Department on September 15,

1999.

On November 15, 1999, the

Department filed its final results

pursuant to remand. See Final Results of

Redetermination Pursuant to Court

Remand, Fujian Machinery and

Equipment Import & Export Corp., et. al.

v. United States (November 15, 1999).

On February 8, 2000, the CIT upheld the

Department’s redetermination on

remand. Fujian Machinery & Equipment

Import & Export Corp., Shandong

Machinery Import & Export Corp., et al.

v. United States, CIT , Slip. Op 00–

15 (February 8, 2000). Neither party

appealed the CIT’s decision.

There is now a final court decision in

this action; therefore, we are amending

our final results of review for the period

February 1, 1994 through January 31,

1995. We recalculated margins on each

product category for FMEC and SMC.

The revised weighted average margins

are as follows:

Manufacturer/Exporter Margin

(percent)

Fujian Machinery & Equipment

Import & Export Corp.:

Axes/Adzes ............................ 1.84

Bars/Wedges ......................... 1.05

Hammers/Sledges ................. 1.23

Picks/Mattocks ....................... 65.11

Shandong Machinery Import &

Export Corp.:

Bars/Wedges ......................... 25.93

Hammers/Sledges ................. 4.77

Manufacturer/Exporter Margin

(percent)

Picks/Mattocks ....................... 52.82

Accordingly, the Department will

determine, and the Customs Service will

assess, antidumping duties on all entries

subject merchandise from FMEC and

SMC in accordance with these amended

final results. For assessment purposes,

we have calculated exporter-specific

duty assessment rates for each class or

kind of merchandise based on the ratio

of the total amount of antidumping

duties calculated for the examined sales

during the period of review (POR) to the

total quantity of sales examined during

the POR. We calculated exporterspecific assessment rates because there

was no information on the record which

indicated importers of record. The

Department will issue appraisement

instructions directly to Customs. The

above rates will not affect FMEC or

SMC’s cash deposit rates currently in

effect, which continue to be based on

the margins found to exist in the most

recently completed review.

This notice is published in

accordance with section 751(a)(1)) of the

Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1) and 19

CFR 351.221.

Dated: April 27, 2000.

Troy H. Cribb,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–11464 Filed 5–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–580–807]

Polyethylene Terephthalate Film From

Korea: Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of

antidumping duty administrative

review.

SUMMARY: In response to a request from

two respondents and two U.S.

producers, the Department of Commerce

(the Department) is conducting an

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on

polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet,

and strip (PET film) from the Republic

of Korea. The review covers three

manufacturers/exporters of the subject

merchandise to the United States and

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 89 / Monday, May 8, 2000 / Notices 26575

the period June 1, 1998 through May 31,

1999.

We preliminarily determine that there

is a dumping margin for SKC Limited

(SKC), and no margin for H.S. Industries

(HSI) and Hyosung Corporation

(Hyosung) during the period June 1,

1998 through May 31, 1999.

If these preliminary results are

adopted in our final results of review,

we will instruct the U.S. Customs

Service to assess antidumping duties

based on the difference between the

United States Price (USP) and normal

value (NV).

Interested parties are invited to

comment on these preliminary results.

Parties who submit arguments in this

proceeding are requested to submit with

the arguments: (1) A statement of the

issues and (2) a brief summary of the

arguments (no longer than five pages,

including footnotes).

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 8, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael J. Heaney or Robert James, AD/

CVD Enforcement Group III , Office 8,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone

(202) 482–4475 and (202) 482–0649,

respectively.

Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended (the Act) are references to the

provisions effective January 1, 1995, the

effective date of the amendments made

to the Act by the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act (URAA). In addition,

unless otherwise indicated, all citations

to the Department’s regulations are to

the regulations codified at 19 CFR Part

351 (1999).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Department published an

antidumping duty order on PET film

from the Republic of Korea on June 5,

1991 (56 FR 25660). On June 16, 1999,

two domestic producers, E.I. DuPont

Nemours & Co., Inc. and Mitsubishi

Polyester Film L.L.C. requested reviews

of HSI, Hyosung, and SKC for the period

June 1, 1998 through May 31, 1999. On

June 28, and June 30, 1999, SKC and

HSI, respectively, requested

administrative reviews of their sales for

the same time period. We published a

notice of initiation of the review on July

29, 1999 (64 FR 41075).

On February 9, 2000, the Department

published a notice extending the time

limits for publication of its preliminary

results by 62 days (65 FR 6360).

Scope of the Review

Imports covered by this review are

shipments of all gauges of raw,

pretreated, or primed polyethylene

terephthalate film, sheet, and strip,

whether extruded or coextruded. The

films excluded from this review are

metallized films and other finished

films that have had at least one of their

surfaces modified by the application of

a performance-enhancing resinous or

inorganic layer of more than 0.00001

inches (0.254 micrometers) thick. Roller

transport cleaning film which has at

least one of its surfaces modified by the

application of 0.5 micrometers of SBR

latex has also been ruled as not within

the scope of the order.

PET film is currently classifiable

under Harmonized Tariff Schedule

(HTS) subheading 3920.62.00.00. The

HTS subheading is provided for

convenience and for U.S. Customs

purposes. The written description

remains dispositive as to the scope of

the product coverage. The review covers

the period June 1, 1998 through May 31,

1999. The Department is conducting

this review in accordance with section

751 of the Act, as amended.

Fair Value Comparisons

To determine whether sales of PET

film in the United States were made at

less than fair value, we compared USP

to the NV, as described in the ‘‘United

States Price’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’

sections of this notice. In accordance

with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we

calculated monthly weighted-average

prices for NV and compared these to

individual U.S. transactions.

United States Price (USP)

In calculating USP, the Department

treated respondent’s sales as export

price (EP) sales, as defined in section

772(a) of the Act, when the merchandise

was sold to unaffiliated U.S. purchasers

prior to the date of importation, and use

of the constructed export price (CEP)

methodology was not otherwise

indicated. The Department treated

SKC’s sales as CEP sales, as defined in

section 772(b) of the Act, when the

merchandise was sold to unaffiliated

U.S. purchasers after importation.

CEP was based on the delivered or

c.i.f. U.S. port, packed prices to

unaffiliated purchasers in the United

States. We made adjustments, where

applicable, for Korean and U.S.

brokerage charges, Korean and U.S.

inland freight, ocean freight, bank

charges, U.S. duties, and discounts, in

accordance with section 772(c) of the

Act. We made additions to EP for duty

drawback pursuant to section

772(c)(1)(B) of the Act.

CEP was based on the delivered,

packed prices to unaffiliated purchasers

in the United States. We made

adjustments, where applicable, for

Korean and U.S. brokerage charges,

Korean and U.S. inland freight, ocean

freight, and U.S. duties, in accordance

with section 772(c) of the Act. Pursuant

to section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we

made an addition to CEP for duty

drawback. We also made an addition to

CEP for interest revenue. In accordance

with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we

made deductions for selling expenses

associated with economic activities in

the United States, including warranties,

credit expenses, bank charges, and

indirect selling expenses.

With respect to subject merchandise

to which value was added in the United

States by SKC prior to sale to

unaffiliated customers, we deducted the

cost of further manufacturing in

accordance with section 772(d)(2) of the

Act.

Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the

Act, the price was further reduced by an

amount for profit to arrive at the CEP.

Normal Value

In order to determine whether there

were sufficient sales of PET film in the

home market (HM) to serve as a viable

basis for calculating NV, for each

respondent we compared the volume of

HM sales of PET film to the volume of

PET film sold in the United States, in

accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of

the Act. Each respondent’s aggregate

volume of HM sales of the foreign like

product was greater than five percent of

its aggregate volume of U.S. sales of the

subject merchandise. Therefore, we

have based NV on the price at which the

foreign like product was sold for

consumption in the home market in the

usual commercial quantities, in the

ordinary course of trade, and, to the

extent practicable, at the same level of

trade.

Because the Department had

disregarded SKC’s sales of the foreign

like product in the June 1996–May 1997

administrative review because they

failed the cost test (see Polyethylene

Terephthalate Film, Sheet and Strip

from the Republic of Korea; Final

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review (1996–1997

Administrative Review), 63 FR 37334,

37335 (July 10, 1998) in accordance

with section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act,

the Department had reasonable grounds

to believe or suspect that SKC made

sales below cost of production (COP)

during this POR. Accordingly, we

initiated a sales-below-cost of

production investigation for SKC in

accordance with section 773(b) of the

26576 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 89 / Monday, May 8, 2000 / Notices

Act. (The June 1996–May 1997

administrative review was the most

recently completed review at the time

that we issued our antidumping

questionnaire.)

We performed a model-specific COP

test in which we examined whether

each HM sale was priced below the

merchandise’s COP. We calculated the

COP of the merchandise using SKC’s

cost of materials and fabrication for the

foreign like product, plus amounts for

home market general and administrative

(G&A) expenses and packing costs, in

accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the

Act. We allocated yield losses equally

between A-grade and B-grade film

because these grades have identical

production costs. This is consistent with

the methodology employed in past

reviews of this case. (See e.g., 1996–

1997 Administrative Review, 37335).

In accordance with section 773(b)(1)

of the Act, in determining whether to

disregard home market sales made at

prices below COP, we examined

whether such sales were made within

an extended period of time in

substantial quantities, and whether such

sales were made at prices which would

permit recovery of all costs within a

reasonable period of time.

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the

Act, where less than 20 percent of SKC’s

sales of a given model were at prices

less than COP, we did not disregard any

below-cost sales of that model because

these below-cost sales were not made in

substantial quantities. Where 20 percent

or more of SKC’s home market sales of

a given model were at prices less than

the COP, we disregarded the below-cost

sales because such sales were found to

be made: (1) in substantial quantities

within the POR (i.e., within an extended

period of time) in accordance with

section 773(b)(2)(B) of the Act, and (2)

at prices which would not permit

recovery of all costs within a reasonable

period of time, in accordance with

section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act (i.e., the

sales were made at prices below the

weighted-average per-unit COP for the

POR). We used the remaining sales as

the basis for determining NV, if such

sales existed, in accordance with section

773(b)(1) of the Act.

In determining NV, we considered

comparison market sales of identical or

similar merchandise, or constructed

value (CV).

In accordance with section 773(e)(1)

of the Act, we calculated CV based on

the sum of SKC’s cost of materials,

fabrication, G&A expenses, and profit.

We allocated yield losses equally

between A-grade and B-grade film. In

accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of

the Act, we based G&A expenses and

profit on the amounts incurred and

realized by SKC in connection with the

production and sale of the foreign like

product in the ordinary course of trade

for consumption in the foreign country.

For selling expenses, we used the

weighted-average HM selling expenses.

Pursuant to section 773(e)(3) of the Act,

we included U.S. packing expenses.

In accordance with section 773(a)(6)

of the Act, we adjusted NV, where

appropriate, by deducting home market

packing expenses and adding U.S.

packing expenses. We also adjusted NV

for credit expenses. When NV was based

upon home market sales, we made an

adjustment for inland freight. For SKC’s

local export sales, we also made an

addition to home market price for duty

drawback. For comparisons to EP, we

made an addition to NV for U.S.credit

expenses, and bank charges as

circumstance-of-sale adjustments

pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C) of the

Act.

Level of Trade and CEP Offset

In accordance with section

773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, to the extent

practicable, we determine NV based on

sales in the comparison market at the

same level of trade (LOT) as the EP or

CEP transaction. The NV LOT is that of

the starting price sales in the

comparison market or, when NV is

based on CV, that of the sales from

which we derive SG&A expenses and

profit. For EP, the U.S. LOT is also the

level of the starting price sale, which is

usually from the exporter to the

importer. For CEP, it is the level of the

constructed sale from the exporter to the

importer.

To determine whether NV sales are at

a different LOT than EP or CEP, we

examine stages in the marketing process

and selling functions along the chain of

distribution between the producer and

the unaffiliated customer. If the

comparison market sales are at a

different LOT, and the difference affects

price comparability, as manifested in a

pattern of consistent price differences

between the sales on which NV is based

and comparison market sales at the LOT

of the export transaction, we make a

LOT adjustment under section

773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, for CEP

sales, if the NV level is more remote

from the factory than the CEP level and

there is no basis for determining

whether the differences in the levels

between NV and CEP affect price

comparability, we adjust NV under

section 773(A)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEP

offset provision). See, e.g., Certain

Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa,

Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value, 62 FR 61731

(November 19, 1997).

In implementing these principles in

this review, we asked each respondent

to identify the specific differences and

similarities in selling functions and/or

support services between all phases of

marketing in the home market and the

United States. SKC identified two

channels of distribution in the home

market: (1) wholesalers/distributors and

(2) end-users. HSI also identified two

channels of distribution: sales to endusers and sales to distributors. Hyosung

identified one channel of distribution in

the home market: sales to end-users. For

both channels SKC and HSI perform

similar selling functions such as order

processing, market research and aftersales warranty services. Because

channels of distribution do not qualify

per se as separate LOTs, when the

selling functions performed for each

customer class are sufficiently similar,

as in the instant review, we determined

that there exists one LOT for SKC’s and

HSI’s home market sales.

For the U.S. market SKC reported two

LOTs: (1) EP sales made directly to its

U.S. customers, and (2) CEP sales made

through SKC America, Inc., SKC’s

wholly-owned U.S. subsidiary. HSI and

Hyosung identified one LOT: EP sales

made directly to U.S. customers. The

Department examined the selling

functions performed by SKC for both EP

and CEP sales. These selling functions

included customer sales contacts (i.e.,

visiting current or potential customers,

receiving orders, promotion of new

products, collection of unpaid invoices),

technical services, inventory

maintenance, and/or business system

development. We found that SKC

provided a greater degree of these

services on EP sales than it did on CEP

sales, and that the selling functions

were sufficiently different to warrant

two separate LOTs in the United States.

When we compared EP sales to home

market sales, we determined that for

each respondent both sales were made

at the same LOT. For both EP and home

market transactions, each respondent

sold directly to the customer and

provided similar levels of customer

sales contacts, technical services,

inventory maintenance and business

system development. Therefore, no LOT

adjustment was warranted.

For CEP sales, SKC performed fewer

customer sales contacts, technical

services, inventory maintenance, and

computer legal, audit and business

system development. In addition, the

differences in selling functions

performed for home market and CEP

transactions indicate that home market

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 89 / Monday, May 8, 2000 / Notices 26577

sales involved a more advanced stage of

distribution than CEP sales.

Because we compared these CEP sales

to HM sales at a different LOT, we

examined whether a LOT adjustment

may be appropriate. In this case SKC

sold at one LOT in the home market;

therefore, there is no demonstrated

pattern of consistent price differences

between LOTs. Further, we do not have

the information which would allow us

to examine pricing patterns of SKC’s

sales of other similar products, and

there is no other record evidence on

which such an analysis could be based.

Because the data available do not

provide an appropriate basis for making

a LOT adjustment but the LOT in Korea

for SKC is at a more advanced stage than

the LOT of its CEP sales, a CEP offset

is appropriate in accordance with

section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act, as

claimed by SKC. We based the CEP

offset amount on the amount of home

market indirect selling expenses, and

limited the deduction for home market

indirect selling expenses to the amount

of indirect selling expenses deducted

from CEP in accordance with section

772(d)(1)(D) of the Act. We applied the

CEP offset to NV, whether based on

home market prices or CV.

Preliminary Results of Review

We preliminarily determine that the

following margins exist for the period

June 1, 1998 through May 31, 1999:

Company Margin

(percent)

HSI .............................................. 0

Hyosung ...................................... 0

SKC ............................................ 1.35

We will disclose calculations

performed in connection with these

preliminary results of review within 5

days of the day of publication of this

notice. Interested parties may request a

hearing not later than 30 days after

publication of this notice. Interested

parties may also submit written

arguments in case briefs on these

preliminary results within 30 days of

the date of publication of this notice.

Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised

in case briefs, may be filed no later than

five days after the time limit for filing

case briefs. Parties who submit

arguments are requested to submit with

each argument a statement of the issue

and a brief summary of the argument.

All memoranda to which we refer in

this notice can be found in the public

reading room, located in the Central

Records Unit, room B–009 of the main

Commerce building. Any hearing, if

requested, will be held two days after

the scheduled date for submission of

rebuttal briefs.

The Department will publish the final

results of this administrative review,

including a discussion of its analysis of

issues raised in any case or rebuttal brief

or at a hearing. The Department will

issue final results of this review within

120 days of publication of these

preliminary results.

Upon completion of the final results

in this review, the Department shall

determine, and the Customs Service

shall assess, antidumping duties on all

appropriate entries. In accordance with

19 CFR 351.212 (b), we have calculated

an importer/customer-specific

assessment rate based on the ratio of the

total amount of antidumping duties

calculated for the examined sales to the

entered value of those same sales. This

Department will issue appraisement

instructions on each exporter directly to

the Customs Service.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective upon

completion of the final results of this

administrative review for all shipments

of PET film from the Republic of Korea

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after the

publication date of the final results of

this administrative review, as provided

by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the

cash deposit rate for the reviewed firm

will be the rate established in the final

results of administrative review; (2) for

merchandise exported by manufacturers

or exporters not covered in this review

but covered in the original less-thanfair-value (LTFV) investigation or a

previous review, the cash deposit will

continue to be the most recent rate

published in the final determination or

final results for which the manufacturer

or exporter received a company-specific

rate; (3) if the exporter is not a firm

covered in this review or the original

investigation, but the manufacturer is,

the cash deposit rate will be that

established for the manufacturer of the

merchandise in the final results of this

review or the LTFV investigation; and

(4) if neither the exporter nor the

manufacturer is a firm covered in this or

any previous reviews, the cash deposit

rate will be 21.5%, the ‘‘all others’’ rate

established in the LTFV investigation.

This notice also serves as a

preliminary reminder to importers of

their responsibility under 19 CFR

351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding

the reimbursement of antidumping

duties prior to liquidation of the

relevant entries during this review

period. Failure to comply with this

requirement could result in the

Secretary’s presumption that

reimbursement of antidumping duties

occurred and the subsequent assessment

of double antidumping duties. This

administrative review and notice are in

accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and

777(i)(1) of the Act.

Dated: May 1, 2000.

Troy H. Cribb,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–11460 Filed 5–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–583–827]

Static Random Access Memory

Semiconductors From Taiwan;

Preliminary Results and Partial

Recission of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: In response to requests by

various interested parties, the

Department of Commerce is conducting

an administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on static

random access memory semiconductors

from Taiwan. This review covers the

U.S. sales and/or entries of three

manufacturers/exporters. In addition,

we are rescinding this review with

respect to two companies. The period of

review is October 1, 1997, through

March 31, 1999, for two of these

companies and October 1, 1998, through

March 31, 1999, for the remaining

company.

We have preliminarily determined

that sales have been made below the

normal value by each of the companies

subject to this review. If these

preliminary results are adopted in the

final results of this administrative

review, we will instruct the Customs

Service to assess antidumping duties on

all appropriate entries.

We invite interested parties to

comment on these preliminary results.

Parties who wish to submit comments

in this proceeding are requested to

submit with each argument: (1) A

statement of the issue; and (2) a brief

summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 8, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Shawn Thompson or Irina Itkin, Office

of AD/CVD Enforcement, Office 2,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington,