36112 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 7, 2000 / Notices

sales, we compared U.S. sales to most

similar home market merchandise or to

CV.

Level of Trade

In accordance with section

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

practicable, we determine NV based on

sales in the comparison market at the

same level of trade (LOT). See, e.g.,

Certain Carbon Steel Plate from South

Africa, Final Determination of Sales at

Less Than Fair Value, 62 FR 61731 ,

61732–33 (November 19, 1998). Yieh

Hsing provided information with

respect to its selling activities in both

markets. Yieh Hsing offers each of its

three categories of home market

customers the same degree of sales

support, including general technical

advice and sale-specific warranty

service. We therefore determine that

Yieh Hsing sells to one level of trade in

the home market. For its U.S. customers,

Yieh Hsing provided freight and

delivery arrangements, but no other

services; otherwise, the levels of

customer assistance and sales support

which Yieh Hsing provided its home

market and U.S. customers were not

significantly different. For these reasons

we determine that Yieh Hsing’s sales in

the two markets were at the same LOT,

and no LOT adjustment is warranted.

Sales Comparisons

To determine whether sales of certain

circular welded carbon steel pipes and

tubes in the United States were made at

less than NV, we compared EP to the

NV, as described in the ‘‘Export Price’’

and ‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this

notice. In accordance with section

777(A)(d)(d) of the Act, we calculated

monthly weighted-average prices for NV

and compared these to individual U.S.

transactions.

Where there were no above-cost sales

of identical merchandise in the home

market made in the ordinary course of

trade to compare to U.S. sales, we

compared U.S. sales to most similar

home market merchandise, based on the

information provided by Yieh Hsing in

response to our antidumping

questionnaire.

Preliminary Results of Review

We preliminarily determine that the

following margins exist for the period

May 1, 1998 through April 31, 1999:

Manufactuer/

Exporter Period Margin(percent)

Yieh Hsing ........ 5/1/98–4/30/

99

1.63

Interested parties may request a

hearing not later than 30 days after

publication of this notice. Interested

parties may also submit written

arguments in case briefs on these

preliminary results within 30 days of

the date of publication of this notice.

Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised

in case briefs, may be filed no later than

five days after the time limit for filing

case briefs. Parties who submit

arguments are requested to submit with

each argument a statement of the issue

and a brief summary of the argument.

All memoranda to which we refer in

this notice can be found in the public

reading room, located in the Central

Records Unit, room B–009 of the main

Department of Commerce building. Any

hearing, if requested, will be held two

days after the scheduled date for

submission of rebuttal briefs.

The Department will publish the final

results of this administrative review,

including a discussion of its analysis of

issues raised in any case or rebuttal brief

or at a hearing. The Department will

issue final results of this review within

120 days of publication of these

preliminary results.

Upon completion of the final results

in this review, the Department shall

determine, and the Customs Service

shall assess, antidumping duties on all

appropriate entries. In accordance with

19 CFR 351.212 (b), we have calculated

an importer/customer-specific

assessment rate based on the ratio of the

total amount of antidumping duties

calculated for the examined sales to the

quantity of those same sales. This

Department will issue appraisement

instructions on each exporter directly to

the Customs Service.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective upon

completion of the final results of this

administrative review for all shipments

of certain circular welded carbon steel

pipes and tubes 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 for

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

cash deposit rates for Yieh Hsing will be

the rate established in the final results

of this administrative review, except

that no cash deposit will be required if

the rate is de minimis, i.e., less than

0.50 percent; (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

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) for all other

producers and/or exporters of this

merchandise, the cash deposit rate shall

be 9.7%, 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 also serves as a

preliminary reminder to importers of

their responsibility under 19 CFR

351.401(f)(2) to file a certificate

regarding the reimbursement of

antidumping duties prior to liquidation

of the relevant entries during this period

of review. 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 issued and published in accordance

with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of

the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h).

Dated: May 30, 2000.

Troy H. Cribb,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–14351 Filed 6–6–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–588–836]

Polyvinyl Alcohol from Japan:

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

Kuraray Co., Ltd., a producer and

exporter of polyvinyl alcohol from

Japan, the Department of Commerce is

conducting an administrative review of

the antidumping duty order on

polyvinyl alcohol from Japan. The

period of review is May 1, 1998, through

April 30, 1999.

We preliminarily find that sales of

subject merchandise have been made

below normal value. If these

preliminary results are adopted in our

final results of administrative review,

we will instruct the Customs Service to

assess antidumping duties on all

appropriate entries. Interested parties

are invited to comment on these

preliminary results.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 7, 2000 / Notices 36113

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 7, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Barbara Wojcik-Betancourt, at (202)

482–0629, or Brian Smith, at (202) 482–

1766, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue,

Washington, D.C. 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, as

amended (‘‘the Act’’), by the Uruguay

Round Agreements Act (‘‘URAA’’). In

addition, unless otherwise indicated, all

references are made to the Department

of Commerce’s (‘‘the Department’’) final

regulations at 19 C.F.R. Part 351 (April

1999).

Case History

On May 14, 1996, the Department of

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’)

published in the Federal Register an

antidumping duty order on polyvinyl

alcohol (‘‘PVA’’) from Japan (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, 1998, through April

30, 1999 (64 FR 27235). On May 28,

1999, we received a request for an

administrative review from Kuraray Co.,

Ltd. (‘‘Kuraray’’). On June 30, 1999, we

published a notice of initiation of this

review for Kuraray (64 FR 35124).

On July 9, 1999, we issued an

antidumping questionnaire to Kuraray.

The Department received a response

from the company in September 1999.

On October 4, 1999, the petitioner

submitted a timely allegation, pursuant

to section 773(b) of the Act, that Kuraray

had made sales in the home market at

less than the cost of production

(‘‘COP’’). Our analysis of the allegation

indicated that there were reasonable

grounds to believe or suspect that

Kuraray had sold PVA in the home

market at prices at less than the COP.

Accordingly, we initiated a COP

investigation with respect to Kuraray,

pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act

(see Memorandum from Team to Louis

Apple, Office Director, dated November

10, 1999).

We issued supplemental

questionnaires to Kuraray in November

1999 and January 2000. Responses to

these questionnaires were received in

December 1999 and February 2000,

respectively.

On January 21, 2000, the Department

published a notice postponing the

preliminary results of this review until

May 30, 2000 (65 FR 3418). The

Department conducted verification of

the company’s response from February

21 through March 17, 2000, pursuant to

section 782(i)(2) of the Act. In April

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 period of review (‘‘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 Kuraray. 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.

Fair Value Comparisons

To determine whether the

respondent’s sales of the subject

merchandise to the United States were

made at below normal value, we

compared, where appropriate, the

export price and constructed export

price (‘‘CEP’’) to the normal value, as

described below. In accordance with

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

compared, where appropriate, the

export prices and CEPs of individual

transactions to the monthly weightedaverage 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).

Product Comparisons

In accordance with section 771(16) of

the Act, we considered all products

produced by Kuraray 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 the

respondent in the following order:

viscosity, hydrolysis, particle size,

tackifier, defoamer, ash, color, volatiles,

and visual impurities.

Export Price and Constructed Export

Price

During the POR, Kuraray sold subject

merchandise to the U.S. market (1)

directly through its wholly-owned U.S.

affiliate (Kuraray America Inc.)

(hereafter referred to as Kuraray

America); (2) through Kuraray America

via its wholly-owned home market

affiliate (Kuraray Trading Co., Ltd.)

(hereafter referred to as Kuraray

Trading); or (3) directly through

unaffiliated Japanese trading companies.

With respect to one Japanese trading

company through which Kuraray sells

the subject merchandise, the petitioner

requested that the Department examine

whether Kuraray and that company are

affiliates. Based on the verified data on

the record, we preliminarily find that

Kuraray and that Japanese trading

company are not affiliates under the

criteria outlined in section 771(33) of

the Act and 19 C.F.R. 351.102(b) (see

Memorandum Regarding Affiliation

from Team to Louis Apple, Office

Director, dated May 30, 2000). We are

also treating the sales made by Kuraray

to the Japanese trading company during

the POR as export price transactions, in

accordance with section 772(a) of the

Act.

However, we carefully examined the

totality of circumstances surrounding

the U.S. sales process for those U.S.

sales which Kuraray made through its

36114 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 7, 2000 / Notices

U.S. affiliate. Based on the evidence on

the record, we found that Kuraray either

sells the subject merchandise directly to

its U.S. affiliate, or through Kuraray

Trading, which in turn sells the subject

merchandise to the U.S. affiliate. For

U.S. sales made only through its U.S.

affiliate, the U.S. customer contacts

Kuraray’s U.S. affiliate, who then places

the order with Kuraray. Kuraray

arranges for delivery of the goods from

Japan to the unaffiliated U.S. customer

and issues its invoice to its U.S. affiliate

for payment of the goods. Even though

Kuraray’s U.S. affiliate does not have a

warehouse, it takes title to the goods

once it pays Kuraray for the goods. The

U.S. affiliate then issues its sales invoice

to the unaffiliated U.S. customer and

collects payment for the goods (see

verification exhibits K–49 and K–50,

and exhibits KA–15 through KA–17 of

the April 19, 2000, Verification Report).

For U.S. sales made through Kuraray

Trading and the U.S. affiliate, the U.S.

affiliate still transmits the U.S.

customer’s order to Kuraray. However,

Kuraray sells the goods to Kuraray

Trading in Japan. Kuraray Trading then

issues the U.S. affiliate its sales invoice.

Kuraray Trading arranges for delivery of

the goods from Japan to the unaffiliated

U.S. customer, and the U.S. affiliate

takes title to the goods once it pays

Kuraray Trading for the goods. The U.S.

affiliate also issues its sales invoice to

the unaffiliated U.S. customer and

collects payment for the goods (see

verification exhibits KT–8 through KT–

10, and KA–10 through KA–12 of the

April 19, 2000, Verification Report).

Given the facts on the record, the

Department preliminarily determines

that, because the U.S. affiliate

purchased the merchandise from

Kuraray and/or Kuraray Trading and

sold the merchandise to the unaffiliated

purchaser, these sales were made in the

United States and, thus, should be

treated as CEP transactions (see ColdRolled and Corrosion-Resistant Carbon

Steel Flat Products from Korea, Final

Results of Administrative Review, 65 FR

13359 (March 13, 2000) and

accompanying Decision Memorandum

at Comment 12; and Porcelain-on-Steel

Cookware from Mexico, Final Results of

Administrative Review, 65 FR 30068

(May 10, 2000) and accompanying

Decision Memorandum at Comment 2)

(Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware from

Mexico).

For Kuraray’s U.S. sales not made

through its U.S. affiliate (i.e., made

through an unaffiliated trading company

in Japan), we calculated export price

based on the reported packed FOB price

between Kuraray and the unaffiliated

trading company in Japan because

Kuraray had knowledge that the sale

was destined for the U.S. market (see

verification exhibit K–58 of the April

19, 2000, Verification Report). We made

deductions, as appropriate, from the

starting price for foreign inland freight

from the plant to the port of exportation,

foreign warehousing expenses, foreign

inland insurance, and foreign brokerage

and handling expenses, in accordance

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

For Kuraray’s U.S. sales made through

its U.S. affiliate, we based CEP on

packed CIF or delivered prices to

unaffiliated purchasers in the United

States. We made deductions, where

appropriate, for foreign inland freight

from the plant to the port of exportation,

foreign inland insurance, foreign

brokerage and handling expenses,

international freight, palletization

charges, foreign warehousing expenses,

U.S. brokerage and handling expenses,

U.S. Customs duties (which include

harbor maintenance and merchandise

processing fees), and U.S. inland freight

expenses (freight from port to the

customer), in accordance with section

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

We made the following adjustments to

Kuraray’s U.S. expense data based on

our verification findings: (1) we

corrected the reported amounts for

foreign warehousing expenses, credit

expenses, U.S. indirect selling expenses,

U.S. indirect selling expenses incurred

in the home market, and packing

expenses; and (2) we corrected invoicespecific information with respect to

gross unit price, entered value, foreign

brokerage and handling expenses,

international freight, and U.S. Customs

duties (see pages 14–21 and 29–33 of

the April 19, 2000, Verification Report

for further discussion).

In accordance with section 772(d)(1)

of the Act, we deducted from CEP direct

and indirect selling expenses that were

associated with Kuraray’s economic

activities occurring in the United States

and associated with the sale to the U.S.

customer. We also deducted from CEP

an amount for profit, in accordance with

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

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 the

respondent’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 19

C.F.R. 351.404(b). 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 Kuraray made

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

home market sales in Japan.

Based on our verification findings, we

made the following adjustments to

Kuraray’s home market expense data: (1)

we denied an adjustment for the rebate

claimed by Kuraray Trading because the

company was unable to demonstrate

that the claimed amounts were actually

paid to, or deducted from, the amounts

owed by certain customers; (2) we

corrected the reported amounts for one

type of rebate offered by Kuraray, inland

freight expenses from the plant to the

warehouse, warehousing expenses,

indirect selling expenses incurred by

Kuraray Trading, and packing expenses;

and (3) we corrected invoice-specific

information with respect to payment

dates (see pages 22–33 of the April 19,

2000, Verification Report for further

discussion).

Level of Trade/CEP Offset

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 or CEP

transaction. The normal value LOT is

that of the starting-price sales in the

comparison market 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. For CEP, it is the level of

the constructed export sale from the

exporter to the affiliated importer.

To determine whether normal value

sales are at a different LOT than export

price or CEP, 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 a LOT adjustment

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

Finally, for CEP sales, if the normal

value level is more remote from the

factory than the CEP level and there is

no basis for determining whether the

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 7, 2000 / Notices 36115

difference in the levels between normal

value and CEP affects price

comparability, we adjust normal value

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 (November 19, 1997).

We note that the U.S. Court of

International Trade (‘‘CIT’’) has held

that the Department’s practice of

determining LOT 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 LOT

issue. See Borden, Inc. v. United 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 LOT analysis, as

articulated by the Department’s

regulations at section 351.412.

In this case, Kuraray reported two

customer categories (i.e., distributors

and end users) and three channels of

distribution (sales through unaffiliated

distributors to end users, direct sales to

end users, and sales through its affiliate

to end users) for its home market sales.

In its response, Kuraray claims that its

sales to unaffiliated home market

customers (i.e., end users and

distributors) are at the same LOT as its

sales made through affiliated customers

because Kuraray provides the same

selling services to its unaffiliated and

affiliated customers. Specifically,

Kuraray identified the following selling

services to both types of customer: (1)

salespeople visits; (2) inventory

maintenance; (3) after-sale service and

technical advice; (4) advertising; (5)

freight and delivery; and (6) handling of

rejected merchandise. Based on our

review of the record evidence, we agree

with the respondent’s claim that all

home market sales are at the same LOT

(see exhibit A.3.k. of the December 1,

1999, submission).

Kuraray had both export price and

CEP sales in the U.S. market. Kuraray

reported that its export price sales were

made through one channel of

distribution (i.e., sales through

unaffiliated Japanese trading companies

to U.S. end users). Kuraray also reported

that its CEP sales were also made

through two channels of distribution

(i.e., sales through its U.S. affiliate via

its home market affiliate and sales

through its U.S. affiliate only), which

we have treated as one LOT because

there is no apparent difference in the

selling functions performed by Kuraray.

In analyzing Kuraray’s selling activities

for its export price sales, we found that

the export price sales involved basically

the same selling functions associated

with the home market LOT described

above (i.e., inventory maintenance,

freight and delivery, and handling of

rejected merchandise). Therefore, based

upon this information, we preliminarily

determine that the LOT for all export

price sales is the same as that in the

home market.

For sales which we re-categorized as

CEP sales, after making the appropriate

deductions under section 772(d) of the

Act, we found that there are no

remaining expenses associated with

selling activities performed by Kuraray

that are reflected in the CEP price. In

contrast, the normal value prices

include selling expenses attributable to

selling activities performed by Kuraray

for the home market, such as sales

support and freight and delivery

functions (see exhibit A.3.k. of the

December 1, 1999, submission).

Accordingly, we have concluded that

CEP is at a different LOT from the

normal value LOT.

We then examined whether a LOT

adjustment or CEP offset may be

appropriate. In this case, Kuraray only

sold at one LOT in the home market;

therefore, there is no information

available to determine a pattern of

consistent price differences between the

sales on which normal value is based

and the comparison market sales at the

LOT of the export transaction, in

accordance with the Department’s

normal methodology as described above

(see Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware from

Mexico and accompanying Decision

Memorandum at Comment 6). Further,

we do not have information which

would allow us to examine pricing

patterns based on 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 provide an appropriate

basis for making a LOT adjustment, but

the LOT in the home market is at a more

advanced stage of distribution than the

LOT of the CEP, we made a CEP offset

adjustment in accordance with section

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

Cost of Production Analysis (‘‘COP’’)

Pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the

Act, we initiated a COP investigation of

sales made by Kuraray 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, G&A expenses, and packing

costs. We relied on the submitted COPs

except that we have adjusted Kuraray’s

reported per-unit costs to account for

the overstatement of acetic acid

amounts. We also revised Kuraray’s

G&A and interest expenses based on our

verification findings (see Preliminary

Results Calculation Memorandum from

team to the File, dated May 30, 2000).

B. Test of Home Market Prices

We compared the adjusted weightedaverage COP 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,

discounts, rebates 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

and the contemporaneous months of the

POR (see Preliminary Results

Calculation Memorandum from team to

the File, dated May 30, 2000).

36116 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 7, 2000 / Notices

Price-to-Price Comparisons

We calculated normal value based on

both packed, FOB or delivered prices

Kuraray charged to its unaffiliated

purchasers in Japan and packed, FOB or

delivered prices Kuraray Trading

charged to its unaffiliated purchasers in

Japan. We made adjustments to the

starting price for discounts and rebates,

where appropriate. We also made

deductions, where appropriate, for

inland freight (i.e., plant to warehouse

and warehouse to customer), inland

insurance and warehousing expenses,

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

Act.

For all comparisons, we made a

circumstance-of-sale adjustment, where

appropriate, for differences in credit

expenses, pursuant to section 773

(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 C.F.R.

351.410(c).

For comparisons to CEP sales, we also

deducted from normal value the lesser

of comparison-market indirect selling

expenses and indirect selling expenses

deducted from CEP (the CEP offset),

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

Act and 19 C.F.R. 351.412(f).

For comparisons to both export price

and CEP sales, we made adjustments to

normal value for differences in packing

expenses, in accordance with section

773(a)(6) of the Act. We also made

adjustments to normal value, where

appropriate, for differences in costs

attributable to differences in the

physical characteristics of the

merchandise, pursuant to section

773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 C.F.R.

351.411.

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:

Margin Manufacturer/exporter (percent)

Kuraray Co., Ltd. ............................ 2.07

Pursuant to 19 C.F.R. 351.224(b), the

Department will conduct disclosure

within five days after the date of

publication of this notice. 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 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

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. The Department will issue

appropriate appraisement instructions

directly to the Customs Service upon

completion of this review. For Kuraray,

for duty assessment purposes, we intend

to calculate importer-specific

assessment rates by aggregating the

dumping margins calculated for all U.S.

sales to each importer and dividing this

amount by the total entered value of

subject merchandise of the same sales

for each importer. In accordance with 19

CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct the

Customs Service to assess antidumping

duties on all appropriate entries covered

by this review if any importer-specific

assessment rate calculated in the final

results of this review is above de

minimis (i.e., at or above 0.50 percent).

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective upon

publication of the final results of this

antidumping duty review for all

shipments of PVA from Japan, entered,

or withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after the publication

date, as provided by section 751(a) of

the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for

Kuraray will be rate established in the

final results; (2) if the exporter is not a

firm covered in this review, a prior

review, or the original less-than-fairvalue (‘‘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 (3) the cash

deposit rate for all other manufacturers

or exporters will continue to be 77.49

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. 00–14352 Filed 6–6–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

Purdue University; Notice of Decision

on Application for Duty-Free Entry of

Electron Microscope

This is a decision pursuant to Section

6(c) of the Educational, Scientific, and

Cultural Materials Importation Act of

1966 (Pub. L. 89–651, 80 Stat. 897; 15

CFR part 301). Related records can be

viewed between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. in

Room 4211, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th and Constitution

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.

Docket Number: 00–009. Applicant:

Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN

47907–1392. Instrument: Electron

Microscope, Model CM300.

Manufacturer: Philips, The Netherlands.

Intended Use: See notice at 65 FR

25708. Order Date: February 23, 1999.

Comments: None received. Decision:

Approved. No instrument of equivalent

scientific value to the foreign

instrument, for such purposes as the