Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 153 / Friday, August 8, 1997 / Notices 42755

circumstances, we preliminarily find

that antidumping duties have been

absorbed by Makita on 16.3 percent of

its U.S. sales.

Preliminary Results of Review

As a result of our review, we

preliminarily determine that the

following weighted-average dumping

margin exists for the period June 30,

1995, through July 1, 1996:

Manufacturer/exporter

Margin

(percent)

Makita Corporation ......................... 0.50

Parties to the proceeding may request

disclosure within five days of the date

of publication of this notice. Any

interested party may request a hearing

within 10 days of publication. Any

hearing, if requested, will be held 44

days after the date of publication or the

first business day thereafter. Case briefs

and/or other written comments from

interested parties may be submitted not

later than 30 days after the date of

publication. Rebuttal briefs and

rebuttals to written comments, limited

to issues raised in those comments, may

be filed not later than 37 days after the

date of publication of this notice. The

Department will publish the final

results of this administrative review,

including its analysis of issues raised in

any written comments or at a hearing,

not later than 120 days after the date of

publication of this notice.

The Department shall determine, and

the U.S. Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. We have calculated an importerspecific ad valorem duty assessment

rate based on the ratio of the total

amount of antidumping duties

calculated for the examined sales made

during the POR to the total customs

value of the sales used to calculate those

duties. This rate will be assessed

uniformly on all entries of that

particular importer made during the

POR. (This is equivalent to dividing the

total amount of antidumping duties,

which are calculated by taking the

difference between statutory NV and

statutory EP or CEP, by the total

statutory EP or CEP value of the sales

compared, and adjusting the result by

the average difference between EP or

CEP and customs value for all

merchandise examined during the POR).

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entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,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 the final results of

these administrative reviews, as

provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:

(1) The cash deposit rate for Makita will

be the rate established in the final

results of this review (except that no

deposit will be required for Makita if we

find zero or de minimis margins, i.e.,

margins less than 0.5 percent); (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 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 for the most recent period

for the manufacturer of the

merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit

rate for all other manufacturers or

exporters will continue to be 54.52

percent, the ‘‘All Others’’ rate made

effective by the LTFV investigation.

These deposit requirements, when

imposed, shall remain in effect until

publication of the final results of the

next administrative review.

This notice also serves as a

preliminary reminder to importers of

their responsibility under 19 C.F.R.

353.26 to file a certificate regarding the

reimbursement of antidumping duties

prior to liquidation of the relevant

entries during this review period.

Failure to comply with this requirement

could result in the Secretary’s

presumption that reimbursement of

antidumping duties occurred and the

subsequent assessment of double

antidumping duties.

This administrative review and notice

are in accordance with section 751(a)(1)

of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19

C.F.R. 353.22(c)(5).

Dated: July 31, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–20940 Filed 8–7–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–570–825]

Sebacic Acid From the People’s

Republic of China; Preliminary Results

of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of

antidumping duty administrative review

of sebacic acid from the People’s

Republic of China.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

(the Department) is conducting an

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on sebacic acid

from the People’s Republic of China

(PRC) in response to requests from the

petitioner, Union Camp Corporation,

and three respondents: Tianjin

Chemicals Import and Export

Corporation (Tianjin), Guangdong

Chemicals Import and Export

Corporation (Guangdong) and Sinochem

International Chemicals Company, Ltd.

(SICC). This review covers four

exporters of the subject merchandise,

including the three respondent

companies above and Sinochem Jiangsu

Import and Export Corporation

(Jiangsu). The period of review (POR) is

July 1, 1995, through June 30, 1996.

We have preliminarily determined

that sales have been made below normal

value (NV) during this period. If these

preliminary results are adopted in the

final results of this administrative

review, we will instruct the U.S.

Customs Service to assess antidumping

duties equal to the difference between

United States price (USP) and NV.

These assessment rates, if adopted for

the final results of the review, will be

calculated on an importer-specific ad

valorem duty basis. Interested parties

are invited to comment on these

preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 8, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lyn

Baranowski, Doreen Chen, or Stephen

Jacques, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and

Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone:

(202) 482–3793.

Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute are references to

the provisions effective January 1, 1995,

the effective date of the amendments

made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act)

by the Uruguay Rounds Agreements Act

(URAA). In addition, unless otherwise

indicated, all citations to the

Department’s regulations are in

reference to the regulations, codified at

19 CFR part 353, as they existed on

April 1, 1996.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Department published in the

Federal Register an antidumping duty

order on sebacic acid from the PRC on

July 14, 1995 (59 FR 35909). On July 8,
42756 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 153 / Friday, August 8, 1997 / Notices

1996, the Department published in the

Federal Register (61 FR 35712) a notice

of opportunity to request an

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on sebacic acid

from the PRC covering the period July

1, 1995, through June 30, 1996.

On July 9, 1996, in accordance with

19 CFR 353.22(a), Union Camp

requested that we conduct an

administrative review of Tianjin,

Guangdong, SICC, and Jiangsu. On July

30, 1996, Tianjin and SICC requested

that we conduct an administrative

review. We published a notice of

initiation of this antidumping duty

administrative review on August 15,

1996 (61 FR 42416). The Department is

conducting this administrative review

in accordance with section 751 of the

Act.

Scope of Review

The products covered by this order

are all grades of sebacic acid, a

dicarboxylic acid with the formula

(CH2)8(COOH)2, which include but are

not limited to CP Grade (500ppm

maximum ash, 25 maximum APHA

color), Purified Grade (1000ppm

maximum ash, 50 maximum APHA

color), and Nylon Grade (500ppm

maximum ash, 70 maximum ICV color).

The principal difference between the

grades is the quantity of ash and color.

Sebacic acid contains a minimum of 85

percent dibasic acids of which the

predominant species is the C10 dibasic

acid. Sebacic acid is sold generally as a

free-flowing powder/flake.

Sebacic acid has numerous industrial

uses, including the production of nylon

6/10 (a polymer used for paintbrush and

toothbrush bristles and paper machine

felts), plasticizers, esters, automotive

coolants, polyamides, polyester castings

and films, inks and adhesives,

lubricants, and polyurethane castings

and coatings.

Sebacic acid is currently classifiable

under subheading 2917.13.00.00 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

proceeding remains dispositive.

This review covers the period July 1,

1995, through June 30, 1996, and four

exporters of Chinese sebacic acid.

Verification

We conducted verification of the sales

and factor information provided by

respondent SICC located in Beijing, PRC

and its producer, Tianjin Zhong He

Chemical Plant (Zhong He), located in

Tianjin, PRC. We conducted the

verifications using standard verification

procedures, including onsite inspection

of the manufacturer’s facilities, the

examination of relevant sales and

financial records, and selection of

original documentation containing

relevant information. Our verification

results are outlined in the public

versions of the verification reports.

Separate Rates

1. Background and Summary of

Findings

It is the Department’s standard policy

to assign all exporters of the

merchandise subject to review in nonmarket-economy countries a single rate,

unless an exporter can demonstrate an

absence of government control, both in

law and in fact, with respect to exports.

To establish whether an exporter is

sufficiently independent of government

control to be entitled to a separate rate,

the Department analyzes the exporter in

light of the criteria established in the

Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the

People’s Republic of China (56 FR

20588, May 6, 1991) (Sparklers), as

amplified in the Final Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon

Carbide from the People’s Republic of

China (59 FR 22585, May 2, 1994)

(Silicon Carbide). Evidence supporting,

though not requiring, a finding of de

jure absence of government control over

export activities includes: (1) An

absence of restrictive stipulations

associated with an individual exporter’s

business and export licenses; (2) any

legislative enactments decentralizing

control of companies; and (3) any other

formal measures by the government

decentralizing control of companies.

Evidence relevant to a de facto absence

of government control with respect to

exports is based on four factors, whether

the respondent: (1) Sets its own export

prices independent from the

government and other exporters; (2) can

retain the proceeds from its export sales;

(3) has the authority to negotiate and

sign contracts; and (4) has autonomy

from the government regarding the

selection of management. See Silicon

Carbide at 22587; See also Sparklers at

20589.

In our final determination of sales at

less than fair value, the Department

determined that there was de jure and

de facto absence of government control

of each company’s export activities and

determined that each company

warranted a company-specific dumping

margin. See Final Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sebacic

Acid From the People’s Republic of

China, 59 FR 28053 (Sebacic Acid). For

this period of review, SICC and Tianjin

have responded to the Department’s

request for information regarding

separate rates. We have found that the

evidence on the record is consistent

with the final determination in the

LTFV investigation and continues to

demonstrate an absence of government

control, both in law and in fact, with

respect to their exports, in accordance

with the criteria identified in Sparklers

and Silicon Carbide. During verification

of SICC, we examined its business and

financial statements. We found no

evidence of government control of

SICC’s export activities.

For Guangdong, which had no sales

during this POR, the company-specific

rate of 13.54% from the previous

administrative review remains

unchanged.

2. Separate Rate Determination for Nonresponsive Company

For Jiangsu, which did not respond to

the questionnaire, we preliminarily

determine that this company does not

merit a separate rate. Because the

Department assigns a single rate to

companies in a non-market economy

unless an exporter can demonstrate

absence of government control, we

preliminarily determine that Jiangsu is

subject to the country-wide rate for this

case.

United States Price

For SICC and Tianjin, the Department

based USP on export price (EP), in

accordance with section 772(a) of the

Act. We made deductions from EP,

where appropriate, for foreign inland

freight, ocean freight, brokerage and

handling, and marine insurance. See

‘‘Factor Valuation’’ section of this

notice. We selected India as the

surrogate country for the reasons

explained in the ‘‘Normal Value’’

section of this notice.

Normal Value

Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides

that the Department shall determine the

normal value (NV) using a factors-ofproduction methodology if: (1) The

merchandise is exported from an NME

country; and (2) the information does

not permit the calculation of NV using

home-market prices, third-country

prices, or constructed value under

section 773(a) of the Act.

The Department has treated the PRC

as an NME country in all previous

antidumping cases. In accordance with

section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any

determination that a foreign country is

a NME country shall remain in effect

until revoked by the administering

authority. None of the parties to this

proceeding has contested such
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 153 / Friday, August 8, 1997 / Notices 42757

treatment in this review. Furthermore,

available information does not permit

the calculation of NV using home

market prices, third country prices or

CV under section 773(a) of the Act.

Therefore, we treated the PRC as a NME

country for purposes of this review and

calculated NV by valuing the factors of

production in a comparable market

economy country which is a significant

producer of comparable merchandise.

Factors of production include, but are

not limited to: (1) Hours of labor

required; (2) quantities of raw materials

employed; (3) amounts of energy and

other utilities consumed; and (4)

representative capital cost, including

depreciation.

Section 773(c)(4) of the Act and

section 353.52(b) of the Department’s

regulations direct us to select a

surrogate country that is economically

comparable to the PRC. On the basis of

per capita gross national product (GNP),

the growth rate in per capita GNP, and

the national distribution of labor, we

find that India is a comparable economy

to the PRC (See Memorandum from

Director, Office of Policy, to Office

Director, AD/CVD Group III, Office 9,

dated June 24, 1997.).

The statute (section 773(c)(4) of the

Act and section 353.52(b) of the

Department’s regulations) also requires

that, to the extent possible, the

Department use a surrogate country that

is a significant producer of merchandise

comparable to sebacic acid. The

countries that we confirmed to be

producers of sebacic acid, such as Japan

and the United States, do not have

economies comparable to the PRC.

However, we found that India was a

significant producer of comparable

merchandise (e.g., oxalic acid) during

the POR. Though sebacic acid and

oxalic acid have different end uses, both

are dicarboxylic acids. In addition,

many of the inputs used to produce

sebacic acid are also used to produce

oxalic acid. Therefore, we find that

India fulfills both requirements of the

statute.

For purposes of calculating NV, we

valued PRC factors of production, in

accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the

Act. In examining surrogate values, we

selected, where possible, the publicly

available value which was: (1) An

average non-export value; (2)

representative of a range of prices

within the POR or most

contemporaneous with the POR; (3)

product-specific; and (4) tax-exclusive.

We chose values with a preference for

prices most contemporaneous with the

POR. Where we could not obtain a PORrepresentative price for an input, we

selected a value in accordance with the

remaining criteria mentioned above and

which was the closest in time to the

POR. In accordance with this

methodology, we valued the factors of

production as follows:

For castor oil and castor seed, the

Department valued this material using

price data reported in The Economic

Times (Bombay) for Calcutta, Delhi,

Hyderabad, and Kanpur during the

months of June 1995 through December

1995. Respondents provided this price

information for castor oil and castor

seed. The Department adjusted these

values to account for freight costs

between the supplier and the

respondents’ sebacic acid

manufacturing facilities.

For caustic soda, the Department used

the value reported in the publication

Indian Chemical Weekly, using data

from the months of July 1995 through

June 1996. Because price quotes for

caustic soda reported by Chemical

Weekly are for chemicals with a 100%

concentration level of caustic soda, we

made chemical purity adjustments

according to the particular

concentration level of caustic soda used

by respondents. We adjusted these

values to exclude taxes and to include

freight expenses incurred from the

suppliers to the respondents’ sebacic

acid manufacturing facilities.

For cresol, both respondents and

petitioner reported market values

published by Chemical Weekly for the

period of July 1995 through June 1996.

The Department reviewed pricing

information for other months of the POR

which indicated that the market price

reported by respondents are

representative of the market price of the

material for the entire POR. We adjusted

this value for taxes and freight expenses.

The valuation of activated carbon,

which is interchangeable with

macropore resin, was based upon

information found in the publication

India’s Imports by CommoditiesCountries (Monthly Statistics of the

Foreign Trade of India (IMF)). This

pricing information reflects the average

unit import price for the period April

1995 through February 1996.

The market values for sodium

chloride (also referred to as sodium

chlorite or vacuum salt), sulphuric acid,

and zinc oxide were based upon the

published market prices reported in

Chemical Weekly for the period of July

1995 through June 1996. We adjusted

these values for taxes and freight

expenses.

For benzenic sulphuric acid, neither

the petitioner nor the respondent

submitted a surrogate value. After

extensive research, we failed to locate a

chemical called ‘‘benzenic sulphuric

acid.’’ However, according to the

Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology,

when benzene is sulfonated with

sulphuric acid, a chemical called

benzenic sulfonic acid is produced.

Therefore, we used a value for benzenic

sulfonic acid as a substitute surrogate

value for benzenic sulphuric acid. The

value we used is from the Monthly

Statistics of the Foreign Trade of India

for the period April 1995 through

February 1996.

For direct labor, we used 1994 data

from Investing, Licensing & Trading

Conditions Abroad, India, issues

November 1995 and November 1996, by

the Economist Intelligence Unit.

For factory overhead, we used

information obtained from the April

1995 Reserve Bank of India Bulletin.

From ‘‘Statement 1—Combined Income,

Value of Production, Expenditure and

Appropriation Accounts, Industry

Group-wise’’ of that report for the

Indian metals and chemicals industries,

we summed those components which

pertain to overhead expenses and

divided them by the sum of those

components pertaining to the cost of

manufacturing to calculate an overhead

rate of 15.42 percent.

For steam coal, we used prices

published in Monthly Statistics of

Foreign Trade of India, Volume II—

Imports for the period of April 1995

through January 1996, and for

electricity, we used information

obtained from the Current Energy Scene

in India for July 1995.

For selling, general, and

administrative (SG&A) expenses, we

used information from the same source

we used for factory overhead. We

summed the values which comprised

the components of SG&A and divided

that figure by the same cost of

manufacturing figure used to determine

factory overhead, to arrive at an SG&A

rate of 21.67 percent.

For the calculation of profit, we used

information from the April 1995 Reserve

Bank of India Bulletin. We divided the

reported before-tax profit for the

‘‘processing and manufacture: metals,

chemicals, and products thereof’’

category by the sum of those

components pertaining to the cost of

manufacturing plus SG&A to calculate a

profit rate of 5.24 percent.

For the value of export packing

(plastic bags and woven bags), the

Department used the value of imports

into India during April 1995 through

February 1996, as reported in the

Monthly Statistics of Foreign Trade of

India, Volume II. We adjusted this value

to account for freight expenses.

For foreign inland freight, the

Department relied upon the trucking
42758 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 153 / Friday, August 8, 1997 / Notices

freight rates reported to the Department

in an August 1993 embassy cable from

India, pursuant to the less-than-fairvalue investigation of Certain Helical

Spring Lock Washers from the PRC and

the rail freight rates reported to the

Department in a December 1989

embassy cable for the final results of the

antidumping administrative review for

Shop Towels of Cotton from the PRC.

This is the same information we used in

the sebacic acid less-than-fair-value

investigation. We adjusted these rates

for the POR to reflect inflation, based on

information published in the

International Financial Statistics of the

International Monetary Fund.

For ocean freight, we used the

surrogate value provided by the

respondent in the first review. This

value was added to values for delivery

destination charges and fuel adjustment

charges provided by the Federal

Maritime Commission on January 24,

1997.

To calculate the expense for marine

insurance, we used information from a

publicly summarized version of the

questionnaire response for the

investigation of sales of less than fair

value of Sulphur Vat Dyes from India.

The marine insurance rate reported in

the public version of the October 8,

1992 response was adjusted for inflation

to reflect marine insurance charges

during the POR, based on information

published in the International Financial

Statistics of the International Monetary

Fund.

For foreign brokerage and handling

charges, we used information from

publicly available data for foreign

brokerage and handling reported for the

investigation for Sulphur Vat Dyes. The

rate documented is Rs 0.39/kg. We

adjusted this value for inflation using

the inflator value of 1.40 that the

Department calculated from the

International Financial Statistics,

published by the International Monetary

Fund.

Consistent with the methodology

employed in the final determination in

the less-than-fair-value investigation of

this case, we have determined that fatty

acid and glycerine are by-products. See

Sebacic Acid at 28056. Therefore, as byproducts, we subtracted the sales

revenue of fatty acid and glycerine from

the production costs of sebacic acid.

This treatment of by-products is also

consistent with generally accepted

accounting principles. (See Cost

Accounting: A Managerial Emphasis

(1991) at pages 539–544).

To value fatty acid, we used publicly

available published information from

the Monthly Statistics of the Foreign

Trade of India (Monthly Statistics) for

the period April 1995 through February

1996.

To value glycerine, we used the

average price for glycerine (IW and CP)

in the publication Chemical Weekly for

the period July 1995 through June 1996

and adjusted the value to account for

sales and excise taxes.

We also allocated a by-product credit

for glycerine to the production cost for

the co-product caproyl alcohol. We

deducted a by-product credit for

glycerine from both sebacic acid and

caproyl alcohol based on the ratio of the

value of sebacic acid to the total value

of both sebacic acid and caproyl

alcohol.

Consistent with the methodology

employed in the final determination in

the less-than-fair-value investigation of

this case, we have determined that

caproyl alcohol is a co-product.

Therefore, we have allocated the factor

inputs, based on the relative quantity of

output of this product and sebacic acid.

Additionally, we have used the

production times necessary to complete

each production stage of sebacic acid as

a basis for allocating the amount of

labor, energy usage, and factory

overhead among the products. This

treatment of co-products is consistent

with generally accepted accounting

principles. (See Cost Accounting: A

Managerial Emphasis (1991) at pages

528–533).

To value caproyl alcohol, we used

publicly available published

information for octanol from Chemical

Weekly and adjusted for sales and excise

taxes. We used the Chemical Weekly

octanol value as the surrogate value for

caproyl alcohol because, in a letter

submitted by respondents in attachment

four of their January 6, 1997 submission

concerning surrogate values, the editor

of Chemical Weekly states that the

reference to octanol in the journal refers

to the more common 2-octanol, another

name for caproyl alcohol.

Preliminary Results of Review

For Jiangsu, which failed to respond

to the questionnaire, we have not

granted a separate rate and the countrywide rate will apply to all sales. For

Guangdong, which reported that there

were no sales during the POR, its

company-specific rate from the previous

administrative review remains

unchanged.

We preliminarily determine that the

following dumping margins exist:

Manufacturer/

exporter Time period

Margin

(percent)

Tianjin Chemicals I/E Corp 7/01/95—6/30/96 0.00

Manufacturer/

exporter Time period

Margin

(percent)

Sinochem International

Chemicals

Corp ............. 7/01/95—6/30/96 0.00

Guangdong

Chemicals I/

E Corp ......... 7/01/95—6/30/96 13.54

Country-Wide

Rate ............. 7/01/95—6/30/96 243.40

Parties to the proceeding may request

disclosure within 5 days of the date of

publication of this notice. Any

interested party may request a hearing

within 10 days of publication. Any

hearing, if requested, will be held 44

days after the publication of this notice,

or the first workday thereafter.

Interested parties may submit written

comments (case briefs) within 30 days

of the date of publication of this notice.

Rebuttal comments (rebuttal briefs),

which must be limited to issues raised

in the case briefs, may be filed not later

than 37 days after the date of

publication. The Department will

publish a notice of final results of this

administrative review, which will

include the results of its analysis of

issues raised in any such comments,

within 180 days of publication of these

preliminary results.

The Department shall determine, and

the Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. Individual differences between

USP and NV may vary from the

percentages stated above. The

Department will issue appraisement

instructions directly to the Customs

Service.

Furthermore, the following cash

deposit requirements will be effective

upon publication 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 date, as provided for by

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

reviewed companies named above

which have separate rates (SICC and

Tianjin), the cash deposit rates will be

the rates for those firms established in

the final results of this administrative

review; (2) for companies previously

found to be entitled to a separate rate

and for which no review was requested,

the cash deposit rates will be the rate

established in the most recent review of

that company; (3) for all other non-PRC

exporters of subject merchandise from

the PRC, the cash deposit rates will be

the rates applicable to the PRC supplier

of that exporter; and (4) the cash deposit

rate for non-PRC exporters of subject
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 153 / Friday, August 8, 1997 / Notices 42759

merchandise from the PRC will be the

rate applicable to the PRC supplier of

that exporter. These deposit rates, when

imposed, shall remain in effect until

publication of the final results of the

next administrative review.

Notification of Interested Parties

This notice also serves as a

preliminary reminder to importers of

their responsibility under 19 CFR

353.26 to file a certificate regarding the

reimbursement of antidumping duties

prior to liquidation of the relevant

entries during this review period.

Failure to comply with this requirement

could result in the Secretary’s

presumption that reimbursement of

antidumping duties occurred and the

subsequent assessment of double

antidumping duties.

This administrative review and notice

are in accordance with section 751(a)(1)

of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and

section 353.22 of the Department’s

regulations.

Dated: July 31, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–20937 Filed 8–7–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–351–806]

Silicon Metal From Brazil; Preliminary

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review and Intent Not

To Revoke in Part

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of

the antidumping duty administrative

review and intent not to revoke in part.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

(the Department) is conducting an

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on silicon

metal from Brazil in response to

requests by respondents Eletrosilex Belo

Horizonte (Eletrosilex), Companhia

Ferroligas Minas Gerais—Minasligas

(Minasligas), Companhia Brasileira

Carbureto de Calcio (CBCC), RIMA

Industrial S/A (RIMA), and Wabash

Alloys, a division of Connell Limited

Partnership, an interested party which

imported silicon metal during the

period of review. This review covers the

period July 1, 1995, through June 30,

1996.

We preliminarily determine not to

revoke the order with respect to CBCC

or Minasligas. These companies

submitted timely requests for revocation

in this review, however, in the final

results of the preceding administrative

review of this order the Department

determined that both companies had

dumping margins greater than de

minimis. Accordingly, these companies

have not met the requirements of 19

CFR 353.25 (i.e., three consecutive years

with zero or de minimis dumping

margins) and therefore do not qualify for

revocation under the Department’s

regulations.

We preliminarily determine that sales

have been made at less than normal

value (NV) during the POR by

Eletrosilex and Rima. If these

preliminary results are adopted in our

final results of administrative review,

we will instruct the U.S. Customs

Service to assess ad-valorem

antidumping duties equal to the

difference between export price (EP)

and NV. Interested parties are invited to

comment on these preliminary results.

Parties who submit comments are

requested to submit with the argument:

(1) A statement of the issue; and (2) a

brief summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 8, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Alexander Braier, Yury Beyzarov,

Sharon Harris, Sinem Sonmez, or James

C. Doyle, Office of Antidumping/

Countervailing Enforcement, Group III,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue N.W., Washington,

D.C. 20230; telephone 482–3793.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute and Regulations

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

Tariff Act by the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act (URAA). In addition,

unless otherwise indicated, all citations

to the Department’s regulations are to

the regulations, as codified at 19 CFR

part 353 (1996).

Background

On July 31, 1991, the Department

published in the Federal Register the

antidumping duty order on silicon

metal from Brazil (56 FR 36135). On

July 8, 1996, the Department published

a ‘‘Notice of Opportunity to Request

Administrative Review’’ on silicon

metal from Brazil in the Federal

Register for the period July 1, 1995,

through June 30, 1996 (61 FR 35712).

In accordance with 19 CFR

353.22(a)(1), Eletrosilex, Minasligas,

CBCC, and RIMA requested that the

Department conduct an administrative

review of their respective sales.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 353.25, Minasligas

and CBCC also requested revocation of

the antidumping duty order in part. On

August 15, 1995, the Department

published in the Federal Register a

notice of initiation of this antidumping

duty administrative review (61 FR

42416). On March 7, 1997, the

Department published in the Federal

Register its notice extending the

deadline in these preliminary results

until May 14, 1997 (62 FR 10540). Due

to the complicated issues in this case,

the Department again extended the

deadline for these preliminary results

until July 31,1997 (62 FR 27235).

Verification

From March 17 through March 22,

1997, in accordance with section 782(i)

of the Act, we verified information

provided by Minasligas and Rima using

standard verification procedures

including examination of relevant sales

and financial records, and selection of

original source documentation

containing relevant information. Our

verification results are outlined in the

respective verification reports, the

public versions of which are available in

the Central Records Unit of the

Department of Commerce, room B–099.

Scope of Review

The merchandise covered by this

review is silicon metal from Brazil

containing at least 96.00 percent but less

than 99.99 percent silicon by weight.

Also covered by this review is silicon

metal from Brazil containing between

89.00 and 96.00 percent silicon by

weight but which contains more

aluminum than the silicon metal

containing at least 96.00 percent but less

than 99.99 percent silicon by weight.

Silicon metal is currently provided for

under subheadings 2804.69.10 and

2804.69.50 of the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule (HTS) as a chemical product,

but is commonly referred to as a metal.

Semiconductor grade silicon (silicon

metal containing by weight not less than

99.99 percent silicon and provided for

in subheading 2804.61.00 of the HTS) is

not subject to the order. HTS item

numbers are provided for convenience

and for U.S. Customs purposes. The

written description remains dispositive

as to the scope of product coverage.