3662 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 15 / Monday, January 24, 2000 / Notices

1Al Tech Specialty Steel Corp., Carpenter

Technology Corp., Crucible Specialty Metals

Division, Crucible Materials Corp., Electroalloy

Corp., Republic Engineered Steels, Slater Steels

Corp., Talley Metals Technology, Inc. and the

United Steelworkers of America (AFL–CIO/CLC).

correctly found that dumping would

likely continue or recur if the

antidumping duty order were revoked.

The domestic interested parties base

their conclusion on the fact that

dumping has continued over the life of

the order as well as the fact that import

volumes have declined significantly

over the life of the order. In addition,

the domestic interested parties argue

that the Department correctly rejected

Prayon’s argument that future exchange

rates would eliminate Prayon’s dumping

margin.

Department: The Department agrees

with the domestic interested parties. For

reasons provided in greater detail in our

Preliminary Results, we find that

dumping has continued over the life of

the order and is likely to continue if the

order were revoked.

Comment 2: The domestic interested

parties argue that the Department

correctly chose the margin of dumping

found in the original less than fair value

(‘‘LTFV’’) determination as the margin

to report to the International Trade

Commission (‘‘the Commission’’). The

domestic interested parties maintain

that the Department was correct in

selecting the margins from the original

investigation to forward to the

Commission because these margins are

the only calculated rates which reflect

the behavior of producers/exporters

without the discipline of the order in

place.

Department: The Department agrees

with the domestic interested parties.

Again, for reasons provided in detail in

our Preliminary Results, we find that the

margins likely to prevail were the order

revoked would be 14.67 percent for

Prayon and 14.67 percent for ‘‘all

others’’.

Final Results of Review

As a result of this review, the

Department preliminarily finds that

revocation of the antidumping duty

order would likely lead to continuation

or recurrence of dumping at the margins

listed below:

Manufacturer/exporter Margin

(percent)

Prayon ...................................... 14.67

All Others .................................. 14.67

This notice serves as the only

reminder to parties subject to

administrative protective order (‘‘APO’’)

of their responsibility concerning the

disposition of proprietary information

disclosed under APO in accordance

with 19 CFR 351.305 of the

Department’s regulations. Timely

notification of return/destruction of

APO materials or conversion to judicial

protective order is hereby requested.

Failure to comply with the regulations

and the terms of an APO is a

sanctionable violation.

This five-year (‘‘sunset’’) review and

notice are in accordance with sections

751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Dated: January 18, 2000.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–1659 Filed 1–21–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–533–810]

Stainless Steel Bar From India; Final

Results of Antidumping Duty New

Shipper Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of

antidumping duty new shipper review

of stainless steel bar from India.

SUMMARY: On August 25, 1999, the

Department of Commerce published the

preliminary results of the new shipper

review of the antidumping duty order

on stainless steel bar from India. We

gave interested parties an opportunity to

comment on the preliminary results.

Based on our analysis of the comments

received, we have made certain changes

for the final results.

This review covers three producers/

exporters of stainless steel bar to the

United States during the period

February 1, 1998, through July 31, 1998.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 24, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James Breeden or Melani Miller, Import

Administration, AD/CVD Enforcement

Group I, Office 1, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20230;

telephone (202) 482–1174 or 482–0116,

respectively.

Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended (‘‘the Act’’), are references to

the provisions effective January 1, 1995,

the effective date of the amendments

made to the Act by the Uruguay Round

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

all references to the Department of

Commerce’s (‘‘the Department’s’’)

regulations are to 19 CFR Part 351 (April

1998).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On August 25, 1999, the Department

published the preliminary results of the

new shipper review of the antidumping

duty order on stainless steel bar from

India (64 FR 46350) (‘‘Preliminary

Results’’). The manufacturers/exporters

in this new shipper review are Jyoti

Steel Industries (‘‘Jyoti’’), Parekh Bright

Bars Pvt. Ltd. (‘‘Parekh’’), and Shah

Alloys Ltd. (‘‘Shah’’). We verified

information provided by Jyoti as

discussed in the Verification section,

below. We received a case brief from the

petitioners 1 on December 22, 1999. We

received rebuttal briefs from Jyoti and

Shah on January 7, 2000.

Scope of the Review

Imports covered by this review are

shipments of stainless steel bar (‘‘SSB’’).

SSB means articles of stainless steel in

straight lengths that have been either

hot-rolled, forged, turned, cold-drawn,

cold-rolled or otherwise cold-finished,

or ground, having a uniform solid cross

section along their whole length in the

shape of circles, segments of circles,

ovals, rectangles (including squares),

triangles, hexagons, octagons, or other

convex polygons. SSB includes coldfinished SSBs that are turned or ground

in straight lengths, whether produced

from hot-rolled bar or from straightened

and cut rod or wire, and reinforcing bars

that have indentations, ribs, grooves, or

other deformations produced during the

rolling process.

Except as specified above, the term

does not include stainless steel semifinished products, cut length flat-rolled

products (i.e., cut length rolled products

which if less than 4.75 mm in thickness

have a width measuring at least 10 times

the thickness, or if 4.75 mm or more in

thickness having a width which exceeds

150 mm and measures at least twice the

thickness), wire (i.e., cold-formed

products in coils, of any uniform solid

cross section along their whole length,

which do not conform to the definition

of flat-rolled products), and angles,

shapes and sections.

The SSB subject to this review is

currently classifiable under subheadings

7222.10.0005, 7222.10.0050,

7222.20.0005, 7222.20.0045,

7222.20.0075, and 7222.30.0000 of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’). Although the

HTSUS subheadings are provided for

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 15 / Monday, January 24, 2000 / Notices 3663

convenience and customs purposes, our

written description of the scope of this

review is dispositive.

Verification

As provided in section 782(i) of the

Act, we verified information provided

by Jyoti using standard verification

procedures, including on-site inspection

of the manufacturer’s facilities, the

examination of relevant cost data and

financial records, and selection of

original documentation containing

relevant information. Our verification

results are outlined in the public and

business proprietary versions of the

verification report, dated December 13,

1999.

Comparisons

We calculated export price and

normal value based on the same

methodology used in the Preliminary

Results, with the following exceptions:

With respect to Shah, we used facts

available as discussed in the Use of

Facts Otherwise Available section,

below.

For Jyoti, we adjusted its direct

material costs, internal taxes on direct

material purchases, direct labor costs,

variable overhead costs, general and

administrative costs, interest expenses,

and international freight expense based

on information gathered at verification.

See Memorandum to Susan H. Kuhbach:

‘‘Jyoti Steel Industries Verification

Report’’ dated December 13, 1999

(‘‘Verification Report’’) and ‘‘Companyspecific Calculation Notes for Final

Results: Jyoti Steel Industries’’ dated

January 15, 2000.

Use of Facts Otherwise Available

Section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act

provides for the use of facts available

when an interested party withholds

information that has been requested by

the Department. As described in more

detail below, Shah failed to provide

information explicitly requested by the

Department; therefore, we have used

facts otherwise available in determining

Shah’s dumping margin.

However, pursuant to section 782(e)

of the Act, in using the facts otherwise

available we must determine whether

information Shah already submitted for

the record of this review may be used

in calculating a dumping margin.

Section 782(e) of the Act provides that

the Department shall not decline to

consider information that is submitted

by an interested party and that is

necessary to the determination but

which does not meet all the applicable

requirements established by the

Department if—

(1) the information is submitted by

the deadline established for its

submission;

(2) the information can be verified;

(3) the information is not so

incomplete that it cannot serve as a

reliable basis for reaching the applicable

determination;

(4) the interested party has

demonstrated that it acted to the best of

its ability in providing the information

and meeting the requirements

established by the Department with

respect to the information; and

(5) the information can be used

without undue difficulties.

While Shah did respond to our

original questionnaire and supplemental

questionnaires, it refused our request to

revise its constructed value (‘‘CV’’)

using cost data relevant to the POR, or

in the alternative, explain or document

why the cost data it did submit was

representative of the costs incurred

during the POR. Because of Shah’s

refusal to respond to our requests for

additional information, we did not

verify the company as planned. Thus,

pursuant to section 782(e)(3), we found

the information on the record so

incomplete for the POR being examined

that we determined that it could not

serve as a reliable basis for calculating

a dumping margin. Also, pursuant to

section 782(e)(4), Shah failed to act to

the best of its ability in providing the

requested information. Consequently,

we are not using any of the information

submitted by Shah for our final results

and are relying instead on facts

available.

In selecting from among the facts

otherwise available, section 776(b) of

the Act provides that the Department

may use an inference that is adverse to

the interests of a party if it determines

that party has failed to cooperate to the

best of its ability. On August 19, 1999,

we issued a supplemental questionnaire

to Shah, which instructed the company

to either revise its CV database based on

costs incurred during the POR or to

submit supporting documentation as to

why its fiscal year cost information

accurately reflected the costs incurred

by the company during the POR. In its

supplemental questionnaire response,

Shah failed to address either issue. We

issued Shah another supplemental

questionnaire on September 29, 1999,

requesting that it submit CV data based

on actual costs incurred during the POR.

Shah responded in its October 16, 1999,

supplemental questionnaire response

that it was not revising its CV database

and that it was continuing to provide

CV information based on fiscal year

1998–1999 data.

We find that by not providing

necessary information specifically

requested by the Department, Shah

failed to cooperate to the best of its

ability. Therefore, in selecting facts

available, we have determined that an

adverse inference is warranted. As

adverse facts available, we have

assigned a margin of 21.02 percent to

Shah’s sales of the subject merchandise.

This margin, calculated for sales by

Mukand Limited during the original less

than fair value (‘‘LTFV’’) investigation,

represents the highest weighted-average

margin determined for any firm during

any segment of this proceeding.

Information from prior segments of the

proceeding constitutes secondary

information and section 776(c) of the

Act provides that the Department shall,

to the extent practicable, corroborate

that secondary information from

independent sources reasonably at its

disposal. The Statement of

Administrative Action (‘‘SAA’’)

provides that ‘‘corroborate’’ means

simply that the Department will satisfy

itself that the secondary information to

be used has probative value (see, H.R.

Doc. 103–316, Vol. 1, 870 (1994)).

To corroborate secondary information,

the Department will, to the extent

practicable, examine the reliability and

relevance of the information to be used.

However, unlike other types of

information, such as input costs or

selling expenses, there are no

independent sources for calculated

dumping margins. Thus, in an

administrative review, if the Department

chooses as adverse facts available a

calculated dumping margin from a prior

segment of the proceeding, it is not

necessary to question the reliability of

the margin for that time period. With

respect to the relevance aspect of

corroboration, however, the Department

will consider information reasonably at

its disposal as to whether there are

circumstances that would render a

margin inappropriate. Where

circumstances indicate that the selected

margin is not appropriate as adverse

facts available, the Department will

disregard the margin and determine an

appropriate margin (see, e.g., Fresh Cut

Flowers from Mexico; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 61 FR 6812, 6814 (Feb. 22,

1996) (where the Department

disregarded the highest margin as

adverse facts available because the

margin was based on another company’s

uncharacteristic business expense

resulting in an unusually high margin)).

As discussed above, it is not

necessary to question the reliability of a

calculated margin from a prior segment

of the proceeding. Further, there are no

3664 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 15 / Monday, January 24, 2000 / Notices

circumstances indicating that this

margin is inappropriate as facts

available. Therefore, we find that the

21.02 percent rate is corroborated.

In our Preliminary Results, we

applied a total adverse facts available

margin for Parekh. We have not changed

this finding for these final results. For

a detailed explanation of our reasons for

applying adverse facts available, please

see our Preliminary Results and the

Department’s response to Comment 1

below.

Interested Party Comments

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.309,

we invited interested parties to

comment on our Preliminary Results.

We received written comments from the

petitioners and rebuttal comments from

Jyoti and Shah.

Comment 1: Use of Facts Available for

Parekh and Shah

The petitioners argue that the

Department should rely on facts

available for Parekh and Shah for

purposes of the final results because

each company failed to report critical

information required for the calculation

of dumping margins. With respect to

Parekh, the petitioners note that the

company failed to respond to the

Department’s supplemental request for

information. Therefore, the petitioners

argue that the Department should

continue to rely on facts available when

calculating Parekh’s margin, as it did in

the Preliminary Results. With respect to

Shah, the petitioners argue that the

Department has no choice but to apply

the facts otherwise available because the

company failed to report costs of

production in a manner consistent with

Department requirements and provided

no explanation for its failure to do so.

In support of their argument, the

petitioners cite to the Department’s

December 17, 1999, memorandum

which states that Shah’s failure to

comply with Department requests

warrants the use of adverse facts

available. See December 17, 1999,

Memorandum from Team to Richard

Moreland, ‘‘Failure by Shah Alloys to

Respond to Requests for Information.’’

Shah argues that the CV information

it provided to the Department was the

only cost data that it had available when

it received the Department’s requests.

Therefore, Shah contends that it has

cooperated to the best of its ability with

the Department requests for

information.

Department’s Position

We agree with the petitioners and

have applied the facts otherwise

available to both Shah and Parekh for

the final results. As discussed in the

Preliminary Results, we did not have the

data necessary to calculate a dumping

margin for Parekh, because Parekh

failed to respond to the Department’s

supplemental questionnaire and request

for cost information, and discontinued

all communication with the

Department. In light of this withholding

of necessary information, pursuant to

section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, we

found it necessary to apply the facts

available. Furthermore, not only did

Parekh fail to provide necessary

information specifically requested by

the Department and to discontinue its

participation in this review, Parekh

provided the Department with no

explanation or reasons for its failure to

participate. Based on these facts,

pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, we

determined that Parekh failed to

cooperate to the best of its ability;

therefore, we used an adverse inference

when selecting among the facts

otherwise available.

Moreover, we corroborated the facts

available rate applied to Parekh as

explained in the Preliminary Results.

We have received no information that

would call into question our

corroboration of that rate and, therefore,

continue to use it for our final results.

As noted above in the Facts Otherwise

Available section, Shah did not submit

information requested by the

Department and failed to cooperate by

not acting to the best of its ability to

comply with a request for information.

As was stated in the Department’s

December 17, 1999, memorandum,

although Shah did submit cost

information, that information was based

on a time period that included eight

months that were not included in the

POR. We gave Shah numerous

opportunities to explain why this data

was representative of the costs incurred

during the POR or to revise its data,

opportunities that were declined by

Shah. At the time the Department

requested the cost information, Shah

offered no explanation as to why it

chose not to take advantage of the

opportunities provided by the

Department. It is only now, in its

rebuttal brief, that Shah informs the

Department that the cost data it had

provided was the only cost data that it

had available when it received the

Department’s requests. However, we

find that this explanation is belated.

Section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act

provides for the use of facts available

when an interested party withholds

information that has been requested by

the Department. As explained in the

Facts Otherwise Available section above

and in our Preliminary Results, because

we found that both Shah and Parekh

withheld critical information that was

requested by the Department, the use of

facts otherwise available is appropriate.

Furthermore, as is also noted above,

in accordance with section 776(b) of the

Act, if the Department finds that an

interested party has failed to cooperate

by not acting to the best of its ability to

comply with a request for information,

the Department may use an inference

that is adverse to the interests of that

party in selecting from among the facts

otherwise available. Because we found

that neither Shah nor Parekh cooperated

to the best of its ability, the use of an

adverse inference is also appropriate for

the final results for both Shah and

Parekh.

Comment 2: The Department Should

Apply Facts Available to Jyoti

The petitioners argue that Jyoti has

significantly impeded the proceeding by

failing to report its sales to third country

markets and, therefore, the Department

should rely on facts available for Jyoti.

Moreover, contrary to Jyoti’s

explanation at verification that it

misunderstood the Department’s

reporting instructions, the petitioners

allege that record evidence indicates

Jyoti clearly understood the

Department’s instructions. Given that

Jyoti has intentionally withheld

information requested, the Department

should disregard the constructed value

information submitted by Jyoti as the

basis for the calculation of normal value

and assign an adverse facts available

rate to Jyoti for the final results. In

support of their argument, the

petitioners cite Stainless Steel Sheet

and Strip in Coils From Taiwan, Notice

of Final Determination of Sales at Less

than Fair Value, 64 FR 30592 (June 8,

1999) (‘‘Sheet and Strip from Taiwan’’),

in which the Department applied

adverse facts available to a respondent

company that failed to report all of its

home market sales.

Jyoti argues that it reported the sales

that are identical to its U.S. sales. The

company states that the merchandise it

sold to third country markets is different

in physical and chemical properties.

Thus, according to Jyoti, those sales

should not have been reported.

Department’s Position

As discussed in the Preliminary

Results,Jyoti reported that it had a

viable home market and no thirdcountry market sales of the foreign like

product. We agreed with Jyoti that it

had a viable home market, but

preliminarily determined that a

‘‘particular market situation’’ existed

making it inappropriate to use home

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 15 / Monday, January 24, 2000 / Notices 3665

market sales as a basis for normal value.

Therefore, based upon our

understanding at the time that Jyoti had

no third country sales, we requested and

received CV information from Jyoti and

used it as the basis for normal value for

the preliminary results. At verification,

we discovered that Jyoti did make thirdcountry sales of the foreign like product

during the POR. However, as discussed

in the verification report, we believe

that the misreporting was based on a

misunderstanding and that information

was not intentionally withheld from the

Department. See page 3 of the

Verification Report.

We do not agree that applying adverse

facts available is appropriate in this

situation. Unlike the situation in Sheet

and Strip from Taiwan, in this instance

we find that Jyoti has had difficulty

understanding our reporting

instructions. This situation is

complicated by the fact that it is the first

time the company is involved with an

antidumping proceeding. Jyoti’s

misunderstanding was substantiated at

verification when company officials

expressed their confusion regarding the

reporting of third-country sales. Jyoti’s

rebuttal comments also illustrate its

continued misunderstanding. While we

have not found that Jyoti fully complied

with this request for information, we

have not found that this error in

reporting demonstrates Jyoti’s failure to

cooperate to the best of its ability.

Rather, Jyoti’s subsequent responses to

our supplemental questions and its

cooperation at verification are indicative

of a cooperative respondent. In addition,

the CV information was verified by the

Department and can be used without

difficulties. Moreover, the information

is complete and can serve as a reliable

basis for calculating an antidumping

duty margin.

Comment 3: Jyoti’s CV Reporting

Methodology

The petitioners contend that the

information obtained by the Department

at verification demonstrates that Jyoti’s

reporting methodology is flawed.

Specifically, the petitioners argue that

Jyoti’s use of a single, average cost for

all of its products fails to measure

accurately the direct labor and overhead

expenses allocable to the different bar

sizes produced by Jyoti. The petitioners

contend that Jyoti’s failure to revise its

allocation methodology, despite the

requests made by the Department,

warrants the use of facts available.

Jyoti contends that the size and

simplicity of its operations does not

necessitate allocating labor and

overhead costs differently across the

various bar sizes it produces. Jyoti

further argues that any deviations from

the single, average cost it reported are

marginal and do not have an impact on

the calculation of CV.

Department’s Position

Although we found at verification that

the allocation methodology used in

Jyoti’s questionnaire response contained

certain errors, we agree with Jyoti that

none of these errors was so significant

as to warrant the rejection of Jyoti’s

data. In general, when we deem a

respondent’s data to be acceptable, our

practice is to correct it for errors found

at verification. Accordingly, we have

reallocated Jyoti’s direct labor and

variable overhead expenses based on the

information collected at verification for

purposes of the final results.

Comment 4: Jyoti’s Calculation of U.S.

Credit Expense Is Incorrect

The petitioners argue that Jyoti’s

calculation of U.S. credit expense does

not take into account the correct number

of days between the shipment of the

merchandise and the receipt of payment

from the customer. According to the

petitioners, the Department should

adjust this expense to reflect the correct

number of days outstanding between

shipment and customer payment.

Jyoti argues that it has correctly used

the number of days between the

issuance of the invoice and receipt of

payment from its bank.

Department’s Position

We disagree with the petitioners that

the calculation of credit expense is

incorrect. The Department’s preference

is to use actual credit cost information.

As discussed in the Verification Report,

Jyoti finances its exports accounts

receivable by entering into a discount

arrangement with its bank. See page 4

of the Verification Report. Jyoti has

submitted on the official record bank

documentation detailing the credit costs

incurred in connection with its U.S.

sale. This information was also

reviewed at verification. Because the

reported amount represents the actual

credit expenses incurred by Jyoti, we

have continued to use it for our final

results.

Comment 5: The Department Should

Reject Jyoti’s Offsets to Constructed

Value

The petitioners argue that the

Department should not allow an

adjustment to constructed value for

internal taxes on raw material purchases

because Jyoti failed to provide evidence

of rebates from the government. The

petitioners note that it is the

Department’s practice to allow an

adjustment for tax rebates only if a

respondent can demonstrate a link

between claimed rebates and its cost of

manufacture. See Canned Pineapple

Fruit From Thailand, Final Results and

Partial Recession of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 64 FR 69481,

69485 (December 13, 1999). According

to the petitioners, Jyoti failed to provide

such a link and, thus, the Department

should not allow this cost adjustment.

Jyoti contends that there is a direct

link between the sales tax rebate and the

cost of manufacture. However, Jyoti

argues that this tax rebate is difficult to

document because reimbursement

occurs through the reduction of taxes

payable to the government.

Department’s Position

We agree with the petitioners, in part.

At verification, company officials were

unable to provide supporting

documentation with respect to the

rebates received in connection with

sales taxes paid on raw material

purchases. Accordingly, we have not

made an adjustment to Jyoti’s CV data

for these tax rebates. However, company

officials were able to document the

refund of excise duties paid on the raw

materials used to produce subject

merchandise. Therefore, we have offset

Jyoti’s CV data by the amount of excise

duties refunded in connection with the

purchase of the raw materials used in

the production of the subject

merchandise.

Final Results of Review

As a result of this review, we find that

the following margins exist for the

period February 1, 1998, through July

31, 1998:

Manufacturer/Exporter Margin

(percent)

Jyoti ...................................... 0.00

Parekh .................................. 21.02

Shah ..................................... 21.02

The Department will disclose to a

party to the proceeding calculations

performed in connection with these

final results within five days after the

date of announcement or, if there is no

public announcement, within five days

after the date of publication of this

notice. See 19 CFR 351.224. The result

of this review shall be the basis for the

assessment of antidumping duties on

entries of merchandise covered by the

review and for future deposits of

estimated duties for the manufacturers/

exporters subject to this review. We

have calculated an importer-specific

duty assessment rate based on the ratio

of the total amount of antidumping

duties calculated for the examined sales

3666 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 15 / Monday, January 24, 2000 / Notices

to the total value of those sales

examined. The Department will issue

appraisement instructions directly to

the Customs Service.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective for all

shipments of the subject merchandise

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after the

publication date of these final results of

this new shipper review, as provided by

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

deposit rate for the reviewed companies

will be the rates indicated above; (2) for

companies not covered in this review,

but covered in previous reviews or the

LTFV investigation (59 FR 66915,

December 28, 1994), the cash deposit

rate will continue to be the companyspecific 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 investigation, but

the manufacturer is, the cash deposit

rate will be the most recent rate

established for the manufacturer of the

merchandise; and (4) if neither the

exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm

covered in this review or any previous

review or the original investigation, the

cash deposit rate will be the ‘‘all others’’

rate of 12.45 percent established in the

LTFV investigation.

These deposit requirements will

remain in effect until publication of the

final results of the next administrative

review.

This notice also serves as a final

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 notice also serves as a reminder

to parties subject to administrative

protective orders (‘‘APOs’’) of their

responsibility concerning the

disposition of proprietary information

disclosed under APO in accordance

with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely

written notification of the return/

destruction of APO materials or

conversion to judicial protective order is

hereby requested. Failure to comply

with the regulations and the terms of an

APO is a sanctionable violation.

This new shipper review and notice

are in accordance with sections

751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

January 18, 2000.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–1661 Filed 1–21–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

Application for Duty-Free Entry of

Scientific Instrument

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), we invite comments on the

question of an instrument of equivalent

scientific value, for the purposes for

which the instrument shown below is

intended to be used, is being

manufactured in the United States.

Comments must comply with 15 CFR

301.5(a)(3) and (4) of the regulations and

be filed within 20 days with the

Statutory Import Programs Staff, U.S.

Department of Commerce, Washington,

D.C. 20230. Application may be

examined between 8:30 A.M. and 5:00

P.M. in Room 4211, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.

Docket Number: 00–001. Applicant:

USDA, Agricultural Research Service,

800 Buchanan Street, Albany, CA

94710. Instrument: Picking and

Gridding Q-Bot System. Manufacturer:

Genetix Ltd., United Kingdom. Intended

Use: The instrument is intended to be

used in experiments that will include:

isolation, characterization and DNA

sequencing of genes from organisms of

agronomic importance; gridding of

clone collections onto filters for gene

isolation and genome characterization;

construction of DNA microarrays;

rearraying clones and samples into new

matrix collections; replication of clones

and clone library samples.

Application accepted by

Commissioner of Customs: January 6,

2000.

Frank W. Creel,

Director, Statutory Import Programs Staff.

[FR Doc. 00–1657 Filed 1–21–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

Boston 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 5:00

P.M. in Room 4211, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th and Constitution

Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.

Docket Number: 99–026. Applicant:

Boston University, Boston, MA 02215.

Instrument: Electron Microscope, Model

JEM–2010. Manufacturer: JEOL Ltd.,

Japan. Intended Use: See notice at 64 FR

63788, November 22, 1999. Order Date:

May 24, 1999.

Comments: None received. Decision:

Approved. No instrument of equivalent

scientific value to the foreign

instrument, for such purposes as the

instrument is intended to be used, was

being manufactured in the United States

at the time the instrument was ordered.

Reasons: The foreign instrument is a

conventional transmission electron

microscope (CTEM) and is intended for

research or scientific educational uses

requiring a CTEM. We know of no

CTEM, or any other instrument suited to

these purposes, which was being

manufactured in the United States at the

time of order of the instrument.

Frank W. Creel,

Director, Statutory Import Programs Staff.

[FR Doc. 00–1656 Filed 1–21–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

University of North Carolina; Notice of

Decision on Application for Duty-Free

Entry of Scientific Instrument

This decision is made 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 5:00 P.M. in Room 4211,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and

Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C.

Docket Number: 99–025. Applicant:

University of North Carolina, Chapel

Hill, NC 27599. Instrument: Nose Only

Inhalation System. Manufacturer: ADG

Developments Ltd., United Kingdom.