Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 123 / Monday, June 26, 2000 / Notices 39355

Verification

In accordance with section 782(i) of

the Act, we intend to verify information

to be used in making our final

determination.

Suspension of Liquidation

In accordance with section 733(d) of

the Act, we are directing the Customs

Service to suspend liquidation of all

entries of EPS from the Republic of

Korea, except for Cheil (which has a de

minimis weighted-average margin), that

are entered, or withdrawn from

warehouse, for consumption on or after

the date of publication of this notice in

the Federal Register. We are also

instructing the Customs Service to

require a cash deposit or the posting of

a bond equal to the weighted-average

amount by which the NV exceeds the EP

or CEP, as indicated in the chart below.

These instructions suspending

liquidation will remain in effect until

further notice.

The weighted-average dumping

margins are as follows:

Exporter/producer

Weightedaverage

margin

percentage

Cheil .......................................... 1.80

Shinho ....................................... 5.14

All Others .................................. 5.14

1 De minimis.

Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act directs

the Department to exclude all zero and

de minimis weighted-average dumping

margins, as well as dumping margins

determined entirely under facts

available under section 776 of the Act,

from the calculation of the ‘‘All Others’’

rate. Accordingly, we have excluded the

de minimis dumping margin for Cheil

from the calculation of the ‘‘all others’’

rate.

In accordance with section 733(f) of

the Act, we have notified the ITC of our

determination. If our final antidumping

determination is affirmative, the ITC

will determine whether these imports

are materially injuring, or threaten

material injury to, the U.S. industry.

The deadline for that ITC determination

would be the later of 120 days after the

date of this preliminary determination

or 45 days after the date of our final

determination.

Public Comment

For the investigation of EPS from

Korea, case briefs must be submitted no

later than 30 days after the publication

of this notice in the Federal Register.

Rebuttal briefs must be filed within five

business days after the deadline for

submission of case briefs. A list of

authorities used, a table of contents, and

an executive summary of issues should

accompany any briefs submitted to the

Department. Executive summaries

should be limited to five pages total,

including footnotes. Further, we would

appreciate it if parties submitting

written comments would provide the

Department with an additional copy of

the public version of any such

comments on diskette. Section 774 of

the Act provides that the Department

will hold a hearing to afford interested

parties an opportunity to comment on

arguments raised in case or rebuttal

briefs, provided that such a hearing is

requested by any interested party. If a

request for a hearing is made in an

investigation, the hearing will

tentatively be held two days after the

deadline for submission of the rebuttal

briefs, at the U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230.

Parties should confirm by telephone the

time, date, and place of the hearing 48

hours before the scheduled time.

Interested parties who wish to request

a hearing, or to participate if one is

requested, must submit a written

request within 30 days of the

publication of this notice. Requests

should specify the number of

participants and provide a list of the

issues to be discussed. Oral

presentations will be limited to issues

raised in the briefs.

We will make our final determination

no later than 135 days after the date of

publication of this notice.

This determination is issued and

published pursuant to sections 733(d)

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

Dated:June 20, 2000.

Roland L. MacDonald,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–16107 Filed 6–23–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–423–602]

Notice of Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review: Industrial Phosphoric Acid

From Belgium

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review.

SUMMARY: In response to requests from

petitioner and one domestic producer,

the Department of Commerce (‘‘the

Department’’) is conducting an

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on industrial

phosphoric acid (‘‘IPA’’) from Belgium.

The period of review (‘‘POR’’) is August

1, 1998, through July 31, 1999. This

review covers imports of IPA from one

producer, Societe Chimique PrayonRupel S.A. (‘‘Prayon’’).

We have preliminarily determined the

dumping margin for Prayon to be 1.82

percent during the period August 1,

1998, through July 31, 1999. Interested

parties are invited to comment on these

preliminary results. Parties who submit

arguments are requested to submit with

the argument (1) a statement of the issue

and (2) a brief summary of the

argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 26, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Frank Thomson or Jim Terpstra, AD/

CVD Enforcement, Group II, Office IV,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,

DC 20230; telephone (202) 482–4793,

and 482–3965, respectively.

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’’) by the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act (‘‘URAA’’). In addition,

unless otherwise indicated, all citations

to the Department’s regulations are to

the current regulations at 19 CFR Part

351 (1999).

Background

On August 20, 1987, the Department

published in the Federal Register (52

FR 31439) the antidumping duty order

on IPA from Belgium. On August 11,

1999, the Department published in the

Federal Register (64 FR 43649) a notice

of opportunity to request an

administrative review of this

antidumping duty order. On August 30,

1999, in accordance with 19 CFR

351.213(b)(1), the petitioner FMC

Corporation (‘‘FMC’’), and Albright &

Wilson Americas Inc. (‘‘Wilson’’), a

domestic producer of the subject

merchandise, requested that the

Department conduct an administrative

review of Prayon’s exports of subject

merchandise to the United States. We

published the notice of initiation of this

39356 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 123 / Monday, June 26, 2000 / Notices

review on October 1, 1999 (64 FR

53318).

Scope of the Review

The products covered by this review

include shipments of IPA from Belgium.

This merchandise is currently

classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule (‘‘HTS’’) item numbers

2809.2000 and 4163.0000. The HTS

item numbers are provided for

convenience and Customs purposes.

The written description remains

dispositive.

Verification

As provided in section 782(i) of the

Act, we conducted verification of the

information provided by Prayon. We

used standard verification procedures,

including examination of relevant sales

and financial records and selection of

relevant source documentation as

exhibits. Our verification findings are

detailed in the memoranda dated June

16, 2000, the public versions of which

are on file in the Central Records Unit,

Room B–099 of the Main Commerce

building (‘‘CRU-Public File’’).

Product Comparisons

The IPA exported by Prayon to the

United States is PRAYPHOS P5, a

refined IPA, and is the identical

merchandise sold by Prayon in its home

market in Belgium. Therefore, we have

compared U.S. sales to

contemporaneous sales of identical

merchandise in Belgium.

Constructed Export Price

Prayon sells to end-users in the

United States through its affiliated sales

agent, Quadra Corporation (‘‘Quadra’’).

The sales documentation on the record

in this proceeding indicates that

Prayon’s U.S. sales occurred in the

United States between Quadra and the

unaffiliated U.S. purchaser. Specifically,

we have found the following facts: (1)

Quadra contacts the U.S. customer and

discusses prices, (2) there is a contract

between Quadra and the U.S. customers,

(3) Quadra arranges for shipping and

other services, (4) Quadra issues the

invoice to the U.S. customer, and (5)

Quadra accepts payment from the U.S.

customer. Given these facts, we

preliminarily determine that these sales

were made in the United States by a

seller affiliated with the producer and,

thus, should be treated as constructed

export price (‘‘CEP’’) transactions (see

Cold-Rolled 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’’).

We based CEP on the delivered prices

to unaffiliated purchasers in the United

States. We made deductions for

movement expenses in accordance with

section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; these

included, where appropriate, inland

insurance, foreign brokerage and

handling, cost of wharfage, storing and

handling in Canada, ocean freight, U.S.

customs duties (including brokerage and

merchandise processing fees), and U.S.

inland freight expenses (freight from

warehouse to the customer). In

accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the

Act, we deducted those selling expenses

associated with economic activities

occurring in the United States,

including direct selling expenses

(commissions and credit expenses),

inventory carrying costs, and other

indirect selling expenses. We also made

an adjustment for profit in accordance

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

Normal Value

We compared the aggregate quantity

of home market and U.S. sales and

determined that the quantity of the

company’s sales in its home market was

more than five percent of the quantity

of its sales to the U.S. market.

Consequently, in accordance with

section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, we based

normal value (‘‘NV’’) on home market

sales.

However, we excluded from our NV

analysis sales to affiliated home market

customers where the weighted-average

sales prices to the affiliated party was

less than 99.5 percent of the weightedaverage sales price to unaffiliated

parties. See Usinor Sacilor v. United

States, 872 F. Supp. 1000, 1004 (CIT

1994).

We calculated monthly weightedaverage NVs based on ex-works or

delivered prices to unaffiliated

customers or prices to affiliated

customers that we determined to be at

arm’s-length prices. We made

adjustments to the starting price, where

appropriate, for billing adjustments. We

made deductions, where appropriate,

from the starting price for early payment

discounts, inland insurance, and inland

freight. We made circumstance of sale

(‘‘COS’’) adjustments, in accordance

with section 773(a)(6)(c)(iii) of the Act,

for direct selling expenses, including

credit expenses.

Level of Trade

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 (‘‘LOT’’) as the

export price (‘‘EP’’) or CEP transaction.

The NV LOT is that of the starting-price

sales in the comparison market or, when

NV is based on constructed value

(‘‘CV’’), that of the sales from which we

derive selling, general and

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

profit. With respect to U.S. price and

CEP transactions, the LOT is the level of

the constructed sale from the exporter to

the importer.

To determine whether NV sales are at

a different LOT than EP or CEP, we

examine stages in the marketing process

and selling functions along the chain of

distribution between the producer and

the unaffiliated customer. If the

comparison-market sales are at a

different LOT and the difference affects

price comparability, as manifested in a

pattern of consistent price differences

between the sales on which NV is based

and comparison-market sales at the LOT

of the export transaction, we make a

LOT adjustment under section

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

sales, if the NV level is more remote

from the factory than the CEP level, and

there is no basis for determining

whether the difference in the levels

between NV and CEP affects price

comparability, we adjust NV under

section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEPoffset provision). See 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). 

Prayon reported two customer

categories (i.e., end-users and

distributors) and three channels of

distribution in the home market (i.e.,

sales made by Prayon directly to endusers (Channel 1), sales from Prayon

through its affiliated sales agent,

Zinchem Benelux, to end-users

(Channel 2), and sales from Prayon

through Zinchem Benelux, to

distributors (Channel 3)).

Based upon an analysis of the

information provided on the record, we

conclude that there is no difference in

the selling functions performed by

Prayon in making sales through these

three channels of distribution.

Therefore, using the information on the

record, the Department preliminarily

determines that Prayon makes all sales

at the same LOT in the home market

(see Preliminary Determination: Level of

Trade Analysis. (‘‘Preliminary LOT

Memorandum’’) from Frank Thomson,

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 123 / Monday, June 26, 2000 / Notices 39357

Import Compliance Specialist, through

James Terpstra, Program Manager, to the

File, dated June 19, 2000, on file in the

CRU).

Prayon reported only one LOT in the

United States during the POR. This LOT

involved one channel of distribution:

sales made by Prayon through its

affiliated sales agent, Quadra, to endusers (Channel 1).

In order to determine whether sales in

the United States are at a different LOT

than sales in the home market, we

reviewed the selling activities

associated with each channel of

distribution. We compared the selling

activities between Prayon and Quadra

on U.S. CEP transactions, after all

relevant deductions under section

772(d) of the Act, to the selling activities

performed for the home market LOT

sales by Prayon. We found that fewer

and different selling functions were

performed for Prayon’s CEP sales than

for sales at the home market LOT, and

that the totality of these differences

constitutes a difference in LOT. See the

Preliminary LOT Memorandum for a

detailed explanation of the above.

Therefore, we examined whether a

LOT adjustment was appropriate. The

Department makes this adjustment

when it is demonstrated that a

difference in LOTs affects price

comparability. See Statement of

Administrative Action accompanying

the URAA, H.R. Doc. No. 103–316 at

829–830 (1994) (hereinafter, the

‘‘SAA’’). However, where the available

data do not provide an appropriate basis

upon which to determine a LOT

adjustment, and where the NV is

established at a LOT that is at a more

advanced stage of distribution than the

LOT of the CEP transactions, we adjust

NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act

(the CEP offset provision).

As discussed above, we preliminarily

find that all respondent’s home market

sales are made at the same LOT.

Further, we find that the home market

LOT is different from the U.S. LOT.

Finally, because of the significantly

larger amount of selling activities

performed, we found that the home

market sales were at a more advanced

stage of distribution compared to sales

made at the U.S. LOT. Further, the data

available do not provide an appropriate

basis upon which to determine a LOT

adjustment. Accordingly, we granted a

CEP offset for all sales by Prayon in

Belgium which are compared with CEP

sales in the United States. We applied

the CEP offset to NV, as appropriate. See

the Preliminary LOT Memorandum for a

detailed explanation of the above.

Commissions

The Department operates under the

assumption that commission payments

to affiliated parties (in either the United

States or home market) are not at arm’s

length. The Court of International Trade

has held that this is a reasonable

assumption. See Outokumpu Copper

Rolled Products AB v. United States,

850 F. Supp. 16, 22 (CIT 1994).

Accordingly, the Department has

established guidelines to determine

whether affiliated party commissions

are paid on an arm’s-length basis such

that an adjustment for such

commissions can be made. See Tapered

Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof,

Finished and Unfinished, From Japan

and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four

Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and

Components Thereof, From Japan, 61

FR 57629 (November 7, 1996).

First, we compare the commissions

paid to affiliated and unaffiliated sales

agents in the same market. If there are

no commissions paid to unaffiliated

parties, we then compare the

commissions earned by the affiliated

selling agent on sales of merchandise

produced by the respondent to

commissions earned on sales of

merchandise produced by unaffiliated

sellers or manufacturers. If there is no

benchmark which can be used to

determine whether the affiliated party

commission is an arm’s-length value

(i.e., the producer does not use an

unaffiliated selling agent and the

affiliated selling agent does not sell

subject merchandise for an unaffiliated

producer), the Department assumes that

the affiliated party commissions are not

paid on an arm’s-length basis.

In this case, Prayon used an affiliated

sales agent in the home market. In its

January 20, 2000, response, Prayon

submitted its commission rates paid to

its affiliated sales agent in the home

market. We issued a supplemental

questionnaire to Prayon, requesting that

it indicate whether the commissions

were paid at arm’s length by reference

to commission payments to unaffiliated

parties in the foreign market and other

markets, and to submit evidence

demonstrating the arm’s-length nature

of the commissions. Prayon then

submitted documentation illustrating its

commission rates with unaffiliated

parties in other markets, including

Europe, North America, and South

America. We examined Prayon’s

submitted rates with its unaffiliated

agents throughout Europe to compare its

affiliated commission rate in Belgium.

Our examination of Prayon’s

unaffiliated European market

commission rates indicate that these

rates are comparable to its affiliated

party commission rate.

As a consequence, our preliminary

analysis of the submitted

documentation indicates that the

affiliated commissions in the home

market are made at arm’s length.

Therefore, for purposes of the

preliminary determination, we are

accepting Prayon’s reported home

market commissions. Accordingly, we

preliminarily determine to make a COS

adjustment for commissions in the

home market.

Currency Conversion

Pursuant to section 773A(a) of the

Act, we made currency conversions into

U.S. dollars based on the exchange rates

in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales

as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.

Preliminary Results of the Review

As a result of this review, we

preliminarily determine that a 0.60

percent dumping margin exists for

Prayon for the period August 1, 1998,

through July 31, 1999.

The Department will disclose

calculations performed within five days

of the date of publication of this notice

to the parties of this proceeding in

accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). An

interested party may request a hearing

within 30 days of publication of these

preliminary results. See 19 CFR

351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested,

will be held 44 days after the date of

publication, or the first working day

thereafter. Interested parties may submit

case briefs and/or written comments no

later than 30 days after the date of

publication of these preliminary results

of review. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals

to written comments, limited to issues

raised in such briefs or comments, may

be filed no later than 37 days after the

date of publication. Further, we would

appreciate it if parties submitting

written comments also provide the

Department with an additional copy of

those comments on diskette. The

Department will issue the final results

of this administrative review, which

will include the results of its analysis of

issues raised in any such comments,

within 120 days of 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 Prayon’s duty assessment

rate based on the ratio of the total

amount of antidumping duties

calculated for the examined sales to the

total entered value of examined sales.

The rate will be assessed uniformly on

39358 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 123 / Monday, June 26, 2000 / Notices

1The petitioners in this investigation are: U.S.

Steel Group, Lorain Tubular Co. LLC (both units of

USX Corp.), and the United Steel Workers of

America.

all entries made during the POR. The

Department will issue appraisement

instructions directly to Customs.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective upon

completion of the final results of this

administrative review for all shipments

of IPA from Belgium entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after the publication

date of the final results of this

administrative review, as provided by

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

deposit rate for Prayon will be the rate

established in the final results of this

administrative review; (2) for

merchandise exported by manufacturers

or exporters not covered in this review

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

previous review, the cash deposit will

continue to be the company-specific rate

published for the most recent period; (3)

if the exporter is not a firm covered in

this 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 review,

the cash deposit rate will be 14.67

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

administrative review for a subsequent

review period.

This notice also serves as a

preliminary reminder to importers of

their responsibility under 19 CFR

351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding

the reimbursement of antidumping

duties prior to liquidation of the

relevant entries during this review

period. Failure to comply with this

requirement could result in the

Secretary’s presumption that

reimbursement of antidumping duties

occurred and the subsequent assessment

of double antidumping duties.

This administrative review and notice

are in accordance with sections

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

Dated: June 19, 2000.

Richard W. Moreland,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–16105 Filed 6–23–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–U

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–201–827]

Notice of Final Determination of Sales

at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Large

Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless

Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe

From Mexico

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Sales at Less than Fair

Value.

SUMMARY: On February 4, 2000, the

Department of Commerce (‘‘the

Department’’) published its preliminary

determination of sales at less than fair

value of certain large diameter carbon

and alloy seamless standard, line and

pressure pipe (‘‘large diameter seamless

pipe’’) from Mexico. The investigation

covers one manufacturer/exporter,

Tubos de Acero de Mexico, S.A.

(‘‘TAMSA’’). The period of investigation

(‘‘POI’’) is April 1, 1998, through March

31, 1999.

Based on our analysis of comments

received, we have made changes in the

margin calculations. Therefore, the final

determination differs from the

preliminary determination. The final

weighted-average dumping margin for

the investigated company is listed

below in the ‘‘Continuation of

Suspension of Liquidation’’ section of

this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 26, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Russell Morris or Geoffrey Craig, AD/

CVD Enforcement, Office 6, Group II,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington,

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–1775 or

(202) 482–4161, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The 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 regulations refer to

the regulations codified at 19 CFR part

351 (April 1999).

Case History

Since the preliminary determination

(see 65 FR 5587 (February 4, 2000)

(‘‘Preliminary Determination’’)), the

following events have occurred:

• On February 11, 2000, the

petitioners 1 submitted ministerial error

allegations. The Department accepted

the clerical errors and corrected the

margin calculation program where it

deemed necessary and published a

Notice of Amended Preliminary

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Certain Large Diameter

Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard,

Line, and Pressure Pipe From Mexico,

65 FR 13715 (March 14, 2000).

• The Department verified the

responses of TAMSA, in Veracruz,

Mexico from February 21 through

February 25, 2000, and in Houston,

Texas from March 1 through March 3,

2000. (see the ‘‘Verification’’ section

below).

• On April 26, 2000, the petitioners

requested that the Department amend

the scope to exclude certain line and

riser pipe for use exclusively in

deepwater applications and the

Department accepted the revised scope

language. See Notice of Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Certain Large Diameter

Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard,

Line and Pressure Pipe from Japan; and

Certain Small Diameter Carbon and

Alloy Seamless Standard, Line and

Pressure Pipe from Japan and the

Republic of South Africa, 65 FR 25907

(May 4, 2000).

• TAMSA and the petitioners filed

case and rebuttal briefs on May 1, 2000

and May 8, 2000, respectively.

• On May 15, 2000, we rejected

portions of TAMSA’s rebuttal brief on

the grounds that it contained new

factual information. On May 16, 2000,

TAMSA resubmitted its rebuttal brief in

accordance with the Department’s

instructions.

Analysis of Comments Received

All issues raised in the case and

rebuttal briefs by parties to this

investigation, as well as certain other

findings by the Department which are

summarized in this notice, are

addressed in the ‘‘Issues and Decision

Memorandum for the Final

Determination in the Antidumping Duty

Investigation of Certain Large Diameter

Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard,

Line and Pressure Pipe from

Mexico’April 1, 1998, through March

31, 1999’’ (‘‘Decision Memorandum’’),

from Holly A. Kuga, Acting Deputy

Assistant Secretary, Import