42492 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 152 / Thursday, August 7, 1997 / Notices

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. 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. However, for the preliminary

results in this review we have

determined that a fluctuation did not

exist during the POR, and we have not

substituted the benchmark for the daily

rate.

Preliminary Results of Review

As a result of this review, we

preliminarily determine that the

following margin exists for the period

January 11, 1995, through June 30, 1996:

Manufacturer/exporter Margin

(percent)

Siam Food Products Public

Company Ltd ........................... 13.25

The Thai Pineapple Public Company, Ltd ................................. 33.06

Thai Pineapple Canning Industry

Corp., Ltd ................................ 6.54

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 ten days of publication. If

requested, a hearing will be held 44

days after the publication of this notice,

or the first workday thereafter.

Interested parties may submit case briefs

within 30 days of the date of publication

of this notice. 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 issue a notice of

the final results of this administrative

review, which will include the results of

its analysis of issues raised in any such

briefs, within 120 days from the

publication of these preliminary results.

The Department shall determine, and

the Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. The Department will issue

appraisement instructions directly to

the Customs Service. The final results of

this review shall be the basis for the

assessment of antidumping duties on

entries of merchandise covered by the

determination and for future deposits of

estimated duties. For duty assessment

purposes, we calculated, on an

importer-specific basis, an assessment

rate by aggregating the dumping margins

calculated for all U.S. sales and dividing

this amount by the total entered value

of subject merchandise sold during the

POR. This rate will be used for the

assessment of antidumping duties on

the relevant entries of subject

merchandise during the POR.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective upon

completion of the final results of this

administrative review for all shipments

of canned pineapple fruit from Thailand

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after the

publication date of the final results of

this administrative review, as provided

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

cash deposit rate for SFP, TIPCO, and

TPC will be the rate established in the

final results of this administrative

review; (2) if the exporter is not a firm

covered in this review or the original

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 (3) if neither the

exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm

covered in this review, the cash deposit

rate will be 24.64 percent, the ‘‘all

others’’ rate established in the less-thanfair-value investigation. See 60 FR

36775, 36776 (July 18, 1995).

This notice serves as a preliminary

reminder to importers of their

responsibility 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 sections

751(a)(1) and 751(d) of the Act (19

U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)), 19 CFR 353.22, and

19 CFR 353.25.

Dated: July 31, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–20733 Filed 8–6–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–821–807]

Ferrovanadium and Nitrided Vanadium

From the Russian Federation: Notice

of Preliminary Results and Partial

Recission of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results

and Partial Recission of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review.

SUMMARY: In response to a request from

Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation

(Shieldalloy), the petitioner, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) is conducting an

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on

ferrovanadium and nitrided vanadium

from the Russian Federation (Russia).

This notice of preliminary results covers

the period January 4, 1995, through June

30, 1996. The Department is now

rescinding this review in part with

respect to one exporter, Odermet, Ltd.,

who had no shipments of the subject

merchandise during the period of

review. For the second exporter, Galt

Alloys, Inc.(Galt), the review indicates

the existence of dumping margins

during this period for sales of

merchandise from one producer.

We have preliminarily determined

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 (Customs) to

assess antidumping duties equal to the

difference between the export price (EP)

and the NV. Interested parties are

invited to comment on these

preliminary results. Parties who submit

argument in this proceeding are

requested to submit with the argument:

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

brief summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 7, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David J. Goldberger or Mary Jenkins,

AD/CVD Enforcement II, Office 5,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,

DC 20230; telephone (202) 482–4136 or

(202) 482–1756, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute

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 Rounds

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 (April 1, 1997).

Background

The Department published an

antidumping duty order on
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 152 / Thursday, August 7, 1997 / Notices 42493

ferrovanadium and nitrided vanadium

from the Russian Federation on July 10,

1995 (60 FR 35550).

The Department published a notice of

‘‘Opportunity To Request an

Administrative Review’’ of the

antidumping duty order for this review

period on July 8, 1996 (61 FR 35712).

On July 17, 1996, Shieldalloy requested

that the Department conduct an

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on

ferrovanadium and nitrided vanadium

from Russia for exporters Galt and

Odermet, Ltd. We published a notice of

initiation of the review on August 15,

1996 (61 FR 42416).

In a letter dated September 9, 1996,

Odermet, Ltd., stated that it made no

shipments of the subject merchandise

during the review period. In response to

our query, Customs provided no

indication that Odermet had shipped

the merchandise during the review

period.

Under section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act,

the Department may extend the

deadline for the preliminary results 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

April 7, 1997, the Department extended

the time limit for the preliminary results

in this case (see Ferrovanadium and

Nitrided Vanadium from the Russian

Federation; Notice of Extension of Time

Limit for Antidumping Duty

Administrative Time Limit for

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 62 FR 16542, April 7, 1997).

The Department is conducting this

administrative review in accordance

with section 751 of the Act.

Recission

We have determined that during the

period of review (POR), Odermet did

not export the subject merchandise to

the United States. Therefore, we rescind

this review with respect to Odermet.

Scope of the Review

The products covered by this

administrative review are

ferrovanadium and nitrided vanadium,

regardless of grade, chemistry, form or

size, unless expressly excluded from the

scope of this order. Ferrovanadium

includes alloys containing

ferrovanadium as the predominant

element by weight (i.e., more weight

than any other element, except iron in

some instances) and at least 4 percent

by weight of iron. Nitrided vanadium

includes compounds containing

vanadium as the predominant element,

by weight, and at least 5 percent, by

weight, of nitrogen. Excluded from the

scope of this order are vanadium

additives other than ferrovanadium and

nitrided vanadium, such as vanadiumaluminum master alloys, vanadium

chemicals, vanadium waste and scrap,

vanadium-bearing raw materials, such

as slag, boiler residues, fly ash, and

vanadium oxides.

The products subject to this order are

currently classifiable under subheadings

2850.00.20, 7202.92.00, 7202.99.5040,

8112.40.3000, and 8112.40.6000 of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (HTSUS). Although the

HTSUS subheadings are provided for

convenience and customs purposes, our

written description of the scope is

dispositive.

The POR is January 4, 1995, through

June 30, 1996, covering one exporter,

Galt.

Fair Value Comparisons

Galt, a U.S. company, reported that it

purchased merchandise produced by

two producers—SC-Vanadium

Tulachermet (Tulachermet) and

Chusovoy Metallurgical Works

(Chusovoy)—and re-sold the

merchandise to customers in the United

States and other countries via a

warehouse in Europe. Galt reported that

neither producer is affiliated with Galt

and at the time of each producer’s sale

to Galt, neither producer knew the

ultimate destination of the merchandise.

Thus, for purposes of the fair value

comparison, Galt’s sales to its first

unaffiliated U.S. customer form the

basis of export price.

However, these producers knew at the

time of the sale that the merchandise

was destined for exportation. Further,

the subject merchandise was merely

transhipped through the intermediate

country. Therefore, in accordance with

section 773(a)(3), normal value is

determined in the country of origin

using the factors of production

methodology, as discussed below.

Both Tulachermet and Chusovoy

responded to the Department’s initial

antidumping questionnaire, but

Chusovoy did not respond to the

Department’s supplemental

questionnaire. Tulachermet has

continued to cooperate with the

Department’s requests for information.

Under section 776(a)(2) (A) and (B) of

the Act, the Department shall use facts

otherwise available in making its

determinations if an interested party

withholds or fails to provide

information at the time and in the

manner requested. In this instance, the

NV information necessary to calculate

antidumping duties for Galt’s sales of

Chusovoy-produced merchandise is not

on the record because Chusovoy failed

to provide requested information by the

established deadline. The limited

information that Chusovoy submitted is

so incomplete that it cannot serve as a

reliable basis for reaching the applicable

determination in this review. As a

result, pursuant to sections 776(a) and

782(e) of the Act, the Department must

resort to facts available.

Section 776(b) of the Act permits the

Department to use an adverse inference

in selecting from facts available if the

Department finds that an interested

party has not cooperated to the best of

its ability in responding to a request for

information. By failing to respond,

Chusovoy has not cooperated to the best

of its ability. Therefore, we find it

appropriate to apply adverse facts

available with regard to Galt’s sales of

Chusovoy-produced merchandise. At

the same time, both Galt and its second

Russian supplier, Tulachermet, fully

cooperated with the Department. Thus,

under section 776(b) of the Act, an

adverse inference is not warranted with

respect to sales of Tulachermet’s

merchandise.

The information submitted by Galt

and Tulachermet meets the

requirements of section 782(e) of the

Act:

(1) The information is timely;

(2) The information is verifiable;

(3) The information is not so

incomplete that it cannot serve as a

reliable basis for our determination;

(4) These parties have acted to the

best of their abilities in providing the

requested information; and

(5) The information can be used

without undue difficulties. Accordingly,

we have relied upon the information

submitted by Galt and Tulachermet.

Consistent with our current practice,

we have calculated a single rate

applicable to the exporter, Galt. This

rate reflects the use of adverse facts

available for Galt’s sales of Chusovoy

merchandise as well as calculated

margins for Galt’s sales of Tulachermet

merchandise (see, e.g., Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Pure Magnesium From

Ukraine, 60 FR 16433, March 30, 1995).

However, we will continue to examine

whether, given the facts of this case,

applying separate ‘‘combination rates’’

(i.e., rates for each specific exporter/

producer combination) would be more

appropriate. Therefore, we invite

comments from interested parties on

this issue.

Selection of Adverse Facts Available

Rate for Sales of Chusovoy-Produced

Merchandise

Section 776(b) authorizes the

Department to use as adverse facts
42494 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 152 / Thursday, August 7, 1997 / Notices

available information derived from the

petition, a final determination from a

segment of the proceeding, or other

information placed on the record.

Because information from the petition

and prior segments of the proceeding

constitute secondary information, the

Department must, to the extent

practicable, corroborate that secondary

information from independent sources

reasonably at its disposal, as stated in

section 776(c) of the Act.

In light of Chusovoy’s failure to

respond, we have determined that the

information in the petition is the most

appropriate facts available. To

corroborate that information, we

reviewed the data submitted and the

assumptions petitioners made in

calculating estimated dumping margins

in the petition. As discussed in detail in

‘‘Corroboration of FA Rates,’’

Memorandum to Jeffrey P. Bialos,

Principal Deputy Secretary for Import

Administration, from the

Ferrovanadium Team, dated July 31,

1997 (Corroboration Memo), we

compared the petition’s bases for U.S.

price (now export price), factors of

production, and surrogate values to

independent data from the period of

investigation. See also Preliminary

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review and Partial

Termination of Administrative Review:

Fresh Garlic from the People’s Republic

of China (61 FR 68229, 68230,

December 27, 1996), Preliminary Results

and Partial Rescission of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review: Certain

Cased Pencils From the People’s

Republic of China (62 FR 1734, 1735,

January 13, 1997), and Preliminary

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review Certain Carbon

Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings From

Thailand (62 FR 16541, 16542, April 7,

1997).

Based on our analysis, we determined

that the elements of the petition

calculation are reliable and, with one

adjustment, have probative value.

During the LTFV investigation, we

determined that the principal raw

material used by respondents to

produce the subject merchandise,

vanadium slag, was of significantly

lower quality than the material upon

which the petitioner estimated its

surrogate value (see also discussion

below under ‘‘Normal Value’’).

Therefore, we have adjusted the

valuation of the vanadium slag factor in

the petition to reflect this difference in

quality. With this adjustment, the

corroborated rate derived from the

petition is 88.63% .

Accordingly, for Galt’s sales of

Chusovoy-produced merchandise, we

have applied the recalculated petition

rate of 88.63 percent.

Galt’s Export Price and Constructed

Export Price

As Galt is located in a marketeconomy country and is not affiliated

with a Russian producer or exporter, we

are calculating a separate rate for this

reseller (see Bicycles From the PRC;

Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value, 61 FR 19026, 19027

(April 30, 1996)). During the POR, Galt

took possession of the Russia-produced

merchandise outside of the United

States and then sold the merchandise to

unaffiliated customers in the United

States.

For Galt’s sales of subject

merchandise produced by Tulachermet,

when the merchandise was sold directly

to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the

United States prior to importation and

when constructed export price (CEP)

methodology was not otherwise

indicated, we calculated the export

price (EP) of the subject merchandise

sold to the United States in accordance

with section 772(a) of the Act. Where

Galt’s sales to the first unaffiliated

purchaser took place after importation

into the United States, we based the

price in the United States on CEP, in

accordance with section 772(b) of the

Act.

We calculated EP based on the price

to unrelated purchasers in the United

States. We made deductions, where

appropriate, for the following movement

expenses incurred in market economy

currencies and provided by market

economy suppliers: foreign brokerage

and handling, ocean freight, marine

insurance, U.S. brokerage and handling,

U.S. inland freight, and U.S. duty

charges. We valued inland freight

expenses incurred in bringing the

subject merchandise from the Russian

plant to the reseller’s warehouse using

surrogate data based on South African

freight costs. We selected South Africa

as the surrogate country for the reasons

explained in the ‘‘Surrogate Country

Selection’’ section of this notice.

For CEP sales, we made additional

deductions for Galt’s direct and indirect

selling expenses, including inventory

carrying costs, incurred with regard to

economic activities in the United States,

as well as repacking, warehousing, and

credit expenses, pursuant to section

772(d)(1) of the Act. Galt reported its

indirect selling expenses on a fixed, perunit basis. We have recalculated these

expenses as a percentage of sales value,

based on information in Galt’s

questionnaire response, consistent with

the manner in which the Department

normally calculates indirect selling

expenses. We deducted an amount for

CEP profit by applying Galt’s profit rate

to the sum of selling expenses incurred

in the United States, in accordance with

section 772(f) of the Act.

No other adjustments to EP or CEP

sales were claimed or allowed.

Surrogate Country Selection

As noted above, NV is determined in

Russia, the country of origin, in

accordance with section 773(a)(3) of the

Act. Because the Department considers

Russia an NME country and the

producers of the merchandise exported

by Galt are located in Russia, we are not

able to determine NV on the basis of

these producers’ costs and prices.

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

that the Department shall determine the

NV on the basis of the value of the

factors of production if (1) the subject

merchandise is exported from an NME

country, and (2) the available

information does not permit the

calculation of NV under section 773(a)

of the Act. Therefore, we have applied

surrogate values to factors of production

to determine NV.

We determined that South Africa is

comparable to the Russian Federation in

terms of per capita gross national

product and the national distribution of

labor (See ‘‘Ferrovanadium and Nitrided

Vanadium from Russia: Nonmarket

Economy Status and Surrogate Country

Selection,’’ Memorandum to David

Binder from David Mueller, October 29,

1996). In addition, South Africa is a

significant producer of ferrovanadium.

Therefore, we chose South Africa as an

appropriate surrogate on the basis of the

above criteria and have used publicly

available information relating to South

Africa wherever possible to value the

various factors of production.

Normal Value

To determine the NV for Galt sales of

merchandise produced by Tulachermet,

we valued the factors of production as

discussed in the Valuation

Memorandum dated July 28, 1997, on

file in the Central Records Unit. The

values used are summarized below:

• We valued most raw materials and

packing materials based on South

African domestic prices in South

Africa’s Mineral Industry 1995/96

(SAMI 95/96) and unit prices, reported

net of taxes, based on South African

import data from Southern African

Customs Union Trade Statistics (SACU

Trade Statistics).

For vanadium slag, we valued a

portion of Tulachermet’s consumption

at the market economy price

Tulachermet paid for South African slag

consumed during the POR. The balance
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 152 / Thursday, August 7, 1997 / Notices 42495

of Tulachermet’s POR slag consumption

was Russian-sourced slag, which

contained a substantially lower

concentration of vanadium pentoxide.

We were unable to find any surrogate

value data for vanadium slag of this

quality. As facts available, we used

Tulachermet’s purchase price for South

African slag as the surrogate value and

adjusted it downward to account for the

difference in vanadium pentoxide

content, using the same adjustment

made in the LTFV investigation.

As discussed in the Valuation

Memorandum, the Department received

information in this proceeding that the

90% vanadium pentoxide prices used in

the LTFV adjustment methodology were

based on Russian material prices.

According to information obtained from

an industry publication, Metal Bulletin,

it is not possible to determine prices of

90% vanadium pentoxide from market

economy counties during that period. In

the absence of any other means to adjust

the slag value, we are applying the

LTFV methodology for the preliminary

results as facts available. In doing so, we

recognize that the 90% vanadium

pentoxide prices used to establish the

adjustment ratio represent merchandise

from a non-market economy. However,

it is the only information on the record

with which to make the adjustment. As

such, the resulting relationship between

90% vanadium pentoxide, produced

from low-grade slag equivalent to

Nizhni-Tagil slag, and 98% vanadium

pentoxide, produced from high-grade

South African slag, is the best available

means to account for the substantial

disparity between the material to be

valued and the material from which the

surrogate value is derived.

We were also unable to obtain

surrogate values for vanadium trioxide

and pre-alloyed vanadium. As facts

available, we valued these materials

based on South African vanadium

pentoxide and ferrovanadium prices,

respectively, adjusted for differences in

vanadium content.

For sulfuric acid, we used the average,

tax-exclusive, price reported by a South

African vanadium producer.

Finally, we were unable to identify

any comparable surrogate value for the

chemical input boron anhydride. The

quantity of this material used to

produce ferrovanadium is a very small

amount. For the preliminary results, we

have calculated NV without surrogate

material costs for this factor.

• To value truck and rail freight, we

used the South African rail rate used in

the LTFV investigation. We adjusted

this rate for inflation, using a wholesale

price index published by the

International Monetary Fund. We relied

on this rate for both truck and rail

transportation of input materials and for

foreign inland freight because we were

unable to find any other suitable

surrogate freight value.

Tulachermet did not report the

distance from its supplier of two

packing materials. As facts available, we

have used the farthest distance reported

by Tulachermet for any supplier in

calculating the surrogate freight costs for

these materials.

• For electricity, we used the average

POR rate for industrial users as

published by the South African state

utility company, ESKOM. For natural

gas, we used the South African POR

price provided to us by ESKOM.

• For labor, we used the skilled and

unskilled wage rates for the South

African metallurgical industry reported

to us by a South African producer of

vanadium.

• For factory overhead, selling,

general, and administrative (SG&A)

expenses and profit, we calculated

ratios from the 1995 Annual Report of

the South African ferrovanadium

manufacturer Highveld Steel and

Vanadium Co., Ltd.

Preliminary Results

As a result of this review, we

preliminarily determine that the

following weighted-average dumping

margin exists:

Exporter Period Margin

(percent)

Galt Alloys,

Inc. ........... 1/4/95–7/31/96 34.73

Parties to this proceeding may request

disclosure within five days of

publication of this notice and 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 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 37 days after the date of

publication. The Department will

publish a notice of the final results of

the 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 issuance of these

preliminary results.

The final results of this review shall

be the basis for the assessment of

antidumping dumping duties on entries

of merchandise covered by the

determination and for future deposits of

estimated duties. The Department shall

determine, and Customs shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. Individual differences between

EP and NV may vary from the

percentages stated above. The

Department will issue appraisement

instructions directly to Customs.

Further, the following deposit

requirements will be effective upon

completion of the final results of this

administrative review for all shipments

of ferrovanadium and nitrided

vanadium from the Russian Federation

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after the

publication date of the final results of

this administrative review, as provided

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

cash deposit rates for Galt will be the

producer-specific rates established in

the final results of this administrative

review; (2) for merchandise exported by

manufacturers or exporters not covered

in this review but covered in the

original LTFV investigation and have a

separate rate, the cash deposit rate will

continue to be the most recent rate

published in the final determination or

final results for which the manufacturer

or exporter received a company-specific

rate; (3) for Russian manufacturers or

exporters not covered in the LTFV

investigation, the cash deposit rate will

continue to be the Russia-wide rate of

108.00 percent; and (4) the cash deposit

rate for non-Russian exporters of subject

merchandise from Russia who were not

covered in the LTFV investigation or in

this administrative review, will also be

the Russia-wide rate. These deposit

rates, 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 353.26(b) to

file a certificate regarding the

reimbursement of antidumping duties

prior to liquidation of the relevant

entries during these review periods.

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

published in accordance with section

777(i).
42496 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 152 / Thursday, August 7, 1997 / Notices

Dated: July 31, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–20734 Filed 8–6–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–201–504]

Certain Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware

From Mexico: Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review.

SUMMARY: On January 31, 1997, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) published the preliminary

results of the administrative review of

the antidumping duty order on certain

porcelain-on-steel cookware from

Mexico (62 FR 4723) (preliminary

results). The review covers two

manufacturers/exporters of the subject

merchandise to the United States and

the period December 1, 1994, through

November 30, 1995.

We gave interested parties an

opportunity to comment on the

preliminary results. Based on our

analysis of the comments received and

the correction of certain clerical and

computer program errors, we have

changed the preliminary results. The

final results are listed below in the

section ‘‘Final Results of Review.’’

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 7, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate

Johnson or Dolores Peck, AD/CVD

Enforcement, Group II, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230,

telephone: (202) 482–4929.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On January 31, 1997, the Department

published in the Federal Register the

preliminary results of the administrative

review of the antidumping duty order

on certain porcelain-on-steel (POS)

cookware from Mexico (62 FR 4723). On

March 3, 1997, and March 10, 1997,

General Housewares Corp. (petitioner)

and, Cinsa and ENASA submitted case

and rebuttal briefs. The Department

held a hearing on March 27, 1997.

During June 23–27, 1997, the

Department verified respondent’s

submissions concerning the issues of

Cinsa’s and ENASA’s cross

manufacturing capability, alleged duty

reimbursement and frit purchases from

affiliated suppliers. On July 18, 1997,

the Department issued the verification

report and requested comments from

interested parties. The Department has

now completed its administrative

review in accordance with section 751

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended

(the Act).

Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute are references to

the provisions effective January 1, 1995,

the effective date of the amendments

made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act)

by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act

(URAA). In addition, unless otherwise

indicated, all citations to the

Department’s regulations are to the

regulations, codified at 19 CFR part 353

(April 1996).

Scope of the Review

Imports covered by this review are

shipments of porcelain-on-steel

cookware, including tea kettles, which

do not have self-contained electric

heating elements. All of the foregoing

are constructed of steel and are

enameled or glazed with vitreous

glasses. This merchandise is currently

classifiable under Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)

subheading 7323.94.00. Kitchenware

currently entering under HTSUS

subheading 7323.94.00.30 is not subject

to the order. Although the HTSUS

subheadings are provided for

convenience and Customs purposes, our

written description of the scope of this

proceeding is dispositive.

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

We have made the following changes

in these final results:

1. We reclassified ENASA’s U.S. sales

pursuant to a requirements contract as

constructed export price (CEP) sales.

See Comment 5 below.

2. We calculated a return freight

figure for merchandise returned to

Yamaka by its unrelated customer using

adverse facts available. We are assuming

that all unsold merchandise was

returned to the warehouse in Laredo,

Texas. See Comment 7 below.

3. We reclassified Cinsa’s and

ENASA’s home market warehouse

expenses as movement expenses and

have deducted the reported amount on

sales made from remote warehouses in

Mexico City and Guadalajara. See

Comment 8 below.

4. We deducted the reported indirect

selling expenses from USP for CEP sales

made by Cinsa International Corp. (CIC)

for both Cinsa and ENASA. See

Comment 9 below.

5. We have not deducted Cinsa’s and

ENASA’s reported Mexican indirect

selling expenses (i.e., indirect selling

expenses incurred in Mexico on U.S.

sales) from the CEP calculation. See

Comment 10 below.

6. We used the Federal Reserve Bank’s

actual daily exchange rates for currency

conversion purposes. See Comment 12

below.

7. We increased the frit portion of

direct materials costs for Cinsa and

ENASA to reflect only the

undocumented portion of costs savings

attributable to volume discounts on

purchases from an affiliated frit

supplier.

8. Computer Programming Errors

A. We corrected an error in both the

Cinsa and ENASA concordance

programs that incorrectly limited the

number of home market sales included

in the concordance.

B. We corrected an error in both the

Cinsa and ENASA concordance and

margin programs that incorrectly

matched sales within a 90/60 day

window, since during periods of high

inflation, we only use home market

sales in the same month as the U.S. sale

for comparison purposes.

C. We corrected an error in both the

Cinsa and ENASA concordance

programs that incorrectly rounded the

averaged, indexed COP and CV.

D. We corrected errors in the margin

program for ENASA that incorrectly

omitted weighted average commissions

and indirect selling expenses, causing

an incorrect calculation of the

commission offset.

E. We calculated an adjustment for

CEP profit for both Cinsa and ENASA in

the margin program.

F. We made adjustments for

differences in packing expenses for both

Cinsa and ENASA when comparing

non-identical merchandise.

Interested Party Comments

Comment 1: Should Cinsa and

ENASA be collapsed?

Petitioner argues that the Department

should collapse the affiliated parties

Cinsa and ENASA and treat them as a

single entity for purposes of assigning a

dumping margin. Petitioner notes that,

in this review, the two companies are

controlled by the same board of

directors, the same individuals manage

the two companies, and the companies’

plants are situated adjacent to each