Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 130 / Thursday, July 6, 2000 / Notices 41629

investigation, but the manufacturer is,

the cash deposit rate will be the rate

established for the most recent final

results 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

conducted by the Department, the cash

deposit rate will be 66.92 percent, the

‘‘All Others’’ rate established in the

LTFV investigation. See Notice of

Antidumping Duty Order and Amended

Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value: Aramid Fiber Formed

of Poly-Phenylene Terephthalamide

From The Netherlands, 59 FR 32678

(June 24, 1994).

These cash deposit requirements,

when imposed, shall remain in effect

until publication of the final results of

the next administrative review.

This notice serves as a preliminary

reminder to importers of their

responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402 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 determination is issued and

published in accordance with sections

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

Dated: June 29, 2000.

Troy H. Cribb,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–17106 Filed 7–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–583–816]

Certain Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe

Fittings From Taiwan: Preliminary

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review and Intent To

Not Revoke in Part

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of the preliminary results

of antidumping duty administrative

review and intent not to revoke in part.

SUMMARY: In response to a request from

respondent Ta Chen Stainless Pipe Co.,

Ltd. (‘‘Ta Chen’’), the Department of

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) is

conducting an administrative review of

the antidumping duty order on certain

stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings

from Taiwan. This review covers one

manufacturer and exporter of the subject

merchandise. The period of review

(‘‘POR’’) is June 1, 1998 through May 31,

1999. We preliminarily determine that

sales have been made below normal

value (‘‘NV’’). If these preliminary

results are adopted in our final results

of administrative review, we will

instruct the U.S. Customs Service to

assess antidumping duties on entries of

Ta Chen’s merchandise during the

period of review, in accordance with the

Department’s regulations (19 CFR

351.106 and 351.212(b)). The

preliminary results are listed in the

section titled ‘‘Preliminary Results of

Review,’’ infra.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 6, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Doreen Chen, Sally Gannon, or Robert

Bolling, Enforcement Group III—Office

8, Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,

DC 20230; telephone (202) 482–0408,

(202) 482–0162 and (202) 482–3434,

respectively.

Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended (‘‘the Act’’), are 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’s regulations are to 19

CFR Part 351 (1999).

Background

On June 16, 1993, the Department

published in the Federal Register (58 FR

33250) the antidumping duty order on

certain stainless steel butt-weld pipe

fittings from Taiwan. On June 9, 1999,

we published in the Federal Register

(64 FR 30962) a notice of opportunity to

request an administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on certain

stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings

from Taiwan covering the period June 1,

1998 through May 31, 1999. On June 30,

1999, petitioners, Markovitz Enterprises,

Inc. (Flowline Division), Alloy Piping

Products Inc., Gerlin, Inc., and Taylor

Forge, requested that the Department

conduct an administrative review of Ta

Chen for the period of June 1, 1998

through May 31, 1999. On June 30,

1999, Ta Chen also requested that we

conduct an administrative review for

the aforementioned period and

requested revocation of the

Department’s antidumping duty order

on pipe fittings from Taiwan. On July

29, 1999, the Department published a

notice of initiation of this antidumping

duty administrative review for the

period of June 1, 1998 through May 31,

1999 (64 FR 41075).

On July 29, 2000, the Department

issued to Ta Chen its antidumping

questionnaire. On September 21, 1999,

Ta Chen reported that it made sales of

subject merchandise to the United

States during the period of review

(‘‘POR’’) in its response to Section A of

the Department’s questionnaire. On

October 13, 1999, Ta Chen submitted its

response to Sections B, C, and D of the

Department’s questionnaire. On January

31, 2000, the Department issued to Ta

Chen the supplemental questionnaire to

Sections A, B, C and D of the

Department’s questionnaire. On March

10, 2000 and April 4, 2000, Ta Chen

submitted its supplemental responses to

Sections A, B, C, and D of the

Department’s questionnaire. On April

24, 2000, the Department issued to Ta

Chen its second supplemental

questionnaire to Sections A, B, C and D.

On May 16 and 18, 2000, Ta Chen

submitted its second supplemental

responses to Sections A, B, C, and D of

the Department’s questionnaire. On June

2, 2000, the Department issued to Ta

Chen its third supplemental

questionnaire to Sections A, B, C, and

D of the Department’s questionnaire. On

June 7, 2000, Ta Chen submitted its

third supplemental response to Sections

A, B, C, and D of the Department’s

questionnaire.

Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the

Act, the Department may extend the

deadline for completion of an

administrative review if it determines

that it is not practicable to complete the

review within the statutory time limit of

245 days. On March 6, 2000, the

Department extended the time limits for

these preliminary results to June 28,

2000 in accordance with the Act. See

Notice of Postponement of Preliminary

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review: Certain

Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings

from Taiwan, 65 FR 11766 (March 6,

2000).

The Department is conducting this

administrative review in accordance

with section 751 of the Act.

Scope of the Review

The products subject to this

investigation are certain stainless steel

butt-weld pipe fittings, whether finished

or unfinished, under 14 inches inside

diameter. Certain welded stainless steel

butt-weld pipe fittings (‘‘pipe fittings’’)

are used to connect pipe sections in

piping systems where conditions

41630 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 130 / Thursday, July 6, 2000 / Notices

require welded connections. The subject

merchandise is used where one or more

of the following conditions is a factor in

designing the piping system: (1)

Corrosion of the piping system will

occur if material other than stainless

steel is used; (2) contamination of the

material in the system by the system

itself must be prevented; (3) high

temperatures are present; (4) extreme

low temperatures are present; and (5)

high pressures are contained within the

system.

Pipe fittings come in a variety of

shapes, with the following five shapes

the most basic: ‘‘elbows’’, ‘‘tees’’,

‘‘reducers’’, ‘‘stub ends’’, and ‘‘caps.’’

The edges of finished pipe fittings are

beveled. Threaded, grooved, and bolted

fittings are excluded from this review.

The pipe fittings subject to this review

are classifiable under subheading

7307.23.00 of the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States

(‘‘HTSUS’’).

Although the HTSUS subheading is

provided for convenience and customs

purposes, our written description of the

scope of this review is dispositive. Pipe

fittings manufactured to American

Society of Testing and Materials

specification A774 are included in the

scope of this order.

Period of Review

The POR for this administrative

review is June 1, 1998 through May 31,

1999.

Verification

Due to administrative constraints,

verification prior to the issuance of this

notice of preliminary results was not

conducted. The Department’s

regulations state, at section

351.307(b)(iii), that the Department will

verify factual information upon which it

relies in the final results of a revocation

under section 751(d) of the Act, prior to

issuing final results in an administrative

review. Accordingly, the Department

will verify the information to be used in

the final results, after these preliminary

results.

Product Comparison

In accordance with section 771(16) of

the Act, we considered all pipe fittings

produced by Ta Chen, covered by the

description in the ‘‘Scope of Review’’

section of this notice, supra, and sold in

the home market during the POR to be

foreign like products for the purpose of

determining appropriate product

comparisons to pipe fittings sold in the

United States. In making the product

comparisons, we matched foreign like

products based on the physical

characteristics reported by Ta Chen as

follows (listed in order of preference):

specification, seam, grade, size and

schedule.

Although section 771(16) of the Act

states that foreign like products are

merchandise produced in the same

country by the same person, for

purposes of these Preliminary Results,

we have also considered merchandise

purchased from other Taiwanese

manufacturers and re-sold by Ta Chen

that matched the aforementioned

physical characteristics to be foreign

like products because we did not have

sufficient information to match subject

merchandise to foreign like products on

a producer-specific basis. However, we

intend to seek further information on

this issue at verification and will

reconsider the issue for the Final

Results based on any additional

information obtained at verification.

Where there were no sales of identical

merchandise in the home market to

compare to U.S. sales, we compared

U.S. sales to the next most similar

foreign like product on the basis of the

characteristics listed in the

Department’s March 1, 2000

instructions, or to constructed value

(‘‘CV’’), as appropriate.

Date of Sale

The Department’s regulations state

that the Department will normally use

the date of invoice, as recorded in the

exporter’s or producer’s records kept in

the ordinary course of business, as the

date of sale. See 19 CFR 351.401(i). If

Commerce can establish ‘‘a different

date [that] better reflects the date on

which the exporter or producer

establishes the material terms of sale,’’

Commerce may choose a different date.

Id.

In the present review, Ta Chen

claimed that invoice date should be

used as the date of sale in both the home

market and U.S. market. Ta Chen stated

that ‘‘for both U.S. and Taiwan sales,

there was only one type of sales

agreement—i.e., through order

confirmation.’’ See Ta Chen’s

Supplemental Response at 4 (March 10,

2000). Ta Chen reported that there is no

lag time between invoice and shipment.

See Ta Chen’s Second Supplemental

Questionnaire Response, at 4 (May 16,

2000). Moreover, Ta Chen did not

indicate any industry practice which

would warrant the use of a date other

than invoice date in determining date of

sale.

Accordingly, because we have no

information demonstrating that another

date is more appropriate, we

preliminarily based date of sale on

invoice date recorded in the ordinary

course of business by the involved

sellers and resellers of the subject

merchandise in accordance with 19 CFR

351.401(i). However, we intend to fully

verify information concerning Ta Chen’s

claims that invoice date is the

appropriate date of sale. Based on the

outcome of our verification, we will

determine whether it is appropriate to

continue to use the date of invoice as

the date of sale.

Fair Value Comparisons

To determine whether sales of subject

merchandise by Ta Chen to the United

States were made at below NV, we

compared, where appropriate, the CEP

to the NV, as described below. Pursuant

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

compared the CEPs of individual U.S.

transactions to the monthly weightedaverage NV of the foreign like product

where there were sales at prices above

the cost of production (‘‘COP’’), as

discussed in the Cost of Production

Analysis section, below.

Export Price/ Constructed Export Price

Ta Chen reported both EP and CEP

sales of subject merchandise for the

POR. We analyzed the record evidence

on Ta Chen’s sales made to the United

States and preliminarily determined

that all sales to the United States should

be classified as CEP.

Section 772(a) of the Act defines

export price as ‘‘the price at which the

subject merchandise is first sold (or

agreed to be sold) before the date of

importation by the producer or exporter

of subject merchandise outside of the

United States to an unaffiliated

purchaser in the United States or to an

unaffiliated purchaser for the purchaser

for exportation to the United States.

* * *’’ Section 772(b) of the Act defines

constructed export price as ‘‘the price at

which the subject merchandise is first

sold (or agreed to be sold) in the United

States before or after the date of

importation by or for the account of the

producer or exporter of such

merchandise or by a seller affiliated

with the producer or exporter, to a

purchaser not affiliated with the

produce or exporter. * * *’’ Thus, a

CEP sale is distinct from an EP sale in

that it is a sale or agreement to sell to

an unaffiliated customer that takes place

in the United States and is executed by

or for the producer/exporter or by a

seller affiliated with the producer/

exporter, whereas a sale is classified as

an EP sale where a producer or exporter

sells directly to unaffiliated purchasers

outside the United States.

In the instant case, all of the sales at

issue were ‘‘back-to-back’’ sales; that is,

Ta Chen sold pipe fittings to Ta Chen’s

U.S. affiliate, TCI, and then TCI sold the

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 130 / Thursday, July 6, 2000 / Notices 41631

1See Stainless Steel Butt Weld Pipe Fittings from

Taiwan; Final Results of the Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 63 FR 67855 (December 9,

1998). For further discussion, see Stainless Steel

Butt Weld Pipe Fittings from Taiwan; Preliminary

Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 63 FR 30710, 30712 (June 5, 1998).

pipe fittings to the unaffiliated U.S.

customers at a marked-up price to

account for TCI’s commission and

selling expenses. In addition, the record

evidence demonstrates that for sales

reported by Ta Chen as EP sales, the sale

to the first unaffiliated customer was

made between TCI and the unaffiliated

customer in the United States. TCI takes

title to subject merchandise, invoices

the U.S. customer, and receives

payment from the U.S. customer. In

addition, TCI incurs seller’s risk, makes

agreements with commission agents,

relays orders and price requests from

the U.S. customer to Ta Chen, and pays

for containerization expenses, U.S.

customs broker charges, U.S.

antidumping duties and international

freight. See Second Supplemental

Questionnaire Response (May 16, 2000)

at 5. Ta Chen also stated that on

occasion the U.S. customer will initiate

the sale with TCI or TCI will initiate the

sale with the customer. Id.

Based on these facts, we have

determined that these sales originally

reported as EP by Ta Chen meet the

standard for CEP since the first sale to

an unaffiliated customer occurred in the

United States and was between TCI and

the U.S. purchaser. Therefore, we

reclassified the EP sales originally

reported by Ta Chen as CEP sales.

Having determined such sales are

CEP, we calculated the price of Ta

Chen’s United States sales based on CEP

in accordance with section 772(b) of the

Act. We calculated CEP based on FOB

or delivered prices to unaffiliated

purchasers in the United States. Where

appropriate, we deducted discounts.

Also where appropriate, in accordance

with section 772(d)(1), the Department

deducted commissions, direct selling

expenses and indirect selling expenses,

including inventory carrying costs,

which related to commercial activity in

the United States. We also made

deductions for movement expenses,

which include foreign inland freight,

foreign brokerage and handling, ocean

freight, containerization expense, harbor

construction tax, marine insurance, U.S.

inland freight, U.S. brokerage and

handling, and U.S. Customs duties.

Finally, pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of

the Act, we made an adjustment for CEP

profit. In accordance with Department

practice, we recalculated credit

expenses for CEP sales by basing credit

on Ta Chen’s U.S. dollar-denominated

short-term borrowing rate, rather than

on Ta Chen’s home market currencydenominated short-term borrowing rate.

See Import Administration Policy

Bulletin, Imputed Credit Expenses and

Interest rates (February 23, 1998). See

Analysis Memo at page 9.

Normal Value

After testing home market viability, as

discussed below, we calculated normal

value (‘‘NV’’) as noted in the ‘‘Price-toCV Comparisons’’ and ‘‘Price-to-Price

Comparisons’’ sections of this notice.

1. Home Market Viability

In accordance with section

773(a)(1)(C) of the Act, to determine

whether there was a sufficient volume

of sales in the home market to serve as

a viable basis for calculating NV (i.e.,

the aggregate volume of home market

sales of the foreign like product is

greater than or equal to five percent of

the aggregate volume of U.S. sales), we

compared Ta Chen’s volume of home

market sales of the foreign like product

to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject

merchandise. Because Ta Chen’s

aggregate volume of home market sales

of the foreign like product was greater

than five percent of its aggregate volume

of U.S. sales for the subject

merchandise, we determined that the

home market was viable. We therefore

based NV on home market sales.

2. Cost of Production Analysis

Because we disregarded sales below

the cost of production in our last

administrative review, the most-recently

completed segment of this proceeding,1

we have reasonable grounds to believe

or suspect that sales by Ta Chen in its

home market were made at prices below

the COP, pursuant to sections 773(b)(1)

and 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act.

Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(1)

of the Act, we conducted a COP analysis

of home market sales by Ta Chen.

A. Calculation of COP

In accordance with section 773(b)(3)

of the Act, we calculated a weightedaverage COP based on the sum of Ta

Chen’s cost of materials and fabrication

for the foreign like product, plus

amounts for general and administrative

expenses (‘‘G&A’’), interest expenses,

and packing costs. We relied on the COP

data submitted by Ta Chen in its

original and supplemental cost

questionnaire responses. For these

preliminary results, we did not make

any adjustments to Ta Chen’s submitted

costs.

B. Test of Home Market Prices

We compared the weighted-average

COP for Ta Chen to home market sales

of the foreign like product, as required

under section 773(b) of the Act, in order

to determine whether these sales had

been made at prices below the COP. In

determining whether to disregard home

market sales made at prices below the

COP, we examined whether such sales

were made (1) within an extended

period of time in substantial quantities,

and (2) at prices which permitted the

recovery of all costs within a reasonable

period of time in the normal course of

trade, in accordance with section

773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act. On a

product-specific basis, we compared the

COP to home market prices, less any

movement charges, discounts, and

direct and indirect selling expenses.

C. Results of the COP Test

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

Act, where less than 20 percent of Ta

Chen’s sales of a given product were at

prices less than the COP, we did not

disregard any below-cost sales of that

product because we determined that the

below-cost sales were not made in

‘‘substantial quantities.’’ Where 20

percent or more of Ta Chen’s sales of a

given product during the POR were at

prices less than the COP, we determined

that such sales have been made in

‘‘substantial quantities’’ within an

extended period of time, in accordance

with section 773(b)(2)(B) of the Act. In

such cases, because we use POR average

costs, we also determined that such

sales were not made at prices which

would permit recovery of all costs

within a reasonable period of time, in

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

the Act. Therefore, we disregarded the

below-cost sales. Where all sales of a

specific product were at prices below

the COP, we disregarded all sales of that

product.

D. Calculation of Constructed Value

In accordance with section 773(e)(1)

of the Act, we calculated CV based on

the sum of Ta Chen’s cost of materials,

fabrication, G&A (including interest

expenses), U.S. packing costs, direct and

indirect selling expenses, and profit. In

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

the Act, we based SG&A and profit on

the amounts incurred and realized by Ta

Chen in connection with the production

and sale of the foreign like product in

the ordinary course of trade, for

consumption in the foreign country. For

selling expenses, we used the actual

weighted-average home market direct

and indirect selling expenses.

Price-to-Price Comparisons

For those product comparisons for

which there were sales at prices above

the cost of production (‘‘COP’’), we

41632 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 130 / Thursday, July 6, 2000 / Notices

based NV on prices to home market

customers. We calculated NV based on

prices to unaffiliated home market

customers. Where appropriate, we

deducted early payment discounts,

credit expenses, and inland freight. We

also made adjustments, where

applicable, for home market indirect

selling expenses to offset U.S.

commissions in CEP comparisons. We

made adjustments, where appropriate,

for physical differences in the

merchandise in accordance with section

773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. Additionally,

in accordance with section 773(a)(6) of

the Act, we deducted home market

packing costs and added U.S. packing

costs. In accordance with the

Department’s practice, where there were

no usable contemporaneous matches to

a U.S. sale observation, we based NV on

CV.

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 CEP

transaction. The NV LOT is that of the

starting-price sales in the comparison

market, or when NV is based on CV, that

of the sales from which we derive SG&A

expenses and profit. For CEP, it is the

level of the constructed sale from the

exporter to the importer.

To determine whether NV sales are at

a different LOT than 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 an

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 levels between

NV and CEP affects price comparability,

we adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B)

of the Act (the CEP offset provision). See

Notice of Final Determination of Sales at

Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-toLength Carbon Steel Plate from South

Africa, 62 FR 61731, 61732 (November

19, 1997).

In reviewing the selling functions

reported by the respondent, we

examined all types of selling functions

and activities reported in respondent’s

questionnaire response on LOT. In

analyzing whether separate LOTs

existed in this review, we found that no

single selling function was sufficient to

warrant a separate LOT in the home

market. See Antidumping Duties;

Countervailing Duties, Final Rule, 62 FR

27296, 27371 (May 19, 1997).

Ta Chen reported one LOT in the

home market based on two channels of

distribution: trading companies and

end-users. We examined the reported

selling functions and found that Ta

Chen provides substantially the same

selling functions to its home market

customers regardless of channel of

distribution. These selling functions

include research and development and

technical assistance, packing, after-sale

services, and freight and delivery

arrangement. We therefore preliminarily

conclude that the selling functions

between the reported channels of

distribution are sufficiently similar to

consider them as one LOT in the

comparison market.

Because Ta Chen reported that all of

its U.S. sales are made through a single

customer category (i.e., TCI acting as a

distributor), Ta Chen is claiming that

there is only one LOT in the U.S.

market. We examined the selling

functions for CEP sales, and we

preliminarily agree with Ta Chen that

its U.S. sales constitute a single LOT.

When we compared the LOT of the

CEP to Ta Chen’s home market LOT, we

found that Ta Chen provided no

strategic or economic planning, market

research, business system development

assistance, personnel-training,

engineering, advertising, procurement

services, inventory maintenance, or

post-sale warehousing at the CEP or

home market LOT. Ta Chen reported

that it provided moderate-to-low

technical assistance at its home market

LOT, while providing none at its CEP

level. Additionally, Ta Chen reported

that it provided low after-sales services

at its home market LOT, while

providing none at its CEP level.

However, our analysis of the selling

functions performed by Ta Chen in both

markets leads us to conclude that any

differences in selling activities are not

significant. Accordingly, we

preliminarily find that all sales in the

home market and the U.S. market were

made at the same LOT. Therefore, we

have not made a LOT adjustment

because all price comparisons are at the

same LOT and an adjustment pursuant

to section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act is not

appropriate. Additionally, because we

found that the LOT in the home market

matched the LOT of the CEP

transactions, we did not provide a CEP

offset by adjusting normal value under

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

Revocation

Under section 351.222(b) of the

Department’s regulations, the

Department may partially revoke an

order with respect to a company if that

producer or exporter has sold the

merchandise at not less than normal

value for a period of at least three

consecutive years. On June 30, 1999, Ta

Chen, in its capacity as a Taiwanese

producer and exporter of subject

merchandise, requested that the

Department revoke the antidumping

duty order on pipe fittings from Taiwan

with respect to Ta Chen. Ta Chen stated

that it sold the subject merchandise at

not less than normal value for a period

of at least three consecutive years,

including the current period under

administrative review, and that it sold

the subject merchandise in

commercially significant quantities to

the United States during each of these

three years. Ta Chen also stated that it

would not sell the subject merchandise

at less than normal value to the United

States in the future and agreed to

reinstatement of the order against Ta

Chen, as long as any exporter or

producer is subject to the order, if the

Department concludes that Ta Chen

sold the subject merchandise at less

than normal value, subsequent to the

revocation.

On May 26, 2000, the Department

requested that Ta Chen provide volume

and value data on its exports and sales

of subject merchandise for the three

consecutive years. Ta Chen provided

this data in a June 5, 2000 submission,

which supported Ta Chen’s statement

that it sold subject merchandise in

commercially significant quantities to

the United States during these three

years.

The three review periods on which Ta

Chen is basing its request for revocation

consist of: (1) the period for 6/1/96

through 5/31/97, for which the

Department found a de minimis margin

of 0.34 percent; (2) the period for 6/1/

97 through 5/31/98, for which no

administrative review was conducted;

and (3) the period for 6/1/98 through 5/

31/99, for which the Department is

currently conducting an administrative

review.

The Department is considering Ta

Chen’s request for revocation, and shall

review the relevant information.

Because we did not find a de minimis

margin for these preliminary results, we

preliminarily conclude that the criteria

for revocation have not been satisfied,

and we intend not to revoke the order

as to Ta Chen, pending verification after

these preliminary results.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 130 / Thursday, July 6, 2000 / Notices 41633

Currency Conversion

For purposes of the preliminary

results, we made currency conversions

based on the exchange rates in effect on

the dates of the U.S. sales as published

by the Federal Reserve Bank of New

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

the Department to use a daily exchange

rate in effect on the date of sale of

subject merchandise in order to convert

foreign currencies into U.S. dollars,

unless the daily rate involves a

‘‘fluctuation.’’ In accordance with the

Department’s practice, we have

determined, as a general matter, that a

fluctuation exists when the daily

exchange rate differs from a benchmark

by 2.25 percent. See, e.g., Certain

Stainless Steel Wire Rods from France:

Preliminary Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR

8915, 8918 (March 6, 1996) and Policy

Bulletin 96–1: Currency Conversions, 61

FR 9434, March 8, 1996. The benchmark

is defined as the rolling average of rates

for the past 40 business days. When we

determined a fluctuation existed, we

substituted the benchmark for the daily

rate.

Preliminary Results of the Review

As a result of this review, we

preliminarily determine that the

following weighted-average dumping

margin exists for the period June 1,

1998, through May 31, 1999:

CERTAIN STAINLESS STEEL BUTTWELD PIPE FITTINGS FROM TAIWAN

Producer/manufacturer/

exporter

Weightedaverage

margin

(percent)

Ta Chen ................................ 8.03

The Department will disclose to any

party to the proceeding, within five days

of publication of this notice, the

calculations performed (19 CFR

351.224(b)). Any interested party may

request a hearing within 30 days of

publication. Any hearing, if requested,

will be held 37 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. Rebuttal briefs and

rebuttals to written comments, limited

to issues raised in such briefs or

comments, may be filed no later than 35

days after the date of publication.

Parties who submit arguments are

requested to submit with the argument

(1) A statement of the issue, (2) a brief

summary of the argument and (3) a table

of authorities. Further, we would

appreicate it if parties submitting

written comments would provide the

Department with an additional copy of

the public version of any such

comments on diskette. The Department

will publish the final results of this

administrative review, which will

include the results of its analysis of

issues raised in any such written

comments or at a hearing, within 120

days after the publication of this notice.

Upon issuance of the final results of

review, the Department shall determine,

and Customs shall assess, antidumping

duties on all appropriate entries. The

Department will issue appraisement

instructions directly to Customs. The

final results of this review shall be the

basis for the assessment of antidumping

duties on entries of merchandise

covered by the results and for future

deposits of estimated duties. For duty

assessment purposes, we calculated an

importer-specific assessment rate by

dividing the total dumping margins

calculated for the U.S. sales to the

importer by the total entered value of

these sales. This rate will be used for the

assessment of antidumping duties on all

entries of the subject merchandise by

that importer during the POR.

If found that revocation is warranted

for Ta Chen, it will apply to all

unliquidated entries of subject

merchandise produced by Ta Chen,

exported to the United States and

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after June 1,

1999, the first day after the period under

review.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective upon

completion of the final results of this

administrative review for all shipments

of the subject merchandise entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after the publication

of the final results of this administrative

review, as provided in section 751(a)(1)

of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for

Ta Chen, the only reviewed company,

will be that established in the final

results of this review; (2) For previously

reviewed or investigated companies not

covered in this review, 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 LTFV

investigation, but the manufacturer is,

the cash deposit rate will be the rate

established in 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 conducted by the

Department, the cash deposit rate will

continue to be the ‘‘all other’’ rate

established in the LTFV investigation,

which was 51.01 percent.

This notice serves as a preliminary

reminder to importers of their

responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)

to file a certificate regarding the

reimbursement of antidumping duties

prior to liquidation of the relevant

entries during this review period.

Failure to comply with this requirement

could result in the Secretary’s

presumption that reimbursement of

antidumping duties occurred and the

subsequent assessment of double

antidumping duties.

This administrative review and notice

are published in accordance with

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

Act.

Dated: June 28, 2000.

Troy H. Cribb,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–17105 Filed 7–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Institute of Standards and

Technology

Advanced Technology Program (ATP)

Advisory Committee

AGENCY: National Institute of Standards

and Technology, Department of

Commerce.

ACTION: Request for nominations of

members to serve on the Advance

Technology Program Advisory

Committee.

SUMMARY: NIST invites and requests

nominations of individuals for

appointment to the Advanced

Technology Program Advisory

Committee. NIST will consider

nominations received in response to this

notice for appointment to the

Committee, in additional to

nominations already received.

DATES: Please submit nominations on or

before July 21, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Please submit nominations

to Dr. Brian C. Belander, National

Institute of Standards and Technology,

100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 1004,

Gaithersburg, MD 20899–1004.

Nominations may also be submitted via

FAX to 301–948–1224.

Additional information regarding the

Committee, including its charter and

current membership list may be found

on its electronic home page at: http://

www.atp.nist.gov/atp/adv_com/

ac_menu.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

Brian C. Belanger, National Institute of