Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 123 / Monday, June 26, 2000 / Notices 39351

1A petition was also filed at the same time on

EPS from Indonesia.

method to establish the estimated allothers rate for exporters and producers

not individually investigated. Our

recent practice under these

circumstances has been to assign, as the

‘‘all others’’ rate, the simple average of

the margins in the petition. We have

done so in this case. See, e.g., Notice of

Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Plate in

Coil from Canada, 64 FR 15457 (March

31, 1999); see also Notice of Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Stainless Steel Plate in Coil

from Italy, 64 FR 15458, 15459 (March

21, 1999).

Suspension of Liquidation

For entries of EPS from Indonesia, we

are directing the U.S. Customs Service

to suspend liquidation of those entries

that are entered, or withdrawn from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 dumping margin, as

indicated in the chart below. These

instructions suspending liquidation will

remain in effect until further notice.

Manufacturer/exporter Margin

(percent)

PT Risjad Brasali Styrindo ......... 96.65

All Others .................................... 95.79

ITC Notification

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

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.

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, D.C. 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.

If this investigation proceeds

normally, we will make our final

determination no later than 75 days

after the date of this preliminary

determination.

This determination is 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. 00–16106 Filed 6–23–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–580–843]

Notice of Preliminary Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and

Postponement of Final Determination:

Certain Expandable Polystyrene

Resins From the Republic of Korea

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 26, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Valerie Ellis at (202) 482–2336 or

Charles Riggle at (202) 482–0650, Import

Administration, Room 1870,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW,

Washington, DC 20230.

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 Department of

Commerce (Department) regulations

refer to the regulations codified at 19

CFR part 351 (April 1999).

Preliminary Determination

We preliminarily determine that

certain expandable polystyrene resins

(EPS) from the Republic of Korea

(Korea) are being sold, or are likely to

be sold, in the United States at less than

fair value (LTFV), as provided in section

733 of the Act.

Case History

On November 22, 1999, the

Department received a petition on

certain EPS from Korea filed, in proper

form by BASF Corporation, Huntsman

Expandable Polymers Company LC,

Nova Chemicals Inc., and Styrochem

U.S., Ltd., (collectively, the

petitioners).1 On December 1 and 3,

1999, the Department received

amendments to the petition.

On December 13, 1999, the

Department initiated an antidumping

investigation of EPS from Korea. See

Initiation of Antidumping Duty

Investigations: Certain Expandable

Polystyrene Resins from Indonesia and

the Republic of Korea, 64 FR 71112

(December 20, 1999) (Initiation Notice).

Since the initiation of the investigation,

the following events have occurred:

On January 7, 2000, the United States

International Trade Commission (ITC)

preliminarily determined that there is a

reasonable indication that imports of the

subject merchandise are materially

injuring the U.S. industry. See Certain

Expandable Polystyrene Resins from

Indonesia and Korea, 65 FR 2429

(January 14, 2000).

On January 31, 2000, the Department

issued antidumping questionnaires to

Cheil Industries, Inc. (Cheil) and Shinho

Petrochemical Co., Ltd. (Shinho). See

Selection of Respondents section of this

notice. The respondents submitted their

initial responses to the questionnaire in

March and April 2000. After analyzing

these responses, we issued

supplemental questionnaires to the

respondents. We received timely

responses to these supplemental

questionnaires.

On April 13, 2000, the Department

published a Federal Register notice

postponing until June 20, 2000, the

deadline for the preliminary

determination in this and in the

companion investigation involving

Indonesia. See Notice of Postponement

of Preliminary Antidumping Duty

39352 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 123 / Monday, June 26, 2000 / Notices

Determinations: Certain Expandable

Polystyrene Resins from Indonesia and

the Republic of Korea, 65 FR 19872

(April 13, 2000). On April 13, 2000, the

petitioners alleged that both Cheil and

Shinho were selling EPS in the home

market at prices below their respective

production costs. See Normal Value

Section below.

Postponement of Final Determination

and Extension of Provisional Measures

Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides

that a final determination may be

postponed until not later than 135 days

after the date of publication of the

preliminary determination if, in the

event of an affirmative preliminary

determination, a request for such

postponement is made by exporters who

account for a significant portion of

exports of the subject merchandise or, if

in the event of a negative determination,

a request for such postponement is

made by the petitioners. The

Department’s regulations, at 19 CFR

351. 210(e)(2), require that requests by

the respondents for postponement of a

final determination be accompanied by

a request for extension of provisional

measures from a four-month period to

not more than six months.

On June 6, 2000 and June 15, 2000,

we received requests from the

respondents for postponement of the

final determination. In the request, the

respondents consented to the extension

of provisional measures to no longer

than six months. Because the

preliminary determination in this

investigation is affirmative, the

respondents filing the requests account

for a significant proportion of exports of

the subject merchandise, and there is no

compelling reason to deny the

respondent’s request, we have extended

the deadline for issuance of the final

determination in this case until the

135th day after the date of publication

of this preliminary determination in the

Federal Register.

Period of Investigation

The period of investigation (POI) is

October 1, 1998, through September 30,

1999. This period corresponds to the

four most recent fiscal quarters prior to

the month of the filing of the petition

(i.e., December 1999).

Scope of Investigation

The scope of this investigation

includes certain EPS in primary forms;

namely, raw material or resin

manufactured in the form of polystyrene

beads, whether of regular (shape) type

or modified (block) type, regardless of

specification, having a weighted-average

molecular weight of between 160,000

and 260,000, containing from 3 to 7

percent blowing agents, and having

bead sizes ranging from 0.4 mm to 3

mm.

Specifically excluded from the scope

of this investigation are off-grade, offspecification expandable polystyrene

resins.

The covered merchandise is found in

the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (HTSUS) subheading

3903.11.00.00. Although this HTSUS

subheading is provided for convenience

and customs purposes, the written

description of the merchandise is

dispositive.

Selection of Respondents

Section 777A(c)(1) of the Act directs

the Department to calculate individual

dumping margins for each known

exporter and producer of the subject

merchandise. However, section

777A(c)(2) of the Act gives the

Department discretion, when faced with

a large number of exporters/producers,

to limit its examination to a reasonable

number of such companies if it is not

practicable to examine all companies.

Where it is not practicable to examine

all known producers/exporters of

subject merchandise, this provision

permits the Department to investigate

either: (1) A sample of exporters,

producers, or types of products that is

statistically valid based on the

information available at the time of

selection, or (2) exporters and producers

accounting for the largest volume of the

subject merchandise that can be

reasonably examined.

We examined producer-specific data

accounting for total POI exports of EPS

resin from Korea. We identified five

companies who exported EPS to the

U.S. during the POI. Due to constraints

on our time and resources, we found it

impracticable to examine all five of

them. Therefore, because their

combined export volume accounted for

the vast majority of all exports from

Korea, we selected Cheil and Shinho as

the mandatory respondents. For a more

detailed discussion of respondent

selection in this investigation, see

Memorandum to Gary Taverman:

Selection of Respondents, dated January

13, 2000.

Product Comparisons

Pursuant to section 771(16) of the Act,

all products produced by the

respondents that are within the scope of

the investigation and were sold in the

comparison market during the POI were

considered to be foreign like products.

We have relied on six criteria to match

U.S. sales of subject merchandise to

comparison-market sales of the foreign

like product: color, whether modified

with flame retardants, expected

minimum density, bead size, blowing

agent level and molecular weight. In

this case, for all sales comparisons, we

have relied on matches of identical

merchandise.

Fair Value Comparisons

To determine whether sales of EPS

from Korea were made in the United

States at LTFV, we compared the export

price (EP) or constructed export price

(CEP) to the normal value (NV), as

described in the Export Price and

Constructed Export Price and Normal

Value sections of this notice. In

accordance with section

777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we

calculated POI weighted-average EPs

and CEPs for comparison to POI

weighted-average NVs.

Export Price and Constructed Export

Price

In accordance with section 772 of the

Act, we calculated either EP or CEP,

depending on the nature of each sale.

Section 772(a) of the Act defines EP as

the price at which the subject

merchandise is first sold before the date

of importation by the exporter or

producer outside the United States to an

unaffiliated purchaser in the United

States, or to an unaffiliated purchaser

for exportation to the United States.

Section 772(b) of the Act defines CEP as

the price at which the subject

merchandise is first sold in the United

States before or after the date of

importation, by or for the account of the

producer or exporter of the

merchandise, or by a seller affiliated

with the producer or exporter, to an

unaffiliated purchaser, as adjusted

under sections 772(c) and (d) of the Act.

We made company-specific

adjustments as follows:

Cheil

We based EP and CEP on CIF and

FOB prices to unaffiliated customers in

the United States. We made deductions

from the starting price, where

appropriate, for movement expenses

including international freight, U.S.

customs duties, and miscellaneous

movement charges.

We have reclassified as CEP sales all

sales of subject merchandise involving

‘‘commissionaires’’ because the sale to

the first unaffiliated customer (which is

facilitated by the commissionaire) is

made in the United States. Accordingly,

as the starting price, we have relied on

the invoice price charged to the first

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 123 / Monday, June 26, 2000 / Notices 39353

2We have not, as proposed by Cheil, used as the

starting price the amount invoiced by the

respondent to the commissionaires. The

Department does not typically consider a

commissionaire to be the respondent’s customer,

since the commissionaire simply facilitates a

transaction between the respondent and its actual

customer. In fact, the Department applied adverse

facts available in the case of a respondent that had

reported U.S. sales to a company that, as was

determined at verification, was a commissionaire.

In that case, the Department stated that the

respondent should have reported the sale to the

actual customer, and made an adverse inference

due to the respondent’s failure to do so. See Certain

Welded Stainless Pipe from Taiwan 62 FR 37543,

37544 (July 14, 1997). In this case, the

commissionaires’ role in the sale of the product is

to facilitate matters such as receiving orders,

invoicing and collection of payment. The

respondent negotiates terms directly with its actual

customers, ships the merchandise directly to the

customers, and handles all after-sale inquiries.

unaffiliated customer by the

commissionaire.2

For sales through commissionaires,

we have reduced the starting price by

the amount of commissions charged by

the commissionaires to Cheil, as well as

the other expenses incurred by the

commissionaire which were not

included in the commission (i.e.,

additional expenses which were paid by

Cheil). Consistent with the Department’s

past practice, we have not made a

deduction for CEP profit, because the

commissions charged by the

commissionaires include an amount for

the commissionaire’s profit. See Fresh

Atlantic Salmon from Chile; Preliminary

Determination of Sales at Less than Fair

Value and Postponement of Final

Determination (Salmon) 63 FR 2664,

2667 (January 16, 1998) and Certain

Fresh Cut Flowers from Colombia; Final

Results and Partial Rescission of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review (Flowers), 62 FR 53287, 53295

(October 14, 1997). Finally, pursuant to

section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we reduced

the CEP by the amount of credit

expenses.

We note that evidence on the record

in this investigation indicates that Cheil

and one of its commissionaires,

Samsung America, Inc. (SAI), may be

affiliated. Both companies are members

of the Samsung Group, and Cheil stated

that it shared common directors with

the parent company of SAI. While we

intend to examine this issue further, for

the preliminary determination we have

treated Cheil and SAI as unaffiliated.

Shinho

We based EP on FOB and CFR prices

to unaffiliated customers in the United

States. We made deductions from the

starting price, where appropriate, for

movement expenses including

international freight, U.S. customs duty,

and miscellaneous movement charges.

Normal Value

A. Selection of Comparison Markets

Section 773(a)(1) of the Act directs

that NV be based on the price at which

the foreign like product is sold in the

home market, provided that the

merchandise is sold in sufficient

quantities (or value, if quantity is

inappropriate) and that there is no

particular market situation that prevents

a proper comparison with the EP or CEP

transaction. The statute contemplates

that quantities (or value) will normally

be considered insufficient if they are

less than five percent of the aggregate

quantity (or value) of sales of the subject

merchandise to the United States. Both

respondents had viable home markets,

and they reported home market sales

data for purposes of the calculation of

NV. Adjustments made in deriving the

NVs for each company are described in

detail in Calculation of Normal Value

Based on Home Market Prices and

Calculation of Normal Value Based on

Constructed Value, below.

B. Cost of Production Analysis

Based on allegations originally

submitted by the petitioners on April,

13, 2000, and in accordance with

section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act, we

found reasonable grounds to believe or

suspect that EPS sales made in Korea

were made at prices below the cost of

production (COP). See Memorandum to

Gary Taverman, Petitioners’ Allegation

of Sales Below Cost of Production for

Cheil Industries, Inc., May 12, 2000 and

Memorandum to Gary Taverman,

Petitioners’ Allegation of Sales Below

Cost of Production for Shinho

Petrochemical Co, Ltd., May 12, 2000.

As a result, the Department is

conducting an investigation to

determine whether the respondents

made sales in the home market at prices

below their respective COPs during the

POI within the meaning of section

773(b) of the Act. Given that the

responses to the COP section of the

questionnaire are not due until June 23,

2000, we will include our analysis of

sales below cost in our final

determination.

C. Calculation of Normal Value Based

on Home Market Prices

Cheil

We calculated NV based on delivered

prices and made deductions from the

starting price, where appropriate, for

inland freight. In addition, we made

circumstance of sale (COS) adjustments

for direct expenses (i.e., credit

expenses), in accordance with section

773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act.

Shinho

We calculated NV based on delivered

prices and made deductions from the

starting price, where appropriate, for

inland freight. In addition, we made

COS adjustments for direct expenses

(i.e., credit expenses), in accordance

with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act.

Although Shinho claimed to have shortterm borrowing during part of the POI,

we found that when Shinho was

reorganized in October 1998, only eight

days after the beginning of the POI, all

of the company’s short-term debt was

converted to long-term debt. No

documentation was provided to support

the short-term interest rate claimed by

Shinho, and we were unable to confirm

either that rate, or the existence of any

short-term borrowing, in Shinho’s

audited financial statements.

Accordingly, we recalculated Shinho’s

imputed home market credit using a

published rate from the June 2000 issue

of International Financial Statistics,

published by the International Monetary

Fund. For a more detailed discussion of

Shinho’s imputed credit rate, see

Calculation Memorandum to Charles

Riggle dated June 20, 2000.

D. Level of Trade

In accordance with section

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

practicable, we determined NV based on

sales in the comparison market at the

same level of trade (LOT) as the 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 SG&A

expenses and profit. For EP, the U.S.

LOT is also the level of the startingprice sale, which is usually from the

exporter to the importer. For CEP, 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

examined 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 pursuant to 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

39354 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 123 / Monday, June 26, 2000 / Notices

comparability, we adjust NV pursuant to

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).

In implementing these principles in

this investigation, we examined

information from the respondent

regarding the marketing stages involved

in the reported home market, EP and

CEP sales, including a description of the

selling activities performed by the

respondents for each channel of

distribution. In identifying levels of

trade for EP and home market sales, we

considered the selling functions

reflected in the starting price before any

adjustments. For CEP sales, we

considered only the selling activities

reflected in the price after the deduction

of expenses and profit pursuant to

section 772(d) of the Act.

Cheil. In the home market, Cheil

reported only one channel of

distribution, which was to end users. In

the U.S. market, Cheil reported sales

through two channels of distribution,

one involving sales to a distributor and

the second involving sales to end users

through commissionaires.

In determining whether separate

levels of trade actually existed between

the U.S. EP sales and home market

sales, we examined the chains of

distribution and customer categories

reported in the home market and in the

United States. Cheil’s sales to end users

in the home market and to the United

States appear to be made at different

points in the chain of distribution. We

further examined the selling functions

related to those sales. Cheil arranged

inland Korean freight and provided

technical services and warranties for the

end user customers in the home market

and the distributor in the U.S. market.

For the home market customers, Cheil

also made frequent contacts and visits

and provided inventory maintenance to

end user customers in the home market.

On this basis, it appears that the LOT of

Cheil’s home market sales involves

significantly more selling functions than

the LOT of the EP sales, and that the

distinctions constitute a difference in

level of trade between sales in the two

markets. Nonetheless, we are unable to

make a LOT adjustment. This is due to

the fact that there is only one LOT for

home market sales. Cheil does not sell

subject merchandise in the home market

at the same LOT as that of its EP sales,

and there are no other data on the

record that would allow the Department

to establish whether there is a pattern of

consistent price differences between

sales at different levels of trade in the

comparison market. Therefore, an LOT

adjustment is not possible for

comparisons of EP sales to home market

sales.

Cheil also made CEP sales through its

commissionaires to end-users. In

determining whether separate levels of

trade actually existed between the U.S.

CEP sales and home market sales, we

examined the chains of distribution and

customer categories reported in the

home market and in the United States.

Cheil’s sales to end users in the home

market and the importers/

commissionaires in the U.S. market

appear to be made at different points of

the chain of distribution. We further

examined the selling functions related

to these sales. As noted above, in

determining levels of trade for CEP

sales, we consider only the selling

activities reflected in the price after the

deduction of expenses and profit under

section 772(d) of the Act. Cheil arranges

for Korean inland freight and provides

frequent contacts and visits for U.S. end

user customers involved in the CEP

transactions and for home market end

users. It also provides warranties,

technical advice and arrangements for

freight to end user customers in both

markets. After making CEP deductions

from the end user price, we have

effectively deducted the portion of the

price which accounts for the following

services to the end users involved in

CEP sales: the provision of warranties

and technical advice and frequent

contacts and visits with end user

customers. At the CEP level, the only

remaining selling function is Cheil’s

arrangement of Korean inland freight.

On this basis, we found that the LOT of

Cheil’s home market sales involves

significantly more selling functions than

the LOT of the CEP sales.

Based on our review of the selling

functions related to CEP and home

market sales, we have determined that

Cheil’s home market sales are made at

a different, and more advanced, stage of

marketing than the LOT of the CEP

sales. Nonetheless, we are unable to

make a LOT adjustment. This is due to

the fact that there is only one LOT for

home market sales. Cheil does not sell

subject merchandise in the home market

at the same LOT as that of the CEP, and

there are no other data on the record

that would allow the Department to

establish whether there is a pattern of

consistent price differences between

sales at different levels of trade in the

comparison market. Accordingly, while

we determined that a LOT adjustment

may be appropriate for CEP sales, for the

reasons stated above, we are unable to

make such an adjustment. Instead, we

have made a CEP offset to NV in

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

the Act. This offset is equal to the

amount of indirect expenses incurred in

the comparison market not exceeding

the amount of the deductions made

from the U.S. price in accordance with

772(d)(1)(D) of the Act.

Shinho. In the home market, Shinho

reported sales to end users as its only

channel of distribution. In the U.S.

market, Shinho reported sales to

distributors as its only channel of

distribution.

Shinho has claimed that its home

market sales, which are all made to endusers, are at a different, more advanced

LOT than the company’s EP sales to

distributors. For EP sales, Shinho

processes orders and provides partial

arrangements for the freight. For home

market sales, Shinho processes orders

and provides partial arrangements for

freight. It also provides for some

financing and some limited technical

services for home market sales. At this

time, we do not have enough

information to determine whether home

market sales were made at a different

LOT than the EP sales. However, even

if we were able to determine that

Shinho’s home market sales are made at

a different LOT than the EP sales, we

would be unable to make a LOT

adjustment. This is due to the fact that

there is only one LOT for home market

sales. Shinho does not sell subject

merchandise in the home market at the

same LOT as that of its EP sales, and

there are no other data on the record

that would allow the Department to

establish whether there is a pattern of

consistent price differences between

sales at different levels of trade in the

comparison market. Therefore, a LOT

adjustment is not possible for

comparisons of EP sales to home market

sales.

Currency Conversions

We made currency conversions in

accordance with section 773A of the

Act. The Department’s preferred source

for daily exchange rates is the Federal

Reserve Bank. Section 773A(a) of the

Act directs the Department to use a

daily exchange rate in order to convert

foreign currencies into U.S. dollars

unless the daily rate involves a

fluctuation. It is the Department’s

practice to find that a fluctuation exists

when the daily exchange rate differs

from the benchmark rate by 2.25

percent. 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

substitute the benchmark rate for the

daily rate, in accordance with

established practice.

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