35892 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 6, 2000 / Notices

Manufacturer/exporter Percent margin

The G5 Corporation .............. 10.44

Hyundai Electronic Industries

Co., Ltd ............................. 5.32

Jewon Microelectronics ........ 10.44

Kim’s Marketing .................... 10.44

LG Semicon Co., Ltd ............ 3.08

Wooyang Industry Co., Ltd ... 10.44

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the

Department will disclose to parties to

the proceeding any calculations

performed in connection with these

preliminary results within 5 days of the

date of publication of this notice. Any

interested party may request a hearing

within 30 days of the date of publication

of this notice. 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. All case briefs must be

submitted within 30 days of the date of

publication of this notice. Rebuttal

briefs, which are limited to issues raised

in the case briefs, may be filed not later

than seven days after the case briefs are

filed. A hearing, if requested, will be

held two days after the date the rebuttal

briefs are filed or the first business day

thereafter.

The Department will publish a notice

of the final results of this administrative

review, which will include the results of

its analysis of the issues raised in any

written comments or at the hearing,

within 120 days from the publication of

these preliminary results.

The Department shall determine, and

Customs shall assess, antidumping

duties on all appropriate entries. The

Department will issue appraisement

instructions directly to Customs. The

final results of this review shall be the

basis for the assessment of antidumping

duties on entries of merchandise

covered by the determination and for

future deposits of estimated duties. We

have calculated importer-specific ad

valorem duty assessment rates based on

the ratio of the total amount of dumping

margins calculated for the examined

sales to the entered value of sales used

to calculate those duties. These rates

will be assessed uniformly on all entries

of each particular importer made during

the POR.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective upon

completion of the final results of these

administrative reviews for all shipments

of DRAMs from Korea entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after publication

date of the final results of these

administrative reviews, as provided by

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

deposit rate for the reviewed companies

will be the rate established in the final

results of this administrative review,

except if the rate is less than 0.5 percent

ad valorem and, therefore, de minimis,

no cash deposit will be required; (2) for

exporters not covered in this review, but

covered in the original LTFV

investigation or a previous review, the

cash deposit rate will continue to be the

company-specific rate published in the

most recent period; (3) if the exporter is

not a firm covered in this review, a

previous 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) if neither the

exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm

covered in this or any previous reviews

or the LTFV investigation, the cash

deposit rate will be 4.55 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)

of the Department’s regulations 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 this

notice are in accordance with sections

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

Dated: May 30, 2000.

Troy H. Cribb,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–14204 Filed 6–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–351–605]

Frozen Concentrated Orange Juice

from Brazil; Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: In response to a request by the

petitioners and one producer/exporter

of the subject merchandise, the

Department of Commerce is conducting

an administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on frozen

concentrated orange juice from Brazil.

This review covers one manufacturer/

exporter of the subject merchandise to

the United States, Citrovita Agro

Industrial Ltda. The period of review is

May 1, 1998, through April 30, 1999.

We have preliminarily determined

that sales have been made below the

normal value by the company 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: June 6, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Shawn Thompson or Irina Itkin, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230;

telephone (202) 482–1776 or (202) 482–

0656, 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

are to the Department’s regulations at 19

CFR part 351 (1999).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On May 19, 1999, the Department of

Commerce (the Department) published

in the Federal Register a notice of

‘‘Opportunity to Request an

Administrative Review’’ of the

antidumping duty order on frozen

concentrated orange juice (FCOJ) from

Brazil (64 FR 27235).

In accordance with 19 CFR

351.213(b)(1), on May 27, 1999, the

petitioners, Florida Citrus Mutual,

Caulkins Indiantown Citrus Co., Citrus

Belle, Citrus World, Inc., Orange-Co of

Florida, Inc., Peace River Citrus

Products, Inc., and Southern Gardens

Citrus Processors Corp., requested an

administrative review of the

antidumping order covering the period

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 6, 2000 / Notices 35893

May 1, 1998, through April 30, 1999, for

two producers and exporters of FCOJ:

CTM Citrus S.A. (CTM) and Sucorrico

S.A. (Sucorrico). In addition, on May 28,

1999, and June 1, 1999, respectively,

two producers and exporters of FCOJ,

Branco Peres Citrus S.A. (Branco Peres)

and Citrovita Agro Industrial Ltda.

(Citrovita), also requested an

administrative review. On June 15,

1999, the Department issued

questionnaires to Branco Peres,

Citrovita, CTM, and Sucorrico.

On June 21, 1999, the Department

initiated an administrative review for

Citrovita (64 FR 35124 (June 30, 1999));

the initiation notice mistakenly omitted

Branco Peres, CTM, and Sucorrico.

However, on June 30, 1999, Branco

Peres withdrew its request for an

administrative review. In addition, in

August 1999, CTM and Sucorrico

informed the Department that they had

no shipments of subject merchandise

into the United States during the period

of review (POR). We have confirmed

CTM’s and Sucorrico’s assertions using

information from the Customs Service.

See the memorandum to the file from

Jerry Surowiec on this topic, dated May

30, 2000.

In September 1999, we received a

response to the Department’s

questionnaire from Citrovita. In October

and November 1999, we issued

supplemental questionnaires to

Citrovita. We received responses to

these questionnaires in November and

December 1999.

In December 1999, we conducted

verification of Citrovita’s U.S. sales

responses at its offices in Delaware.

In January 2000, we requested

additional information related to

Citrovita’s cost of production (COP), as

well as the COP of an affiliated producer

of FCOJ. We received a response to this

questionnaire in February 2000.

Also in February 2000, we conducted

verification of Citrovita’s home market

sales and cost responses, as well as the

sales and cost responses of the affiliated

FCOJ producer.

Scope of the Review

The merchandise covered by this

review is frozen concentrated orange

juice from Brazil. The merchandise is

currently classifiable under item

2009.11.00 of the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).

The HTSUS item number is provided

for convenience and for customs

purposes. The Department’s written

description of the scope of this

proceeding remains dispositive.

Period of Review

The POR is May 1, 1998, through

April 30, 1999.

Affiliated Producers

During the POR, a sister company to

Citrovita’s parent company purchased

another Brazilian producer of FCOJ and

that producer’s affiliated trading

company (i.e., Cambuhy MC Industrial

Ltda. (Cambuhy) and Cambuhy Citrus

Comercial e Exportadora S.A. (Cambuhy

Exportadora), respectively). Because

Citrovita became affiliated with these

companies during the POR (i.e.,

beginning in September 1998), we

analyzed whether it would be

appropriate to treat Citrovita and these

affiliated parties as a single entity using

the criteria outlined in 19 CFR

351.401(f). Our analysis showed that the

parties have production facilities for

similar or identical products which

would not require substantial retooling

in order to restructure manufacturing

priorities. Moreover, the preponderance

of evidence on the record indicates a

significant potential for the

manipulation of prices or production

between Citrovita and its affiliates

because of the degree of common

ownership, the positions held by the

owners of the parent company on the

affiliates’ boards of directors, and the

extent to which operations were

intertwined during the POR.

Accordingly, we have collapsed

Citrovita, Cambuhy, and Cambuhy

Exportadora for purposes of the

preliminary results, in accordance with

19 CFR 351.401(f). However, because

there is no evidence that the companies

were affiliated prior to September 1998,

we have used only the sales and cost

data reported for Cambuhy and

Cambuhy Exportadora from September

1998 through the end of the POR. For

further discussion, see the

memorandum to Richard W. Moreland,

Deputy Assistant Secretary, AD/CVD

Enforcement, Group I, entitled

‘‘Treatment of Data Reported by

Affiliated Parties in the Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review on Frozen

Concentrated Orange Juice from Brazil,’’

dated May 30, 2000 (the Affiliated Party

issues memo).

Comparison Methodology

To determine whether sales of FCOJ

from Brazil to the United States were

made at less than normal value (NV), we

compared the constructed export price

(CEP) to the NV for Citrovita, as

specified in the ‘‘Constructed Export

Price’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of

this notice.

When making comparisons in

accordance with section 771(16) of the

Act, we considered all products sold in

the home market as described in the

‘‘Scope of the Review’’ section of this

notice that were in the ordinary course

of trade. For those U.S. sales of FCOJ for

which there were no comparable foreign

market sales in the ordinary course of

trade, we compared CEP to constructed

value (CV), in accordance with section

773(a)(4) of the Act.

Level of Trade and CEP Offset

In accordance with section

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

practicable, we determine NV based on

sales in the comparison market at the

same level of trade as CEP. The NV level

of trade 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 selling, general and

administrative expenses (SG&A) and

profit. 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 level of trade than CEP 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 comparisonmarket sales at the level of trade of the

export transaction, we make a level-oftrade 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 any difference in the levels

between NV and CEP affects price

comparability, we adjust NV under

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

offset provision). See Notice of Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length

Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa,

62 FR 61731 (Nov. 19, 1997).

We note that the U.S. Court of

International Trade (CIT) has held that

the Department’s practice of

determining levels of trade for CEP

transactions after CEP deductions is an

impermissible interpretation of section

772(d) of the Act. See Borden, Inc. v.

United States, 4 F. Supp. 2d 1221,

1241–42 (CIT 1998) (Borden). The

Department believes, however, that its

practice is in full compliance with the

statute. On June 4, 1999, the CIT entered

final judgement in Borden on the level

of trade issue. See Borden Inc. v. United

35894 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 6, 2000 / Notices

States, Court No. 96–08–01970, Slip Op.

99–50 (CIT June 4, 1999). The

government has filed an appeal of

Borden which is pending before the U.S.

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Consequently, the Department has

continued to follow its normal practice

of adjusting CEP under section 772(d)

prior to starting a level of trade analysis,

as articulated by the Department’s

regulations at section 351.412.

Citrovita claimed that it made home

market sales at only one level of trade

(i.e., sales to end users). Because

Citrovita performed the same selling

activities for sales to all customers in

the home market, we determined that no

level of trade adjustment is possible for

Citrovita.

In order to determine whether NV was

established at a level of trade which

constituted a more advanced stage of

distribution than the level of trade of the

CEP, we compared the selling functions

performed for home market sales with

those performed with respect to the CEP

transaction, which excludes economic

activities occurring in the United States.

We found that Citrovita performed most

of the selling functions and services

related to U.S. sales at its sales office in

the United States. These selling

functions are associated with those

expenses which we deduct from the

CEP starting price, as specified in

section 772(d) of the Act. We found that

Citrovita performed the same selling

functions for home market sales in

Brazil. Therefore, we find that

Citrovita’s sales in the home market

were at a more advanced stage of

marketing and distribution (i.e., more

remote from the factory) than the

constructed U.S. level of trade, which

represents an F.O.B. foreign port price

after the deduction of expenses

associated with U.S. selling activities.

However, because we find that Citrovita

sells at only one level of trade in the

foreign market, the difference in the

level of trade cannot be quantified.

Further, we do not have information

which would allow us to examine

pricing patterns based on the

respondent’s sales of other products,

and there are no other respondents or

other record information on which such

an analysis could be based.

Accordingly, because the data available

do not form an appropriate basis for

making a level of trade adjustment, but

the level of trade in the home market is

at a more advanced stage of distribution

than the level of trade of the CEP, we

have granted a CEP offset to Citrovita.

For further discussion, see the

concurrence memorandum issued for

the preliminary results of this review,

dated May 30, 2000 (the concurrence

memo).

Constructed Export Price

We based the U.S. price on CEP

because sales to the unaffiliated

purchaser took place after importation

into the United States, in accordance

with section 772(b) of the Act. We

calculated CEP based on the starting

price to the first unaffiliated purchaser

in the United States. We made

deductions from the starting price,

where appropriate, for foreign inland

freight, foreign brokerage and handling

expenses, ocean freight, marine

insurance, U.S. customs duty, U.S. port

fees, U.S. brokerage and handling

expenses, U.S. inland freight, and U.S.

warehousing expenses, in accordance

with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.

We made additional deductions from

CEP, where appropriate, for

commissions, credit expenses, and U.S.

indirect selling expenses, including U.S.

inventory carrying costs, in accordance

with section 772(d)(1) of the Act.

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

Act, we further reduced the starting

price by an amount for profit, to arrive

at CEP. In accordance with section

772(f) of the Act, we calculated the CEP

profit rate using the expenses incurred

by Citrovita and its affiliate on their

sales of the subject merchandise in the

United States and of the foreign like

product in the home market and the

profit associated with those sales.

Normal Value

In order to determine whether there is

a sufficient volume of sales in the home

market to serve as a viable basis for

calculating NV (i.e., the aggregate

volume of home market sales of the

foreign like product is greater than five

percent of the aggregate volume of U.S.

sales), we compared the volume of

Citrovita’s home market sales of the

foreign like product to the volume of

U.S. sales of subject merchandise, in

accordance with 19 CFR 351.404(b).

Based on this comparison, we

determined that Citrovita had a viable

home market during the POR.

Consequently, we based NV on home

market sales.

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of

the Act, there were reasonable grounds

to believe or suspect that Citrovita had

made home market sales at prices below

their COPs in this review because the

Department disregarded sales that failed

the cost test for Citrovita in the most

recently completed administrative

review. See Frozen Concentrated

Orange Juice From Brazil; Final Results

and Partial Rescission of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review, 64 FR

43650, 43652 (Aug. 11, 1999) (FCOJ

from Brazil). As a result, the Department

initiated an investigation to determine

whether Citrovita made home market

sales during the POR at prices below

their COP.

We calculated the COP based on the

sum of Citrovita’s and the affiliated

producers’ costs of materials and

fabrication for the foreign like product,

plus amounts for general and

administrative (G&A) expenses and

financing expenses, in accordance with

section 773(b)(3) of the Act.

We used the reported COP amounts to

compute a weighted-average COP

during the POR, except in the following

instances in which the costs were not

appropriately quantified or valued:

1. We treated fresh orange juice as a

co-product, rather than a by-product as

reported, because this product was not

an unintentional consequence of

production. For further discussion, see

the concurrence memo;

2. We recalculated the claimed byproduct credit to (1) correct certain

errors discovered during verification;

and (2) state all sales of by-products to

affiliated parties on an arm’s-length

basis. For further discussion, see the

concurrence memo;

3. We valued the cost of fruit

provided by an affiliated party using the

affiliate’s cost of production, in

accordance with sections 773(f)(2) and

(3) of the Act. For further discussion,

see the concurrence memo and the

Affiliated Party issues memo;

4. We treated Cambuhy Exportadora

as the producer of certain FCOJ

manufactured during the POR. We

based the value of the fruit used in the

production of this FCOJ on facts

available, because Citrovita did not

report this information. As facts

available, we used the cost of

production noted in item 3, above. For

further discussion, see the Affiliated

Party issues memo;

5. We made no addition to the COP

for ICMS and IPI taxes because we

found at verification that the respondent

completely recovered these taxes during

the POR;

6. We included the freight costs on

certain shipments of oranges which had

been excluded from the reported costs;

7. We revised the calculation of G&A

expenses to include certain of

Citrovita’s non-operating expenses; and

8. We amortized certain foreign

exchange losses incurred by Cambuhy

on long-term U.S. dollar-denominated

debt over the remaining life of the loans.

For further discussion, see the Affiliated

Party issues memo.

We compared the COP to home

market prices of the foreign like

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 6, 2000 / Notices 35895

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. On a productspecific basis, we compared the COP to

home market prices, less any applicable

movement charges, selling expenses,

and packing costs.

In determining whether to disregard

home market sales made at prices below

the COP, we examined whether such

sales were made: (1) In substantial

quantities within an extended period of

time; and (2) at prices which permitted

the recovery of all costs within a

reasonable period of time in the normal

course of trade. See section 773(b)(1) of

the Act.

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

the Act, where less than 20 percent of

Citrovita’s sales of a given product were

made at prices less than 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

Citrovita’s sales of a given product were

at prices below the COP, we found that

sales of that model were made in

‘‘substantial quantities’’ within an

extended period of time, as defined in

section 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act.

In such cases, we also determined that

such sales were not made at prices

which would permit recovery of all

costs within a reasonable period of time,

in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D)

of the Act. Therefore, we disregarded

the below-cost sales in determining NV.

We found that more than 20 percent

of Citrovita’s home market sales within

an extended period of time were made

at prices less than the COP. Further, the

prices did not provide for the recovery

of costs within a reasonable period of

time. We, therefore, disregarded the

below-cost sales and, where available,

used the remaining above-cost sales as

the basis for determining NV, in

accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the

Act. For those U.S. sales of FCOJ for

which there were no comparable home

market sales in the ordinary course of

trade (i.e., sales within the

contemporaneous window which were

made at prices above the COP), we

compared CEP to CV, in accordance

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

In accordance with section 773(e) of

the Act, we calculated CV based on the

sum of the respondent’s cost of

materials, fabrication, SG&A (including

financing expenses), profit, and U.S.

packing costs, adjusted as noted above.

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

of the Act, we based SG&A (including

financing expenses), and profit on the

amounts incurred and realized by

Citrovita in connection with the

production and sale of the foreign like

product in the ordinary course of trade,

for consumption in the foreign country.

Where NV was based on home market

sales, we based NV on the starting price

to unaffiliated customers. We made

deductions from the starting price for

foreign inland freight, pursuant to

section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. Pursuant

to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act, we

also made deductions for home market

credit expenses (offset by interest

revenue). We recalculated home market

credit expenses on the basis of home

market price net of Brazilian taxes, in

accordance with our practice. See, e.g.,

Ferrosilicon from Brazil; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 61 FR 59407, 59410 (Nov. 22,

1996); and FCOJ from Brazil, 64 FR at

43653.

We disallowed a claim made for

foreign exchange losses on one home

market sale because this sale was

denominated in, and paid for, in

Brazilian reais. Consequently, because

this transaction did not involve the

conversion of currency, there was no

foreign exchange loss associated with

the sale. For further discussion, see the

concurrence memo.

We deducted home market indirect

selling expenses, including inventory

carrying costs and other indirect selling

expenses, up to the amount of indirect

selling expenses incurred on U.S. sales,

in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B)

of the Act. Where applicable, in

accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e), we

offset any commission paid on a U.S.

sale by reducing the NV by home market

indirect selling expenses remaining after

the deduction for the CEP offset, up to

the amount of the U.S. commission.

In addition, we deducted home

market packing costs and added U.S.

packing costs, in accordance with

section 773(a)(6) of the Act.

Currency Conversion

We made currency conversions in

accordance with section 773A of the

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

the Department to use a daily exchange

rate to convert foreign currencies into

U.S. dollars unless the daily rate

involves a fluctuation. The Department

considers a ‘‘fluctuation’’ to exist when

the daily exchange rate differs from the

benchmark rate by 2.25 percent or more.

The benchmark is defined as the moving

average of rates for the past 40 business

days. When we determine a fluctuation

to have existed, we generally substitute

the benchmark rate for the daily rate, in

accordance with established practice.

(For an explanation of this method, see

Policy Bulletin 96–1: Currency

Conversions, 61 FR 9434 (Mar. 8, 1996).)

Our preliminary analysis of dollarreal exchange rates shows that the real

declined rapidly in early 1999, losing

over 40 percent of its value in January

1999, when the Brazilian government

ended its exchange rate restrictions. The

decline was, in both speed and

magnitude, many times more severe

than any change in the dollar-real

exchange rate during recent years, and

it did not rebound significantly in a

short time. As such, we preliminarily

determine that the decline in the real

during January 1999 was of such

magnitude that the dollar-real exchange

rate cannot reasonably be viewed as

having simply fluctuated at that time,

i.e., as having experienced only a

momentary drop in value relative to the

normal benchmark. We preliminarily

find that there was a large, precipitous

drop in the value of the real in relation

to the U.S. dollar in January 1999.

We recognize that, following a large

and precipitous decline in the value of

a currency, a period may exist wherein

it is unclear whether further declines

are a continuation of the large and

precipitous decline or merely

fluctuations. Under the circumstances of

this case, such uncertainty may have

existed following the large, precipitous

drop in January 1999. Thus, we devised

a methodology for identifying the point

following a precipitous drop at which it

is reasonable to presume that rates were

merely fluctuating. Beginning on

January 13, 1999, we used only daily

rates until the daily rates were not more

than 2.25 percent below the average of

the 20 previous daily rates for five

consecutive days. At that point, we

determined that the pattern of daily

rates no longer reasonably precluded the

possibility that they were merely

‘‘fluctuating.’’ (Using a 20-day average

for this purpose provides a reasonable

indication that it is no longer necessary

to refrain from using the normal

methodology, while avoiding the use of

daily rates exclusively for an excessive

period of time.) Accordingly, from the

first of these five days, we resumed

classifying daily rates as ‘‘fluctuating’’

or ‘‘normal’’ in accordance with our

standard practice, except that we began

with a 20-day benchmark and on each

succeeding day added a daily rate to the

average until the normal 40-day average

was restored as the benchmark. See

Notice of Final Determination of Sales

at Less Than Fair Value: Certain ColdRolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel

Products from Brazil, 65 FR 5554, 5563–

64 (Feb. 4, 2000); and Notice of Final

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review: Certain Welded

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