30064 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 10, 2000 / Notices

available. Again, this margin represents

a calculated rate for Hoogovens, using

its own data and as corrected pursuant

to litigation. Therefore, we preliminarily

find that the 19.32 percent rate is

corroborated.

Preliminary Results of the Review

As a result of this review, we

preliminarily determine that a

weighted-average dumping margin of

19.32 percent exists for Hoogovens for

the period August 1, 1998 through July

31, 1999.

Interested parties may submit written

comments (case briefs) no later than 30

days after the date of publication of

these preliminary results. Rebuttal

comments (rebuttal briefs), which must

be limited to issues raised in the case

briefs, may be filed no later than 37 days

after the date of publication of this

notice. Parties who submit case briefs or

rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are

requested to submit with each argument

(1) a statement of the issue and (2) a

brief summary of the argument, not to

exceed five pages in length. Any

interested party may request a hearing

within 30 days of publication. Requests

for a hearing should specify the number

of participants and identify the issues to

be discussed. Any hearing, if requested,

will be held two days after the

submission of rebuttal briefs, if any, or

the first working day thereafter. See 19

CFR 351.310(c) and (d). The Department

will publish a notice of the final results

of the administrative review, which will

include the results of its analysis of

issues raised by the parties, within 120

days of publication of these preliminary

results. See 19 CFR 351.213(h).

Cash Deposit

The Department shall determine, and

the U.S. Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. Upon completion of this review

the Department will issue appraisement

instructions directly to the U.S. Customs

Service.

Furthermore, the following cash

deposit requirements will be effective

upon publication of the final results of

this administrative review for all

shipments of the subject merchandise

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after the

publication date, as provided for by

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

The cash deposit rate for Hoogovens

will be the rate established in the final

results of this administrative review; (2)

for exporters not covered in this review,

but covered in previous reviews or the

original less-than-fair-value (LTFV)

investigation, the cash deposit rate will

continue to be the company-specific

published for the most recent period; (3)

if the exporter is not a firm covered in

this review, previous reviews, or the

original LTFV investigation, but the

manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate

will be that established for the most

recent period for the manufacturer of

the merchandise; and (4) the cash

deposit rate for all other manufacturers

or exporters will be 19.32 percent, the

‘‘all others’’ rate established in the

original fair value investigation (61 FR

47871).

These deposit requirements, when

imposed, shall remain in effect until

publication of the final results of the

next administrative review.

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 Tariff Act.

Dated: Dated: May 2, 2000.

Troy H. Cribb,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–11597 Filed 5–9–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–475–703]

Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin

From Italy; 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 by the

respondent, Ausimont S.p.A.

(Ausimont), the Department of

Commerce is conducting an

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on granular

polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) resin

from Italy. The period of review is

August 1, 1998, through July 31, 1999.

We preliminarily find that sales have

not been made below normal value

(NV). If these preliminary results are

adopted in our final results of

administrative review, we will instruct

the Customs Service to assess no

antidumping duties on the subject

merchandise exported by Ausimont. We

invite interested parties to comment on

these preliminary results. Parties who

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 10, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Magd Zalok or Charles Riggle, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230;

telephone: (202) 482–4162 or (202) 482–

0650, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute and Regulations

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 provided in 19 CFR Part

351 (1999).

Background

On August 30, 1988, the Department

of Commerce (the Department)

published in the Federal Register the

antidumping duty order on granular

PTFE resin from Italy (53 FR 33163). On

August 27, 1999, we received a timely

request for review from Ausimont and

its U.S. affiliated company, Ausimont

USA, the only respondent in this

administrative review. On November 4,

1999, the Department published in the

Federal Register a list of antidumping

and countervailing duty cases with

September anniversary dates for which

we were initiating reviews. See

Initiation of Antidumping and

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Reviews and Request for Revocation in

Part, 64 FR 60161. This initiation notice

also included the initiation of this

review of the antidumping duty order

on granular PTFE resin from Italy

because we inadvertently omitted this

review from the previous initiation

notice for antidumping cases with

August anniversary dates.

We issued a questionnaire to

Ausimont on October 8, 1999, followed

by a supplemental questionnaire on

February 8, 2000, and received

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 10, 2000 / Notices 30065

responses on November 5, November

19, November 29, December 17, 1999,

and February 29, 2000.

On October 22, 1999, Ausimont

requested that the Department apply the

‘‘special rule’’ in accordance with

section 772(e) of the Act and exclude

sales of further-manufactured wet raw

polymer from the analysis in this review

on the grounds that the value added to

the imported wet raw polymer in the

United States is at least 65 percent of

the price charged to the first unaffiliated

U.S. customer. On December 9, 1999,

we rejected Ausimont’s request to

exclude the sales of furthermanufactured wet raw polymer because

the burden of using the Department’s

standard methodology is relatively low

and the proportion of furthermanufactured sales is sufficiently high

as to raise concerns about the accuracy

of the antidumping duty margin. See the

December 9, 1999, memorandum,

Application of the Special Rule to

Ausimont’s Further-Manufactured Sales

of Imported Wet Raw Polymer in the

1998–99 Administrative Review of the

Antidumping Duty Order on Granular

Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from Italy,

which is on file in the Central Records

Unit (CRU) (room B–099 of the main

Commerce Building).

Scope of the Review

The product covered by this review is

granular PTFE resin, filled or unfilled.

This order also covers PTFE wet raw

polymer exported from Italy to the

United States. See Granular

Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from Italy;

Final Determination of Circumvention

of Antidumping Duty Order, 58 FR

26100 (April 30, 1993). This order

excludes PTFE dispersions in water and

fine powders. During the period covered

by this review, the subject merchandise

was classified under item number

3904.61.00 of the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States (HTS). We

are providing this HTS number for

convenience and customs purposes

only. The written description of the

scope remains dispositive.

Fair Value Comparisons

We compared the constructed export

price (CEP) to the NV, as described in

the Constructed Export Price and

Normal Value sections of this notice.

Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the

Act, we compared the CEPs of

individual transactions to

contemporaneous monthly weightedaverage prices of sales of the foreign like

product.

We first attempted to compare

contemporaneous sales of products sold

in the United States and the comparison

market that were identical with respect

to the following characteristics: type,

filler, percentage of filler, and grade.

Where we were unable to compare sales

of identical merchandise, we compared

U.S. sales with comparison market sales

of the most similar merchandise based

on the characteristics listed above, in

that order of priority.

Since there were appropriate

comparison market sales of comparable

merchandise, we did not need to

compare the merchandise sold in the

United States to constructed value (CV),

in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of

the Act.

Constructed Export Price

For all sales to the United States, we

calculated CEP as defined in section

772(b) of the Act because all sales to

unaffiliated parties were made after

importation of the subject merchandise

into the United States through

Ausimont USA, the respondent’s

affiliate. We based the starting price for

the calculation of CEP on the packed,

delivered prices to unaffiliated

purchasers in the United States. We

adjusted the starting price, net of billing

credit, for movement expenses, in

accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of

the Act, including domestic inland

freight, international freight, marine

insurance, brokerage and handling, U.S.

inland freight, and U.S. customs duties.

In accordance with section 772(d)(1)

of the Act, we deducted selling

expenses incurred in connection with

economic activity in the United States.

These expenses include credit,

inventory carrying costs, and indirect

expenses incurred by Ausimont USA.

With respect to sales involving

imported wet raw polymer that was

further manufactured into finished

PTFE resin in the United States, we

deducted the cost of such further

manufacturing in accordance with

section 772(d)(2) of the Act.

Finally, we made an adjustment for

the profit allocated to the abovereferenced selling and further

manufacturing expenses, in accordance

with section 772(d)(3) of the Act.

No other adjustments were claimed or

allowed.

Normal Value

In order to determine whether there

was a sufficient volume of sales of

granular PTFE resin in the home market

to serve as a viable basis for calculating

NV, we compared Ausimont’s volume of

home market sales of the foreign like

product to the volume of U.S. sales of

the subject merchandise, in accordance

with section 773(a) of the Act. Because

the aggregate volume of home market

sales of the foreign like product was

greater than 5 percent of the respective

aggregate volume of U.S. sales for the

subject merchandise, we determined

that the home market provides a viable

basis for calculating NV. Therefore, in

accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i)

of the Act, we based NV on the prices

at which the foreign like product was

first sold for consumption in the

exporting country, in the usual

commercial quantities and in the

ordinary course of trade.

We determined home market prices

net of price adjustments (early payment

discounts and rebates). Where

applicable, we made adjustments for

packing and movement expenses, in

accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A)

and (B) of the Act. In order to adjust for

differences in packing between the two

markets, we deducted home market

packing costs from NV and added U.S.

packing costs. We also made

adjustments for differences in costs

attributable to differences in physical

characteristics of the merchandise,

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

the Act, and for other differences in the

circumstances of sale (COS) in

accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii)

of the Act. We made a COS adjustment

for home market credit expense. Also,

we made a CEP-offset adjustment to the

NV for indirect selling expenses

pursuant to section 773(a)(7)(B) of the

Act as discussed in the Level of Trade/

CEP Offset section below.

Level of Trade/CEP Offset

In accordance with section

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

practicable, we determine NV based on

sales at the same level of trade in the

comparison market as the level of trade

of the U.S. sales. The NV level of trade

is that of the starting-price sales in the

comparison market. For CEP sales, such

as those made by Ausimont in this

review, the U.S. level of trade is the

level of the constructed sale from the

exporter to the importer.

To determine whether NV sales are at

a different level of trade than that of the

U.S. sales, 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 level of trade 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

level of trade of the export transaction,

we make a level-of-trade adjustment

under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.

Finally, if the NV level is more remote

30066 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 10, 2000 / Notices

1See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review: Granular

Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin From Italy, FR 63,

49080, 49083 (September 14, 1998), and Notice of

Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review: Polytetrafluoroethylene

Resin from Italy, 63 FR 25826, 25827 (May 11,

1998).

from the factory than the CEP level and

there is no basis for determining

whether the difference in the levels

between NV and CEP affects price

comparability, we adjust NV under

section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEPoffset provision). See e.g., Industrial

Nitrocellulose From the United

Kingdom; Notice of Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 65 FR 6148, 6151 (February 8,

2000) (Industrial Nitrocellulose).

In implementing these principles in

this review, we obtained information

from Ausimont about the marketing

stage involved in the reported U.S. sales

and in the home market sales, including

a description of the selling activities

performed by Ausimont for each

channel of distribution. In identifying

levels of trade for CEP and for home

market sales, we considered the selling

functions reflected in the CEP, after the

deduction of expenses and profit under

section 772(d) of the Act, and those

reflected in the home market starting

price before making any adjustments.

We expect that, if claimed levels of

trade are the same, the functions and

activities of the seller should be similar.

Conversely, if a party claims that levels

of trade are different for different groups

of sales, the functions and activities of

the seller should be dissimilar.

The record evidence before us in this

review indicates that the home market

and the CEP levels of trade have not

changed from the 1996–97 review,1 the

most recently completed review in this

case. As in prior segments of the

proceeding, we determined that for

Ausimont there was one home market

level of trade and one U.S. level of trade

(i.e., the CEP level of trade). In the home

market, Ausimont sold directly to

fabricators. These sales primarily

entailed selling activities such as

technical assistance, engineering

services, research and development,

technical programs, and delivery

services.

In determining the level of trade for

the U.S. sales, we only considered the

selling activities reflected in the price

after making the appropriate

adjustments under section 772(d) of the

Act. See e.g., Industrial Nitrocellulose,

65 FR 6148, 6149–6150 (February 8,

2000). The CEP level of trade involves

minimal selling functions such as

invoicing and the occasional exchange

of personnel between Ausimont S.p.A.

and its U.S. affiliate. Based on a

comparison of the home market level of

trade and this CEP level of trade, we

find the home market sales to be at a

different level of trade from, and more

remote from the factory than, the CEP

sales.

Section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act directs

us to make an adjustment for difference

in levels of trade where such differences

affect price comparability. However, we

were unable to quantify such price

differences from information on the

record. Because we have determined

that the home-market level of trade is

more remote from the factory than the

CEP level of trade but the data necessary

to calculate a level-of-trade adjustment

are unavailable, we made a CEP-offset

adjustment to NV pursuant to section

773(a)(7)(B) of the Act.

Currency Conversion

We made currency conversions based

on the official exchange rates in effect

on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified

by the Federal Reserve Bank of New

York. Section 773A(a) of the Act directs

the Department to use a daily exchange

rate in order to convert foreign

currencies into U.S. dollars, unless the

daily rate involves a ‘‘fluctuation.’’

Preliminary Results of Review

As a result of this review, we

preliminarily determine that the

following weighted-average dumping

margin exists:

Manufacturer/exporter Period Margin

(percent)

Ausimont S.p.A. .............................................................................. 08/01/98–07/31/99 ........................................................................ 0.34

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the

Department will disclose to parties to

the proceeding within five days after the

date of publication of this notice any

calculations performed in connection

with these preliminary results. An

interested party may request a hearing

within 30 days of publication of this

notice. Any hearing, if requested, will

be held 44 days after the date of

publication, or the first workday

thereafter. Case briefs and/or written

comments from interested parties may

be submitted not later than 30 days after

the date of publication. Rebuttal briefs

and rebuttals to written comments,

limited to issues raised in the case briefs

and comments, may be filed not later

than 37 days after the date of

publication. Parties who submit

arguments in this proceeding are

requested to submit with each

argument: (1) A statement of the issue

and (2) a brief summary of the

argument. The Department will issue

the final results of the administrative

review, including the results of its

analysis of issues raised in any such

written comments or at a hearing,

within 120 days of issuance of these

preliminary results.

The Department shall determine, and

the Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. Upon completion of this review,

the Department will issue appraisement

instructions directly to the Customs

Service. If the final margin is above de

minimis, for duty assessment purposes,

we will calculate an importer-specific

ad valorem duty assessment rate based

on the ratio of the total amount of

antidumping duties calculated for the

examined sales made during the POR to

the total customs value of the sales used

to calculate these duties. This rate will

be assessed uniformly on all entries of

that particular importer made during the

POR. However, if these preliminary

results are adopted in our final results,

we will instruct the Customs Service to

assess no antidumping duties on the

merchandise subject to review pursuant

to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective upon

completion of the final results of this

administrative review for all shipments

of granular PTFE resin from Italy

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 Ausimont 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 than fair

value (LTFV) investigation or a previous

review, the cash deposit will continue

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 10, 2000 / Notices 30067

1 Manganese Metal from the People’s Republic of

China; Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 64 FR

68999 (December 9, 1999) (Preliminary Results).

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, a previous review, or the

original investigation, but the

manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate

will be the rate established for the most

recent period for the manufacturer of

the merchandise; and (4) if neither the

exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm

covered in this or any previous review,

the cash deposit rate will be 46.46

percent, the ‘‘all others’’ rate established

in the LTFV investigation (50 FR 26019,

June 24, 1985).

This notice also serves as a

preliminary reminder to importers of

their responsibility 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 2, 2000.

Troy H. Cribb,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–11598 Filed 5–9–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–570–840]

Manganese Metal From the People’s

Republic of China; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of

antidumping duty administrative review

of manganese metal from the People’s

Republic of China.

SUMMARY: We have determined that

sales by China Metallurgical Import &

Export Hunan Corporation/Hunan

Nonferrous Metals Import & Export

Associated Corporation and by China

Hunan International Economic

Development (Group) Corporation have

been made below normal value during

the period of review of February 1,

1998, through January 31, 1999. Based

on our analysis of the comments

received, we have made changes in the

margin calculation of China

Metallurgical Import & Export Hunan

Corporation/Hunan Nonferrous Metals

Import & Export Associated

Corporation. Consequently, the final

results differ from the preliminary

results. The final weighted-average

dumping margin for this firm is listed

below in the section entitled ‘‘Final

Results of the Review.’’ Based on these

final results of review, we will instruct

the Customs Service to assess

antidumping duties based on the

difference between the export price and

normal value on all appropriate entries.

China Hunan International Economic

Development (Group) Corporation did

not respond to our questionnaire and

has been assigned a dumping margin

based on adverse facts available.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 10, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg

Campbell or Suresh Maniam, Group 1,

Office I, 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) 482–2239 or (202) 482–

0176, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The 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 of Commerce’s

(Department) regulations are to 19 CFR

part 351 (1999).

Background

On December 9, 1999, the Department

published the Preliminary Results.1 The

review covers two PRC exporters. The

period of review (POR) is February 1,

1998, through January 31, 1999. We

invited parties to comment on our

preliminary results of review. At the

request of certain interested parties, we

held a public hearing on February 3,

2000. The Department has conducted

this administrative review in

accordance with section 751 of the Act.

Scope of Review

The merchandise covered by this

review is manganese metal, which is

composed principally of manganese, by

weight, but also contains some

impurities such as carbon, sulfur,

phosphorous, iron and silicon.

Manganese metal contains by weight not

less than 95 percent manganese. All

compositions, forms and sizes of

manganese metal are included within

the scope of this administrative review,

including metal flake, powder,

compressed powder, and fines. The

subject merchandise is currently

classifiable under subheadings

8111.00.45.00 and 8111.00.60.00 of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (HTSUS). Although the

HTSUS subheadings are provided for

convenience and customs purposes, our

written description of the scope of this

proceeding is dispositive.

Analysis of Comments Received

All issues raised in the case and

rebuttal briefs by parties to this

administrative review are addressed in

the ‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum’’

(Decision Memo) from Richard W.

Moreland, Deputy Assistant Secretary,

Import Administration, to Troy H.

Cribb, Acting Assistant Secretary for

Import Administration, dated May 3,

2000, which is hereby adopted by this

notice. A list of the issues which parties

have raised and to which we have

responded, all of which are in the

Decision Memo, is attached to this

notice as an Appendix. Parties can find

a complete discussion of all issues

raised in this review and the

corresponding recommendations in this

public memorandum which is on file in

the Central Records Unit, room B–099 of

the main Department building. In

addition, a complete version of the

Decision Memo can be accessed directly

on the Web at www.ita.doc.gov/

importladmin/records/frn/. The paper

copy and electronic version of the

Decision Memo are identical in content.

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

Based on our analysis of comments

received, we have made certain changes

in the margin calculation for China

Metallurgical Import & Export Hunan

Corporation/Hunan Nonferrous Metals

Import & Export Associated Corporation

(CMIECHN/CNIECHN). These changes

are as follows:

Ore 2: To value Ore 2, we are using

an average of two price quotations from

separate Indian manganese ore

producers. See the Decision Memo at

Comment 4.

Electricity: We have derived a

surrogate value for electricity based on

electricity price data published by the

Center for Monitoring Indian Economy

(CMIE) and on an electricity-specific