35896 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 6, 2000 / Notices

Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from

Thailand, 64 FR 56759, 56763 (Oct. 21,

1999).

Applying this methodology in the

instant case, we used daily rates from

January 13, 1999, through March 4,

1999. We then resumed the use of a

benchmark, starting with a benchmark

based on the average of the 20 reported

daily rates on March 5, 1999. We

resumed the use of the normal 40-day

benchmark starting on April 3, 1999,

through the close of the review period.

Preliminary Results of Review

As a result of our review, we

preliminarily determine that the

following margin exists for the period

May 1, 1998, through April 30, 1999:

Manufacturer/Exporter Percent

margin

Citrovita Agro Industrial Ltda/Cambuhy MC Industrial Ltda/Cambuhy Citrus Comercial e Exportadora ............................................... 26.27

The Department will disclose to

parties the calculations performed in

connection with these preliminary

results within five days of the date of

publication of this notice. Interested

parties may request a hearing within 30

days of the publication. Any hearing, if

requested, will be held seven days after

the date rebuttal briefs are filed.

Interested parties may submit case briefs

not later than 30 days after the date of

publication of this notice. Rebuttal

briefs, limited to issues raised in the

case briefs, may be filed not later than

37 days after the date of publication of

this notice. The Department will

publish a notice of the final results of

this administrative review, which will

include the results of its analysis of

issues raised in any such case briefs,

within 120 days of the publication of

these preliminary results.

Upon completion of this

administrative review, the Department

shall determine, and the Customs

Service shall assess, antidumping duties

on all appropriate entries. We have

calculated importer-specific assessment

rates based on the ratio of the total

amount of antidumping duties

calculated for the examined sales to the

total entered value of those sales, as

appropriate. These rates will be assessed

uniformly on all entries of particular

importers made during the POR.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we

will instruct the Customs Service to

liquidate without regard to antidumping

duties all entries for any importer for

whom the assessment rate is de minimis

(i.e., less than 0.50 percent). The

Department will issue appraisement

instructions directly to the Customs

Service.

Further, the following deposit

requirements will be effective for all

shipments of FCOJ from Brazil entered,

or withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after the publication

date of the final results of this

administrative review, as provided for

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

cash deposit rates for Citrovita,

Cambuhy, and Cambuhy Exportadora

will be the rate established in the final

results of this review; except if the rate

is less than 0.50 percent and, therefore,

de minimis within the meaning of 19

CFR 351.106, the cash deposit will be

zero; 2) for previously reviewed or

investigated companies not listed above,

the cash deposit rate will continue to be

the company-specific rate published for

the most recent period; 3) if the exporter

is not a firm covered in this review, a

prior review, or the less-than-fair-value

(LTFV) 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) the cash

deposit rate for all other manufacturers

or exporters will continue to be 1.96

percent, the all others rate established in

the LTFV investigation.

These deposit requirements, when

imposed, shall remain in effect until

publication of the final results of the

next administrative review.

This notice 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(i)(1)

and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Dated: May 30, 2000.

Troy H. Cribb,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–14205 Filed 6–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–583–824]

Polyvinyl Alcohol From Taiwan:

Preliminary Results of Third

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review and Intent Not To Revoke

Order in Part

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of

third antidumping duty administrative

review and intent not to revoke order in

part.

SUMMARY: In response to a request by

Chang Chun Petrochemical Co., Ltd., a

producer and exporter of polyvinyl

alcohol from Taiwan, the Department of

Commerce is conducting an

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on polyvinyl

alcohol from Taiwan. The period of

review is May 1, 1998, through April 30,

1999.

We preliminarily find that sales of

subject merchandise have not been

made below normal value. If these

preliminary results are adopted in our

final results of administrative review,

we will instruct the Customs Service not

to assess antidumping duties on entries

for which the importer-specific rate is

less than de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50

percent). Furthermore, we preliminarily

intend not to revoke the antidumping

duty order with respect to subject

merchandise produced and also

exported by Chang Chun Petrochemical

Co., Ltd. because its sales were not

made in commercial quantities (see 19

CFR 351.222(e)); see Intent Not to

Revoke section of this notice. Interested

parties are invited to comment on these

preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 6, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Brian Ledgerwood, at (202) 482–3836, or

Brian Smith, at (202) 482–1766, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 6, 2000 / Notices 35897

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute are references to

the provisions effective January 1, 1995,

the effective date of the amendments

made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (‘‘the

Act’’), as amended, by the Uruguay

Round Agreements Act (‘‘URAA’’). In

addition, unless otherwise indicated, all

references are made to the Department

of Commerce’s (‘‘the Department’s’’)

final regulations at 19 CFR part 351

(1999).

Case History

On May 14, 1996, the Department

published in the Federal Register an

antidumping duty order on polyvinyl

alcohol (‘‘PVA’’) from Taiwan. See 61

FR 24286. On May 19, 1999, the

Department published a notice

providing an opportunity to request an

administrative review of this order for

the period May 1, 1997, through April

30, 1998 (64 FR 27235). On May 27,

1999, we received a timely request for

an administrative review from Chang

Chun Petrochemical Co. (‘‘Chang

Chun’’). In addition, Chang Chun

requested that the Department revoke

the antidumping duty order with

respect to it. On June 30, 1999, we

published a notice of initiation of this

review for Chang Chun (64 FR 35124).

On July 8, 1999, we issued an

antidumping questionnaire to Chang

Chun. Because, the Department

disregarded sales that failed the cost test

in the last completed review for Chang

Chun (see Notice of Final Results of

Second Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review: Polyvinyl

Alcohol from Taiwan, 64 FR 32024

(June 15, 1999)), the Department had

reasonable grounds to believe or suspect

that Chang Chun’s sales of the foreign

like product may have been made at

prices below the cost of production

(‘‘COP’’) as provided by section

773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. Therefore,

pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act,

we initiated an investigation to

determine whether Chang Chun made

home market sales during the period of

review (‘‘POR’’) at prices below its COP,

and required Chang Chun to respond to

the COP section of the questionnaire

issued in July 1999.

The Department received Chang

Chun’s response in August 1999. We

issued supplemental questionnaires to

Chang Chun in September and

November 1999. Responses to these

questionnaires were received in October

and November 1999, respectively.

On November 15, 1999, the

Department requested submissions of

factual information regarding revocation

of the antidumping order in part. Such

submissions and rebuttal comments

were received from the petitioner, Air

Products and Chemicals, Inc., and

Chang Chun in December 1999. On

January 14, 2000, the Department issued

to Chang Chun a supplemental

questionnaire on the information it

submitted pertaining to revocation.

Chang Chun submitted its supplemental

revocation response on February 4,

2000.

On January 21, 2000, the Department

published a notice postponing the

preliminary results of this review until

May 30, 2000 (65 FR 3418). On February

9, 2000, the Department requested

confirmation from the Customs Service

that it had not made any adverse

findings with respect to the

classification of PVA exported to the

United States from Taiwan by Chang

Chun. On February 16, 2000, the U.S.

Customs Service confirmed that

although it had conducted an

investigation on Chang Chun’s

shipments, it found no violations (see

memorandum to the file, dated March

14, 2000). Pursuant to section 782(i)(2)

of the Act, the Department verified

Chang Chun’s response from February

21 through March 3, 2000. On April 27,

2000, the Department issued its

verification report.

Scope of Review

The product covered by this review is

PVA. PVA is a dry, white to creamcolored, water-soluble synthetic

polymer. This product consists of

polyvinyl alcohols hydrolyzed in excess

of 85 percent, whether or not mixed or

diluted with defoamer or boric acid.

Excluded from this review are PVAs

covalently bonded with acetoacetylate,

carboxylic acid, or sulfonic acid

uniformly present on all polymer chains

in a concentration equal to or greater

than two mole percent, and PVAs

covalently bonded with silane

uniformly present on all polymer chains

in a concentration equal to or greater

than one-tenth of one mole percent.

PVA in fiber form is not included in the

scope of this review.

The merchandise under review is

currently classifiable under subheading

3905.30.00 of the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States

(‘‘HTSUS’’). Although the HTSUS

subheading is provided for convenience

and customs purposes, our written

description of the scope is dispositive.

Period of Review

The POR is May 1, 1998, through

April 30, 1999.

Verification

As provided in section 782(i)(2) of the

Act, we verified information provided

by Chang Chun. We used standard

verification procedures, including onsite inspection of the manufacturer’s

facilities and examination of relevant

sales and financial records. Our

verification results are outlined in the

verification reports placed in the case

file (see the Department’s April 27,

2000, verification report (hereafter

‘‘verification report’’) for further

discussion).

Fair Value Comparisons

To determine whether sales of the

subject merchandise to the United

States were made at prices below

normal value, we compared the export

price to normal value as described

below. In accordance with section

777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared the

export price of individual transactions

to the monthly weighted-average price

of sales of the foreign like product made

in the ordinary course of trade (see

section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act). Where

there were no sales of the foreign like

product made in the ordinary course of

trade, we compared the export price of

those transactions to the constructed

value of that merchandise (see section

773(a)(4) of the Act).

Product Comparisons

In accordance with section 771(16) of

the Act, we considered all products

produced by Chang Chun covered by

the description in the ‘‘Scope of the

Review’’ section, above, to be foreign

like products for purposes of

determining appropriate product

comparisons to U.S. sales. We compared

U.S. sales to sales made in the home

market within the contemporaneous

window period, which extends from

three months prior to the U.S. sale until

two months after the sale. Where there

were no sales of identical merchandise

made in the home market in the

ordinary course of trade, we compared

U.S. sales to sales of the most similar

foreign like product made in the

ordinary course of trade. In making the

product comparisons, we matched

foreign like products based on the

physical characteristics reported by

Chang Chun in the following order:

viscosity, hydrolysis, particle size,

tackifier, defoamer, ash, color, volatiles,

and visual impurities. For those U.S.

sales of PVA for which there were no

comparable foreign market sales in the

ordinary course of trade (i.e., sales

35898 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 6, 2000 / Notices

within the contemporaneous window

which were made at prices above the

COP), we compared U.S. sales to the

constructed value, in accordance with

section 773(a)(4) of the Act.

Export Price

In accordance with sections 772(a)

and (c) of the Act, we calculated an

export price for all of Chang Chun’s

sales since the merchandise was sold

directly to the first unaffiliated

purchaser in the United States prior to

importation, and because constructed

export price (‘‘CEP’’) methodology was

not otherwise warranted based on the

facts of record. We calculated export

price based on the packed, CIF price to

unaffiliated purchasers in, or for

exportation to, the United States. We

made deductions from the starting price

for domestic inland freight, foreign

brokerage and handling, international

freight, and marine insurance in

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

the Act. We made the following

adjustments to Chang Chun’s U.S.

expense data based on our verification

findings: (1) we corrected the reported

amounts for packing expenses; and (2)

we corrected invoice-specific

information with respect to marine

insurance and bank charges (see pages

16–21 and 29 of the verification report

for further discussion).

Normal Value

In order to determine whether there

was a sufficient volume of sales in the

home market to serve as a viable basis

for calculating normal value (i.e., the

aggregate volume of home market sales

of the foreign like product is five

percent or more of the aggregate volume

of U.S. sales), we compared Chang

Chun’s volume of home market sales of

the foreign like product to its volume of

U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in

accordance with 19 CFR 351.404(b). For

Chang Chun, we determined that the

quantity of foreign like product sold in

the exporting country was sufficient to

permit a proper comparison with the

sales of the subject merchandise to the

United States because Chang Chun had

sales in its home market which were

greater than five percent of its sales in

the U.S. market. Therefore, in

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

of the Act, we based normal value on

sales in Taiwan.

Based on our verification findings, we

made the following adjustments to

Chang Chun’s reported home market

expense data: (1) we corrected the

reported amounts for credit expenses

and packing expenses; and (2) we

corrected invoice-specific information

with respect to the quantity for one sales

transaction (see pages 4, 15–16 and 30

of the verification report and May 30,

2000, preliminary results calculation

memorandum for further discussion).

Level of Trade

In accordance with section

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

practicable, we determined normal

value based on sales in the comparison

market at the same level of trade

(‘‘LOT’’) as the export price transaction.

The normal value LOT is that of the

starting-price sales in the comparison

market or, when normal value is based

on constructed value, that of the sales

from which we derive selling, general

and administrative (‘‘SG&A’’) expenses

and profit. For export price, the LOT is

also the level of the starting-price sale,

which is usually from the exporter to

the importer.

To determine whether normal value

sales are at a different LOT than export

price, we examine stages in the

marketing process and selling functions

along the chain of distribution between

the producer and the 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 normal

value is based and comparison-market

sales at the LOT of the export

transaction, we make an LOT

adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of

the Act. See Final Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain

Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from

South Africa, 62 FR 61731, 61732–33

(November 19, 1997).

As in previous reviews, Chang Chun

reported one channel of distribution for

its U.S. and home market sales. Based

on our analysis of the selling functions,

we found that the selling activities

performed in both the home market and

the United States (e.g., freight and

delivery arrangements) were similar.

Therefore, we determined that sales in

both markets are at the same LOT and

consequently no LOT adjustment is

warranted. (See Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review: PVA From Taiwan, 63 FR

32810, 32812 (June 16, 1998)).

Cost of Production (‘‘COP’’)

As we stated in the Case History

section, because we disregarded sales

below the COP for Chang Chun in the

last completed segment of the

proceeding (i.e., the second

administrative review), we had

reasonable grounds to believe or suspect

that Chang Chun’s sales of the foreign

product under consideration for the

determination of normal value in this

review may have been made at prices

below the COP, as provided by section

773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. Therefore,

pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act,

we initiated a COP investigation of sales

by Chang Chun in the home market.

A. Calculation of COP

In accordance with section 773(b)(3)

of the Act, we calculated the weightedaverage COP, by grade, based on the

sum of the cost of materials and

fabrication, SG&A expenses, and

packing costs. We relied on the

submitted COPs, correcting the reported

amounts for general and administrative

expenses and factory overhead based on

our verification findings (see pages 29–

30 of the verification report for further

discussion). In addition, we adjusted the

joint production costs between PVA and

acetic acid using the relative sales value

of each product calculated on the basis

of a two-year period prior to the period

of the less-than-fair-value (‘‘LTFV’’)

investigation (see May 30, 2000,

preliminary results calculation

memorandum and Final Results of

Second Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review: PVA From

Taiwan; 64 FR 32024, 32025 (June 15,

1999)).

Chang Chun purchased a major input

(i.e., vinyl acetate monomer (‘‘VAM’’))

used in the production of PVA from an

affiliated party. Pursuant to 19 CFR

351.407(b), we applied the major input

rule to determine the value of the VAM.

Under the major input rule, we

normally will determine the value of a

major input purchased from an affiliated

person based on the higher of: (1) the

price paid by the exporter or producer

to the affiliated person for the major

input; (2) the amount usually reflected

in sales of the major input in the market

under consideration; or (3) the cost to

the affiliated person of producing the

major input. In this case, we used the

transfer price of VAM from Chang

Chun’s affiliate, which was higher than

the market price or the affiliate’s COP.

B. Test of Home Market Prices

We compared the weighted-average

COP, adjusted where appropriate, to the

comparison market sales of the foreign

like product, as required under section

773(b) of the Act, in order to determine

whether these sales had been made at

prices below the COP within an

extended period of time in substantial

quantities, and whether such prices

were sufficient to permit the recovery of

all costs within a reasonable period of

time. On a grade-specific basis, we

compared the revised COP to the

comparison market prices, less any

applicable movement charges,

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 6, 2000 / Notices 35899

discounts, and direct and indirect

selling expenses.

C. Results of the COP Test

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C),

where less than 20 percent of the

respondent’s sales of a given product

were made at prices below the COP, we

did not disregard any below-cost sales

of that product because we determined

that the below-cost sales were not made

in ‘‘substantial quantities.’’ Where 20

percent or more of the respondent’s

sales of a given product were made at

prices below the COP, we disregarded

the below-cost sales because such sales

were found to be made within an

extended period of time in ‘‘substantial

quantities,’’ in accordance with sections

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

because the below-cost sales of the

product were 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.

Based on this test, we excluded from

our analysis certain comparison-market

sales of PVA products that were made

at below-COP prices within the POR.

For those U.S. sales of PVA for which

there were no comparable home market

sales in the ordinary course of trade, we

compared export price to constructed

value in accordance with section

773(a)(4) of the Act.

D. Calculation of Constructed Value

In accordance with section 773(e) of

the Act, we calculated constructed value

based on the sum of Chang Chun’s cost

of materials, fabrication, SG&A

(including interest expenses), U.S.

packing costs, and profit.

In accordance with section

773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based SG&A

and profit on the amounts incurred and

realized by Chang Chun in connection

with the production and sale of the

foreign like product in the ordinary

course of trade for consumption in

Taiwan. We used the weighted-average

home market selling expenses for this

purpose.

Price-to-Price Comparisons

We calculated normal value based on

packed, FOB or delivered prices to

unaffiliated purchasers in Taiwan. We

made adjustments to the starting price

for returns, where appropriate. We also

made deductions, where appropriate,

for inland freight—which included

inland insurance—pursuant to section

773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. In addition, we

made adjustments for differences in

costs attributable to differences in the

physical characteristics of the

merchandise in accordance with section

773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR

351.411, as well as for differences in

circumstances-of-sale (‘‘COS’’) in

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

of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. We

made COS adjustments by deducting

home market direct selling expenses

(i.e., credit expenses) and adding U.S.

direct selling expenses (i.e., credit

expenses and bank charges). Finally, we

deducted home market packing costs

and added U.S. packing costs in

accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the

Act.

Price to Constructed Value

Comparisons

Where we compared export price to

constructed value, we made COS

adjustments by deducting from

constructed value the weighted-average

home market direct selling expenses

and adding the U.S. direct selling

expenses, in accordance with section

773(a)(8) of the Act and section 19 CFR

351.401(c).

Intent Not To Revoke

On May 27, 1999, Chang Chun

requested that, pursuant to 19 CFR

351.222(b), the Department revoke the

antidumping duty order on PVA from

Taiwan, with respect to merchandise

that it produces and exports, at the

conclusion of this administrative

review. Chang Chun submitted along

with its revocation request a

certification stating that: (1) the

company sold subject merchandise at

not less than normal value during the

POR, and that in the future it would not

sell such merchandise at less than

normal value (see 19 CFR

351.222(e)(1)(i)); (2) the company has

sold the subject merchandise to the

United States in commercial quantities

during each of the past three years (see

19 CFR 351.222(e)(1)(ii)); and (3) the

company agrees to immediate

reinstatement of the order, if the

Department concludes that the

company, subsequent to revocation, has

sold the subject merchandise at less

than normal value (see 19 CFR

351.222(b)(1)(iii)).

On November 9, 1999, the petitioner

opposed the request for revocation,

arguing that the antidumping order is

necessary to offset dumping and that

Chang Chun will sell subject

merchandise at less than normal value

if the order is revoked. At the request of

the Department, both the petitioner and

Chang Chun submitted comments on

Chang Chun’s request for revocation

(see December 7, and December 14,

1999, revocation submissions submitted

by the parties).

The Department ‘‘may revoke, in

whole or in part’’ an antidumping duty

order upon completion of a review

under section 751 of the Act. While

Congress has not specified the

procedures that the Department must

follow in revoking an order, the

Department has developed a procedure

for revocation that is described in 19

CFR 351.222. This regulation requires,

inter alia, that a company requesting

revocation in part must submit the

following: (1) a certification that the

company has sold the subject

merchandise at not less than normal

value in the current review period and

that the company will not sell at less

than normal value in the future; (2) a

certification that the company sold the

subject merchandise in each of the three

years forming the basis of the request in

commercial quantities; and (3) an

agreement to immediate reinstatement

of the order if the Department concludes

that the company, subsequent to the

revocation, has sold subject

merchandise at less than normal value.

(See 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1)). Upon

receipt of such a request, the

Department may revoke an order, in

whole or in part, if it concludes that all

three criteria mentioned above have

been met. See 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2). See

Final Results of the Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review: Silicon Metal

From Brazil, 65 FR 7497, 7498,

(February 15, 2000) (hereafter ‘‘Silicon

Metal From Brazil’’).

Chang Chun submitted the required

certifications and agreement. However,

after applying the three criteria outlined

in section 351.222(b) of the

Department’s regulations, and after

considering the comments of the parties

and all of the evidence in the record, we

have preliminarily determined that one

of the Department’s requirements for

revocation has not been met.

Specifically, although we preliminarily

find that Chang Chun has demonstrated

three consecutive years of sales at not

less than normal value, we also

preliminarily find that, based on Chang

Chun’s U.S. shipment data, its sales to

the United States have not been made in

commercial quantities during each of

the three review periods at issue, in

accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(d) and

351.222(e)(1)(ii).

In particular, data on the record

indicate that Chang Chun’s sales of PVA

to the U.S. market during the second

POR (i.e., U.S. sales examined during

the second administrative review of this

proceeding) do not serve as an adequate

basis for finding commercial quantities

when compared to the total U.S. sales

35900 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 6, 2000 / Notices

1Chang Chun’s history of subject merchandise

PVA sales is as follows: Chang Chun’s 1st POR sales

of subject PVA were 7.19% of its POI sales of

subject PVA. Chang Chun’s 2nd POR sales of

subject PVA were 4.59% of its POI sales of subject

PVA. Chang Chun’s 3rd POR sales of subject PVA

were 20.98% of its POI sales of subject PVA.

2As we noted in Pure Magnesium from Canada;

Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review and Determination Not To Revoke Order In

Part, 64 FR 12977, 12979 (March 16, 1999) (Pure

Magnesium from Canada), commercial quantities is

a threshold requirement that must be met by parties

seeking revocation. We also note that while the

regulation requiring sales in commercial quantities

may have developed from the unreviewed

intervening year regulation, its application in all

revocation cases based on the absence of dumping

is reasonable and mandated by the regulations. The

application of this requirement to all such cases is

reflected not only in the provision for unreviewed

intervening years (see 19 CFR 351.222 (d)(1)), but

also in the new general requirement that parties

seeking revocation certify to sales in commercial

quantities in each of the years on which revocation

is to be based. See 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1)(ii). This

requirement ensures that the Department’s

revocation determination is based upon a sufficient

breadth of information regarding a company’s

normal commercial practice. See Pure Magnesium

from Canada, at 64 FR 12979.

volume during the POI.1 (See May 22,

2000, memorandum to the file regarding

corrections to the verification report,

including commercial quantities data

noted therein.)

Therefore, we have determined that

the requirements for revocation have not

been met because Chang Chun has not

made sales to the United States in

commercial quantities during the

second segment of this proceeding.2

Based on our examination of these facts

at verification and our review of Chang

Chun’s sales practices, we find that,

consistent with Department practice, we

do not have a sufficient basis to

conclude that the de minimis dumping

margin calculated for Chang Chun for

the second administrative review is

reflective of the company’s normal

commercial experience. See, e.g.,

Silicon Metal from Brazil, 65 FR at 7498

(finding that because sales and volume

figures were so small the Department

could not conclude that the reviews

reflected what the company’s normal

commercial experience would be absent

the discipline of an antidumping duty

order). Because Chang Chun has not met

the commercial quantities requirement,

we have not examined the issue of the

likelihood of future dumping (see

Silicon Metal from Brazil, 65 FR at

7505).

Chang Chun attempts to explain that

the significant decrease in its sales

volume during the second

administrative review period was due to

the alleged effect of the antidumping

duty cash deposit rate required on its

U.S. shipments of PVA as a result of the

LTFV investigation prior to the

publication of the final results of the

first administrative review of the order

on PVA from Taiwan (63 FR 32810, June

16, 1998). Chang Chun states that the

LTFV cash deposit rate was the major

factor affecting its substantial reduction

in U.S. sales during the second POR

(i.e., 5/1/97—4/30/98). (See verification

report at page 29 and 30.) Whether this

is the case or not does not detract from

the record evidence which

unequivocally demonstrates that the

volume of such sales was far below the

volume of Chang Chun’s sales prior to

the imposition of the discipline of the

antidumping duty order. Moreover, it is

the volume of these sales (not Chang

Chun’s alleged reasons for their size in

this case) that is the focus of the

Department’s analysis with respect to

whether they can be considered to be in

commercial quantities.

Based on the foregoing analysis, we

have preliminarily determined that

Chang Chun has not met one of the

threshold requirements for revocation

(i.e., sales in commercial quantities

during the three consecutive PORs). We

therefore preliminarily intend not to

revoke the order, with respect to PVA

produced and also exported by Chang

Chun, if these preliminary findings are

affirmed in our final results.

Preliminary Results of Review

As a result of this review, we

preliminarily determine that the

following margin exists for the period

May 1, 1998 through April 30, 1999:

Manufacturer/exporter Margin

(percent)

Chang Chun Petrochemical

Co., Ltd ................................. 0.00

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the

Secretary will disclose to the parties to

the proceeding the calculations

performed in connection with this

review, within five days after the date

of publication of the preliminary results

of this review. Any interested party may

request a hearing within 30 days of

publication. Any hearing, if requested,

will be held 44 days after the date of

publication or the first business day

thereafter.

Issues raised in hearings will be

limited to those raised in the respective

case briefs and rebuttal briefs. Case

briefs from interested parties and

rebuttal briefs, limited to the issues

raised in the respective case briefs, may

be submitted not later than 30 days and

37 days, respectively, from the date of

publication of these preliminary results.

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. Parties

are also encouraged to provide a

summary of the arguments not to exceed

five pages and a table of statutes,

regulations and cases cited.

The Department will subsequently

issue the final results of this

administrative review, including the

results of its analysis of issues raised in

any such written briefs or at the hearing,

if held, not later than 120 days after the

date of publication of this notice.

Interested parties who wish to request

a hearing or to participate if one is

requested, must submit a written

request to the Assistant Secretary for

Import Administration, Room B–099,

within 30 days of the date of publication

of this notice. The request should

contain: (1) the party’s name, address

and telephone number; (2) the number

of participants; and (3) a list of issues to

be discussed.

Cash Deposit and Assessment

Requirements

The final results of this review shall

be the basis for the assessment of the

antidumping duties on entries of

merchandise covered by this review and

for future deposits of estimated duties.

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 these preliminary results are

adopted in the final results, we will

instruct the Customs Service to assess

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries covered by this review for which

any importer-specific assessment rates

calculated in the final results of this

review are above de minimis (i.e., at or

above 0.5 percent), in accordance with

19 CFR 351.106(c)(2). For assessment

purposes, we intend to calculate

importer-specific assessment rates for

the subject merchandise by aggregating

the dumping margins calculated for all

U.S. sales to each importer and dividing

this amount by the total entered value

of the sales examined.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective upon

completion of the final results of this

antidumping duty review for all

shipments of PVA from Taiwan,

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) of the Act: (1) no cash

deposit will be required for PVA from

Taiwan that is produced by Chang Chun

(unless the margin established for the

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 6, 2000 / Notices 35901

company in the final results of this

review is above de minimis); (2) for

exporters not covered in this review, but

covered in the LTFV investigation or

prior reviews, the cash deposit rate will

continue to be the company-specific rate

from the LTFV investigation or the prior

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

covered in this review, a prior review,

or the original LTFV 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) the cash

deposit rate for all other manufacturers

or exporters will continue to be 19.21

percent, the ‘‘All Others’’ rate made

effective by the LTFV investigation.

These requirements, when imposed,

shall remain in effect until publication

of the final results of the next

administrative review.

This notice serves as a preliminary

reminder to importers of their

responsibility under 19 CFR

351.402(f)(2) 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) of the Act and 19

CFR 351.213.

Dated: May 30, 2000.

Troy H. Cribb,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–14206 Filed 6–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–201–504]

Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware From

Mexico: Amended Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 6, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Katherine Johnson or David J.

Goldberger, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone,

(202) 482–4929 or (202) 482–4136,

respectively.

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 of Commerce’s

(Department’s) regulations are to 19 CFR

Part 351 (1998).

Scope of the Review

Imports covered by this review are

shipments of porcelain-on-steel

cookware, including tea kettles, which

do not have self-contained electric

heating elements. All of the foregoing

are constructed of steel and are

enameled or glazed with vitreous

glasses. This merchandise is currently

classifiable under Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)

subheading 7323.94.00. Kitchenware

currently classifiable under HTSUS

subheading 7323.94.00.30 is not subject

to the order. Although the HTSUS

subheadings are provided for

convenience and Customs purposes, our

written description of the scope of this

proceeding is dispositive.

Amendment to Final Results

In accordance with section 751(a) of

the Act, on May 4, 2000, we issued our

final results of the 1997–1998

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on porcelainon-steel cookware from Mexico in

which we determined that sales of

porcelain-on-steel cookware from

Mexico were made at less than normal

value (65 FR 30068, May 10, 2000). On

May 9, 2000, we received an allegation,

timely filed pursuant to 19 CFR

351.224(c)(2), from the petitioner,

Columbian Home Products, LLC, that

the Department made a ministerial error

in its final results. We did not receive

ministerial error allegations from Cinsa,

S.A. de C.V. (Cinsa) or Esmaltaciones de

Norte America, S.A. de C.V. (ENASA).

After analyzing petitioner’s

submission, we have determined, in

accordance with 19 CFR 351.224, that a

ministerial error was made in our final

margin calculations for Cinsa.

Specifically, certain indirect selling

expenses incurred in Mexico by Cinsa

in connection with sales to the

unaffiliated customer in the United

States, which were formerly classified

as export prices sales, were not: (1)

Deducted from the constructed export

price (CEP) calculation; (2) included in

the pool of U.S. indirect selling

expenses used to calculate the CEP

offset; and (3) included in the

calculation of CEP profit due to a

programming error. We have now

corrected the programming error. For a

detailed discussion of the ministerial

error allegation and the Department’s

analysis, see the Memorandum to Louis

Apple from the Team, dated May 30,

2000.

Therefore, in accordance with section

751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e),

we are amending the final results of the

1997–1998 antidumping duty

administrative review on porcelain-onsteel cookware from Mexico.

The revised weighted-average

dumping margins are as follows:

Manufacturer/

exporter

Original final

margin percentage

Revised

final margin

percentage

Cinsa ................. 8.96 9.31

ENASA .............. 27.37 27.37

This amended final results of

administrative review and notice are in

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

Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)), section 777(i)

of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1677f(i)), and 19

CFR 351.210(c).

Dated: May 20, 2000.

Troy H. Cribb,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–14203 Filed 6–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

[I.D. 052500A]

Taking and Importing of Marine

Mammals

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of affirmative finding.

SUMMARY: The Assistant Administrator

for Fisheries, NMFS, issued an

affirmative finding for the Republic of

Ecuador under the Marine Mammal

Protection Act (MMPA) on May 31,

2000. This affirmative finding allows

the continued importation into the

United States of yellowfin tuna and

yellowfin tuna products harvested in

the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean (ETP)

after March 3, 1999, by Ecuadorian-flag

purse seine vessels or vessels operating

under Ecuadorian jurisdiction greater