41626 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 130 / Thursday, July 6, 2000 / Notices

the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the

Board) adopts the following Order:

Whereas, the City of Memphis,

Tennessee, grantee of Foreign-Trade

Zone 77, has applied to expand the

scope of manufacturing authority for

FTZ Subzone 77B (Brother Industries

(U.S.A.) Inc. facilities in Bartlett, Shelby

County, Tennessee) to include

production of postage franking

machines and electronic business

equipment under FTZ procedures (FTZ

Doc. 50–99; filed 10–18–99);

Whereas, notice inviting public

comment was given in Federal Register

(64 FR 60766, 11–8–99); and,

Whereas, the Board adopts the

findings and recommendations of the

examiner’s report, and finds that the

requirements of the FTZ Act and

Board’s regulations are satisfied, and

that approval of the application is in the

public interest;

Now, Therefore, the Board hereby

approves the request subject to the FTZ

Act and the Board’s regulations,

including Section 400.28.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 26th day of

June 2000.

Troy H. Cribb,

Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for

Import Administration, Alternate Chairman,

Foreign-Trade Zones Board.

Attest:

Dennis Puccinelli,

Acting Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–17107 Filed 7–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–421–805]

Preliminary Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review; Aramid

Fiber Formed of Poly Para-Phenylene

Terephthalamide From the Netherlands

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of

antidumping duty administrative

review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 6, 2000.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

(‘‘the Department’’) is conducting an

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on aramid fiber

formed of poly para-phenylene

terephthalamide (‘‘PPD-T aramid’’) from

the Netherlands in response to requests

by respondent, Twaron Products V.o.F.

(formerly Aramid Products V.o.F.) and

Twaron Products Inc. (formerly Akzo

Nobel Aramid Products, Inc.)

(collectively ‘‘Twaron’’), and petitioner,

E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company.

This review covers sales of this

merchandise to the United States during

the period June 1, 1998, through May

31, 1999, by Twaron. The results of the

review indicate the existence of

dumping margins for the above period.

We invite interested parties 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dennis McClure or Michael Grossman,

AD/CVD Enforcement, Office 6, Group

II, Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington,

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–0984 or

(202) 482–3146, respectively.

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as

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

the provisions effective January 1, 1995,

the effective date of the amendments

made to the Act by the Uruguay Round

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

unless otherwise indicated, all citations

to the Department’s regulations are to

the regulations at 19 CFR Part 351 (April

1999).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Department published in the

Federal Register the antidumping duty

order on PPD-T aramid from the

Netherlands on June 24, 1994 (59 FR

32678). On June 9, 1999, we published

in the Federal Register (64 FR 30962) a

notice of ‘‘Opportunity to Request an

Administrative Review’’ of this order

covering the period June 1, 1998,

through May 31, 1999.

In accordance with 19 CFR

351.213(b), Twaron and petitioner

requested that we conduct an

administrative review for the

aforementioned period. On July 29,

1999, the Department published a notice

of ‘‘Initiation of Antidumping Review’’

(64 FR 41075). The Department is now

conducting this administrative review

pursuant to section 751 of the Act.

Scope of Review

The products covered by this review

are all forms of PPD-T aramid from the

Netherlands. These consist of PPD-T

aramid in the form of filament yarn

(including single and corded), staple

fiber, pulp (wet or dry), spun-laced and

spun-bonded nonwovens, chopped

fiber, and floc. Tire cord is excluded

from the class or kind of merchandise

under review. This merchandise is

currently classifiable under the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) item numbers

5402.10.3020, 5402.10.3040,

5402.10.6000, 5503.10.1000,

5503.10.9000, 5601.30.0000, and

5603.00.9000. The HTSUS item

numbers are provided for convenience

and Customs purposes. The written

description of the scope remains

dispositive.

Verification

As provided in Section 782(i) of the

Act, we verified the information

submitted by Twaron Products V.o.F.

and Twaron Products Inc. from May 8

through May 12, 2000, in the

Netherlands, and on May 17 and May

18, 2000, in the United States. See June

9, 2000, Verification of the Sales

Response of Twaron Products V.o.F.

Memorandum. The public version of

this verification report is on file in the

Central Records Unit (‘‘CRU’’) of the

Department of Commerce (Room B–

099).

Transactions Reviewed

In accordance with section 751 of the

Act, the Department is required to

determine the normal value (‘‘NV’’) and

export price (‘‘EP’’) or constructed

export price (‘‘CEP’’) of each entry of

subject merchandise. See section

751(a)(2)(A). Because there can be a

significant lag between entry date and

sale date for CEP sales, it has been the

Department’s practice to examine U.S.

CEP sales during the period of review

(‘‘POR’’). See Gray Portland Cement and

Clinker from Japan; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 58 FR 48826 (1993) (the

Department did not consider ESP (now

CEP) entries which were sold after the

POR). The Court of International Trade

(‘‘CIT’’) has upheld the Department’s

practice in this regard. See The AD Hoc

Committee of Southern California

Producers of Gray Portland Cement v.

United States, 914 F. Supp. 535, 544–45

(CIT 1995).

Comparisons to NV

In accordance with section 771(16) of

the Act, we considered all products

covered by the Scope of the Review

which were sold by the respondent in

the home market during the POR to be

foreign like products for purposes of

product comparisons to U.S. sales.

Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the

Act, where there were home market

sales that passed the cost of production

(‘‘COP’’) test, as discussed below, we

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 130 / Thursday, July 6, 2000 / Notices 41627

compared the CEPs of individual U.S.

transactions to the monthly weightedaverage NV of the foreign like product.

Where there were no sales of identical

or similar merchandise in the home

market to compare to U.S. sales, we

compared U.S. sales to the constructed

value (‘‘CV’’) of the product sold in the

home market during the comparison

period.

Constructed Export Price

The Department based its margin

calculation on CEP, as defined in

sections 772(b), (c), and (d) of the Act,

because all sales to the first unaffiliated

purchaser in the United States took

place after importation. We calculated CEP based on delivered

prices and FOB warehouse prices to

unaffiliated purchasers in the United

States. Where appropriate, we reduced

these prices to reflect rebates. In

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

Act, we deducted direct selling

expenses, i.e., credit expenses, technical

service expenses, warranty expenses,

third-party payments, and repacking,

and indirect selling expenses, including

inventory carrying costs, which related

to commercial activity in the United

States. We made deductions for

movement expenses (international

freight, brokerage and handling, U.S.

duties, domestic inland freight, U.S.

inland freight, and insurance) in

accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the

Act. We also made deductions for

further manufacturing in accordance

with section 772(d)(2). Finally, we also

deducted from CEP an amount for profit

in accordance with sections 772(d)(3)

and (f) of the Act.

Normal Value

In order to determine whether there

was a sufficient volume of sales in the

home market to serve as a viable basis

for calculating NV, we compared the

respondent’s volume of home market

sales of the foreign like product to the

volume of its U.S. sales of the subject

merchandise. Pursuant to sections

773(a)(1)(B) and (C) of the Act, because

Twaron’s aggregate volume of the 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 provides a viable

basis for calculating NV on home market

sales.

We calculated NV based on packed,

ex-factory or delivered prices to

unaffiliated purchasers in the home

market. We made adjustments for

discounts. Where applicable, we

deducted home market packing costs

and added U.S. packing costs. In

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

Act, where applicable, we made

deductions from the starting price for

inland freight and inland insurance. In

addition, we made a circumstance of

sale adjustment for imputed credit

expenses, in accordance with section

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

reported net of value added taxes

(‘‘VAT’’) and, therefore, no deduction

for VAT was necessary. We made

adjustments, where appropriate, for

physical differences in merchandise in

accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii)

of the Act. We based this adjustment on

the difference in the variable costs of

manufacturing for the foreign like

product and the subject merchandise. We derived the CEP offset amount

from the amount of the indirect selling

expenses on sales in the home market.

See Level of Trade section of this notice.

We limited the home market indirect

selling expense deduction by the

amount of the indirect selling expenses

deducted from CEP, pursuant to section

772(d) of the Act.

Cost of Production Analysis

In the most recently completed

administrative review of Twaron, we

disregarded sales found to be below the

COP. Therefore, in accordance with

section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the

Department has reasonable grounds to

believe or suspect that sales below the

COP may have occurred during this

review period. Thus, pursuant to section

773(b) of the Act, we initiated a COP

investigation of Twaron in the instant

review.

In accordance with section 773(b)(3)

of the Act, we calculated the weightedaverage COP, by model, based on the

sum of the cost of materials and

fabrication employed in producing the

foreign like product, plus amounts for

home market selling, general and

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

packing costs in accordance with

section 773(b)(3) of the Act. We used the

home market sales data and COP

information provided by Twaron in its

questionnaire responses. After calculating a weighted-average

COP, we tested whether home market

sales of PPD–T aramid were made at

prices below COP within an extended

period of time in substantial quantities,

and whether such prices permitted

recovery of all costs within a reasonable

period of time. We compared modelspecific COP to the reported home

market prices less any applicable

movement charges, discounts, and

indirect selling expenses. Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C),

where less than 20 percent of Twaron’s

sales of a given model were at prices

less than 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.’’ In accordance with section

773(b)(2)(B) and (D) where 20 percent or

more of home market sales of a given

product during the POR were at prices

less than the COP, we found that such

sales were made in substantial

quantities within an extended period of

time. Because the sales prices would not

permit recovery of all costs within a

reasonable period of time, we

disregarded those below-cost sales and

used the remaining sales to determine

NV in accordance with section

773(b)(1). For those models of PPD–T

aramid for which there were no home

market sales available for matching

purposes, we compared CEP to CV.

Constructed Value

In accordance with section 773(e) of

the Act, we calculated CV based on the

sum of Twaron’s cost of materials and

fabrication employed in producing the

subject merchandise, SG&A and profit

incurred and realized in connection

with production and sale of the foreign

like product, and U.S. packing costs. In

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

we based SG&A and profit on the

amounts incurred and realized by

Twaron in connection with the

production and sale of the foreign like

product in the ordinary course of trade,

for consumption in the foreign country.

We used the costs of materials,

fabrication, and SG&A as reported in the

CV portion of Twaron’s questionnaire

response. We used the U.S. packing

costs as reported in the U.S. sales

portion of Twaron’s questionnaire

response. We based selling expenses

and profit on the information reported

in the home market sales portion of

Twaron’s questionnaire response. See

Certain Pasta from Italy; Notice of

Preliminary Determination of Sales at

Less Than Fair Value and Postponement

of Final Determination, 61 FR 1344,

1349 (January 19, 1996). For selling

expenses, we used the average of the

home market selling expenses weighted

by the respective quantities sold. For

actual profit, we first calculated the

difference between the home market

sales value and home market COP for all

home market sales in the ordinary

course of trade, and divided the sum of

these differences by the total home

market COP for these sales. We then

multiplied this percentage by the COP

for each U.S. model to derive profit

amount. Finally, the CEP offset was

derived in the same manner described

in the Normal Value section of this

notice.

41628 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 130 / Thursday, July 6, 2000 / Notices

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 as the EP or CEP.

The NV level of trade 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 EP, the U.S.

level of trade is also the level of the

starting-price sale, which is usually

from exporter to importer. For CEP, the

level of trade is based on the transaction

between the exporter and the importer

for which we construct the price.

To determine whether NV sales are at

a different level of trade than EP or CEP,

we examine stages in the marketing

process and selling functions along the

chain of distribution between the

producer and the unaffiliated customer.

If the comparison-market sales are at a

different level of trade, and the

difference affects price comparability, as

manifested in a pattern of consistent

price differences between the sales on

which NV is based and comparisonmarket sales at the level of trade of the

export transaction, we make a level of

trade 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 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-to-Length

Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa,

62 FR 61731, 61732–33 (November 19,

1997) (‘‘South Africa Final’’).

For purposes of our analysis, we

examined information regarding the

distribution systems in both the United

States and the Dutch markets, including

the selling functions, classes of

customer, and selling expenses. Upon

consideration of the above mentioned

factors, the Department determined that

there is one level of trade and one

channel of distribution in the home

market (direct to end users) and a

different level of trade in the U.S.

market (sales to an affiliated

distributor). As such, we were unable to

make product comparisons at the same

level of trade nor were we able to

calculate a level of trade adjustment. We

have determined that Twaron’s NV sales

to end-users/converters in the home

market, as well as CV, are at a more

advanced stage of distribution than CEP

sales. As a result, the Department has

preliminarily determined to grant

Twaron an adjustment to NV in the form

of a CEP offset.

For a detailed description of our levelof-trade analysis for these preliminary

results, see the June 29, 2000, Level of

Trade Analysis Memorandum to The

File, on file in the CRU, Room B–099 of

the main Commerce building.

Currency Conversion

For purposes of the preliminary

results, we made currency conversions

in accordance with section 773A of the

Act, based on the exchange rates in

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

certified by the Federal Reserve Bank of

New York. See Change in Policy

Regarding Currency Conversions, 61 FR

9434 (March 8, 1996). 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.’’ 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 South Africa Final.

The benchmark is defined as the rolling

average of rates for the past 40 business

days. When we determine that a

fluctuation exists, we substitute the

benchmark for the daily rate, in

accordance with established practice.

Therefore, for purposes of the current

review, we have made currency

conversions based on the official

exchange rates in effect on the dates of

the U.S. sales based on the methodology

discussed above.

Preliminary Results of the Review

As a result of this review, we

preliminarily determine that the

following weighted-average dumping

margin exists:

Exporter/manufacturer

Weightedaverage

margin

Twaron ...................................... 3.20%

We will disclose the calculations used

in our analysis to parties to this

proceeding within five days of the

publication date of this notice. See 19

CFR 351.224(b). Any interested party

may request a hearing within 30 days of

the date of publication of this notice.

See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if

requested, will be held 44 days after the

date of publication, or the first workday

thereafter. Interested parties may submit

case briefs within 30 days of the date of

publication of this notice. Parties who

submit case briefs in this proceeding

should provide a summary of the

arguments not to exceed five pages and

a table of statutes, regulations, and cases

cited. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues

raised in the case briefs, may be filed

not later than 37 days after the date of

publication. 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. The Department

will publish a notice of 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 the hearing, within 120

days from the publication of these

preliminary results.

Assessment Rate

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the

Department shall determine, and the

United States Customs Service shall

assess, antidumping duties on all

appropriate entries. In accordance with

19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have

calculated importer-specific assessment

rates by aggregating the dumping

margins calculated for all U.S. sales and

dividing this amount by the estimated

entered value (provided by respondents)

of the same merchandise on an

importer-specific basis. Upon

completion of this review, the

Department will instruct the U.S.

Customs Service to assess antidumping

duties on all entries during the POR by

applying the assessment rate to the

entered value of the merchandise.

Cash Deposit Requirements

To calculate the cash-deposit rate for

Twaron in this administrative review,

we divided the total dumping margins

for Twaron by the total net value of

Twaron’s sales during the review

period. Furthermore, the following

deposit rates will be effective upon

publication of the final results of this

administrative review for all shipments

of PPD–T aramid from the Netherlands

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after the

publication date, as provided by section

751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash

deposit rate for Twaron will be the rate

established in the final results of this

review, except if the rate is less than 0.5

percent and, therefore, de minimis, the

cash deposit will be zero; (2) for

previously reviewed or investigated

companies not listed above, the cash

deposit rate will continue to be the

company-specific rate published for the

most recent final results in which that

manufacturer or exporter participated;

(3) if the exporter is not a firm covered

in this review, a prior review, or the

original less-than-fair-value (‘‘LTFV’’)

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