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.
42760 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 153 / Friday, August 8, 1997 / Notices

Level of Trade

To the extent practicable, we

determine NV for sales at the same level

of trade as the U.S. sales (either export

price (EP) or constructed export price

(CEP)). When there are no sales at the

same level of trade, we compare U.S.

sales to home market (or, if appropriate,

third-country) sales at a different levelof-trade. The NV level of trade is that of

the starting-price sales in the home

market. When NV is based on CV, the

level of trade is that of the sales from

which we derive selling, general, and

administrative expenses (SG&A) and

profit.

For both EP and CEP, the relevant

transaction for the level of trade analysis

is the sale (or constructed sale) from the

exporter to the importer. While the

starting price for CEP is that of a

subsequent resale to an unaffiliated

buyer, the construction of the CEP

results in a price that would have been

charged if the importer had not been

affiliated. We calculate the CEP by

removing from the first resale to an

independent U.S. customer the

expenses under section 772(d) of the

Act and the profit associated with these

expenses. These expenses represent

activities undertaken by the affiliated

importer. Because the expenses

deducted under section 772(d) represent

selling activities in the United States,

the deduction of these expenses

normally yields a different level of trade

for the CEP than for the later resale

(which we use for the starting price).

Movement charges, duties and taxes

deducted under section 772(c) do not

represent activities of the affiliated

importer, and we do not remove them

to obtain the CEP level of trade.

To determine whether home market

sales are at a different level of trade than

U.S. sales, we examine whether the

home market sales are at different stages

in the marketing process than the U.S.

sales. The marketing process in both

markets begins with goods being sold by

the producer and extends to the sale to

the final user, regardless of whether the

final user is an individual consumer or

an industrial user. The chain of

distribution between the producer and

the final user may have many or few

links, and each respondent’s sales occur

somewhere along this chain. In the

United States, the respondent’s sales are

generally to an importer, whether

independent or affiliated. We review

and compare the distribution systems in

the home market and U.S. export

markets, including selling functions,

class of customer, and the extent and

level of selling expenses for each

claimed level of trade. Customer

categories such as distributor, original

equipment manufacturer (OEM), or

wholesaler are commonly used by

respondents to describe levels of trade,

but, without substantiation, they are

insufficient to establish that a claimed

level of trade is valid. An analysis of the

chain of distribution and of the selling

functions substantiates or invalidates

the claimed levels of trade. Different

levels of trade necessarily involve

differences in selling functions, but

differences in selling functions, even

substantial ones, are not alone sufficient

to establish a difference in the levels of

trade. Different levels of trade are

characterized by purchasers at different

stages in the chain of distribution and

sellers performing qualitatively or

quantitatively different functions in

selling to them.

When we compare U.S. sales to home

market sales at a different level of trade,

we make a level-of-trade adjustment if

the difference in levels of trade affects

price comparability. We determine any

effect on price comparability by

examining sales at different levels of

trade in a single market, the home

market. Any price effect must be

manifested in a pattern of consistent

price differences between home market

sales used for comparison and sales at

the equivalent level of trade of the

export transaction. To quantify the price

differences, we calculate the difference

in the average of the net prices of the

same models sold at different levels of

trade. We use the average difference in

net prices to adjust NV when NV is

based on a level of trade different from

that of the export sale. If there is a

pattern of no consistent price

differences, the difference in levels of

trade does not have a price effect and,

therefore, no adjustment is necessary.

The statute also provides for an

adjustment to NV when NV is based on

a level of trade different from that of the

CEP if the NV level is more remote from

the factory than the CEP and if we are

unable to determine whether the

difference in levels of trade between

CEP level and NV level affects the

comparability of their prices. This latter

situation can occur where there is no

home market level of trade equivalent to

the U.S. sales level or where there is an

equivalent home market level but the

data are insufficient to support a

conclusion on price effect. This

adjustment, the CEP offset, is identified

in section 773(7)(B) of the Act and is the

lower of the following:

• The indirect selling expenses on the

home market sale, or

• The indirect selling expenses

deducted from the starting price used to

calculate CEP.

The CEP offset is not automatic each

time we use CEP. The CEP offset is

made only when the level of trade of the

home market sale is more advanced

than the level of trade of the U.S. (CEP)

sale and there is not an appropriate

basis for determining whether there is

an effect on price comparability.

In the present review, none of the

respondents requested a level of trade

(LOT) adjustment. To ensure that no

such adjustment was necessary, in

accordance with the principles

discussed above, we examined

information regarding the distribution

systems in both the United States and

Brazilian markets, including the selling

functions, classes of customer, and

selling expenses for each respondent.

In the home market, all companies

sold merchandise to one or more of the

following three categories of customers:

end-users, traders, and commissioned

agents. Regardless of the category of

customer, all the companies’ home

market (HM) sales were manufactured to

order and the merchandise was shipped

directly from the factory to each type of

customer. The companies’ packing

processes were also identical for all

sales, and the selling expenses for the

POR were comparable for all sales,

regardless of the category of customer.

Evidence on the record also

demonstrates that the companies did

not have formal policies for providing

special payment terms, such as

discounts, to different types of

customers. Based upon this evidence,

we determine that the selling activities

each respondent performed for its home

market sales were the same for all home

market sales, and that each respondent’s

HM sales were all made at a single LOT.

All four companies’ sales in the

United States were EP sales. All of the

companies’ U.S. customers were endusers or traders, each sale was

manufactured to order, and the selling

expenses were comparable for all sales,

regardless of the category of customer.

Furthermore, the packing processes

were almost identical to that of the HM

sales, and we found no differences in

the selling activities performed for each

respondent’s U.S. sales in comparison to

their HM sales. Based on this, for each

respondent, we conclude that a single

level of trade exists in the United States

which is the same as the HM LOT. As

a result, a LOT adjustment is not

warranted in this review.

Product Comparisons

To determine whether sales of silicon

metal by CBCC, Eletrosilex, Minasligas,

and Rima to the U.S. were made at less

than normal value, we compared the

‘‘Export Price’’ to the ‘‘Normal Value’’,
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 153 / Friday, August 8, 1997 / Notices 42761

as described in the ‘‘Export Price’’ and

‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this notice.

In accordance with section 777A(d)(2)

of the Act, we compared the EP of

individual transactions to the monthly

weighted-average NV of

contemporaneous sales of the foreign

like product.

Normal Value

A. Viability

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 each

respondent’s volume of home market

sales of the foreign like product to the

volume of U.S. sales of the subject

merchandise, in accordance with

section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. Because

each respondent’s aggregate volume of

home market sales of the foreign like

product was greater than five percent of

its aggregate volume of U.S. sales for the

subject merchandise, we determined

that the home market provides a viable

basis for calculating NV for each

respondent.

B. Home Market Sales

We compared the EP of individual

transactions to the monthly weightedaverage NV of sales of the foreign like

product, pursuant to section 777A(d)(2)

of the Act. In such cases we based NV

on packed, ex-factory or delivered

prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the

home market. Where applicable, we

made adjustments to home market price

for inland freight, inland freight

insurance, and interest revenue. We

reduced home market prices by an

amount for home market credit and

packing expenses, and we increased it

by U.S. credit expenses and U.S.

packing costs, in accordance with

sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act.

We also increased NV, where

appropriate, for bank charges, U.S.

advertising, and warehousing expenses

incurred on U.S. sales, in accordance

with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the

Act. We decreased NV, where

appropriate, by the amount of

commissions paid in the home market,

but limited this amount to the amount

of indirect selling expenses incurred on

U.S. sales, in accordance with 19 CFR

353.56(b)(1).

As respondents did not provide

sufficient information regarding the

interest rates used in the calculation of

home market credit, we used the simple

average of monthly Government of

Brazil Taxa Referencial (TR) rates for the

POR. The TR rate is the published

Government of Brazil prime lending

rate. We disallowed Minasligas’ claimed

imputed U.S. credit revenue because the

Department’s practice is to allow

imputed credit revenue only in

situations where advance payment is

made by the customer before the

merchandise is shipped. See, e.g., Fresh

Cut Flowers from Mexico, Final Results

of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review (61 FR 40604). However, the

customer does not pay until after it

receives the merchandise. Therefore,

applying the Department’s standard

imputed credit calculation would result

in imputed U.S. credit expense, not

revenue. However, consistent with the

Department’s practice, because all

companies used Advance Exchange

Contract’s (ACC’s) to finance export

sales, and ACC’s are dollar-denominated

short-term loans, we used ACC rates to

determine the interest rate used in the

U.S. imputed credit calculation. To

calculate each company’s U.S. imputed

credit interest rate, we used the simple

average of their ACC interest rates.

United States Price (USP)

A. Export Price

In calculating USP we used export

price (EP) for each respondent, as

defined in section 772(a) of the Act,

because the subject merchandise was

first sold to unrelated purchasers prior

to the date of importation into the

United States and the use of constructed

export price was not indicated by the

facts on the record.

We based EP on the packed, delivered

price to the first unaffiliated purchasers

in the United States, or to unaffiliated

trading companies who sell the subject

merchandise in the United States. In

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

Act, we reduced this price, where

appropriate, for foreign inland freight,

international freight, marine insurance,

weighing and sampling charges, port

clerical expenses, and brokerage and

handling. We made an addition to USP,

where appropriate, for duty drawback in

accordance with section 772(c) of the

Act. No other adjustments to company

provided information were made except

in the following instances:

1. For the imputed U.S. credit

calculation for CBCC, Eletrosilex, and

Minasligas, we used an interest rate

which was the simple average of the

ACC rates used during the POR, as

reported by each respondent.

2. Rima failed to provide the ACC

interest rates it was charged during the

POR, despite three Departmental

requests for these rates. Therefore,

pursuant to 776(b) of the Act, for Rima’s

imputed U.S. credit calculation, we

used as adverse facts available for

Rima’s interest rate, the interest rate

which was the highest of the ACC

interest rates used during the POR by

the other respondents in this review.

3. For all companies, we used as the

payment date the date the bank received

payment from the U.S. customer.

4. For Eletrosilex, we used the date of

shipment from the factory as the date of

shipment.

5. For Eletrosilex, we reallocated

indirect selling expenses using the

methodology we used in the previous

reviews of this case (see the

Department’s calculation memo of

January 24, 1997).

6. For Minasligas, we used as the date

of shipment the date of invoice, because

that is the date of the first shipment

from the factory pursuant to a sale.

Cost of Production Analysis

In prior segments of this proceeding,

we disregarded home market sales

found to be below the cost of production

(COP) for CBCC, Eletrosilex, and Rima.

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 the

review period for these companies and

has conducted a COP investigation for

these respondents. In addition, on

January 28, 1997, we initiated a belowcost investigation for Minasligas

pursuant to an allegation from

petitioners on December 11, 1996.

A. Calculation of COP

In accordance with 773(b)(3) of the

Act, we calculated COP based on the

sum of each respondent’s cost of

materials and fabrication employed in

producing the foreign like product, plus

home market selling, general, and

administrative expenses (SG&A) and the

cost of all expenses incidental to placing

the foreign like product in condition

packed and ready for shipment. We

relied on the home market sales data

and COP information provided by each

respondent, except in the following

specific instances where the reported

costs were determined to be improperly

valued:

1. For Minasligas, we made an offset

to the total cost of production (totcop)

to account for the revenue received from

the sale of by-products.

2. For Minasligas, we set interest

expense equal to zero because financial

income exceeded financial expenses for

Minasligas and its parent company,

Delp Engenharia Mechanica, S.A.

3. For Minasligas, we computed G&A

by multiplying the tax-exclusive Cost of

Manufacturing (COM) by the ratio of the

combined G&A expenses for Minasligas

and its parent company to the two
42762 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 153 / Friday, August 8, 1997 / Notices

companies’ combined cost of goods

sold.

4. For Eletrosilex, we recalculated

total cost of manufacturing (totcom) to

account for the revenue received from

the sale of by-products.

5. For Rima, in the calculation of

interest expense, we reallocated

financial revenues to the ‘‘net interest

expense’’ reported on Rima’s 1995

financial statements. We also added the

increase in deferred financial expenses

shown on the 1995 financial statements,

and the amortization of the 1994

remaining balance of deferred financial

expenses, to the ‘‘net interest expense’’.

6. For Rima, in order to be consistent

with the interest expense calculation,

we based G&A expenses on Rima’s 1995

financial statements, rather than its

1996 financial statements.

7. For Rima, we allocated an amount

to G&A based on the difference between

the depreciated asset values from the

depreciation calculation worksheets for

1995, and the total asset values for 1995

as indicated on Rima’s financial

statements. We also added to G&A the

amortization of the 1994 remaining

balance of deferred assets.

B. Test of Home Market Prices

After calculating COP for each

respondent, we tested whether home

market sales of subject merchandise

were made at prices below COP within

an extended period of time and in

substantial quantities, and whether such

prices permitted the recovery of all costs

within a reasonable period of time. We

compared model-specific COP to the

reported home market prices less any

applicable movement charges and postsale price adjustments, where

appropriate.

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

Act, where less than twenty percent of

a respondent’s home market sales of a

given model are at prices less than COP,

we do not disregard any below-cost

sales of that product because we

determine that the below-cost sales were

not made within an extended period of

time ‘‘in substantial quantities.’’ Where

twenty percent or more of a

respondent’s home market sales of a

given product are at prices less than the

COP, we disregard the below-cost sales

because we determine that the belowcost sales were made within an

extended period of time in ‘‘substantial

quantities,’’ in accordance with section

773(b)(2)(C) of the Act. To determine

whether such sales are at prices which

would not permit the full recovery of all

costs within a reasonable period of time,

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

of the Act, we compare home market

prices to the weighted-average modelspecific COPs for the POR.

In these preliminary results, our cost

tests for CBCC and Minasligas indicated

that less than twenty percent of the sales

of subject merchandise were at prices

below COP. We therefore retained all

sales of subject merchandise in our

analysis and used them in our

determination of NV, where applicable.

The results of our cost tests for

Eletrosilex and Rima indicated that,

within an extended period of time (one

year, in accordance with section

773(b)(2)(B) of the Act), more than

twenty percent of the sales of all

products of each company were at

prices below COP. Thus these belowcost sales were in ‘‘substantial

quantities.’’ In addition, these sales

were at prices which would not permit

the full recovery of all costs within a

reasonable period of time. In accordance

with section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we

disregarded the below-cost sales of

subject merchandise for each of these

two companies and used the remaining

above-cost sales as the basis for

determining each company’s NV, where

applicable.

For Eletrosilex and Rima, in

accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the

Act, we used CV as the basis for NV

when there were no usable sales of the

foreign like product in the comparison

market. We calculated CV in accordance

with section 773(e) of the Act.

For Eletrosilex and Rima, we included

the cost of materials and fabrication,

and G&A expenses in CV. In these

preliminary results, we found that

Eletrosilex and Rima made no abovecost sales of the foreign like product in

the comparison market. Therefore, for

these companies, we were unable to

derive profit for use in the constructed

value calculation using the companies’

home market sales data. For this reason,

in accordance with section

773(e)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act, we used the

average of the actual amounts of selling

expenses incurred, and profit realized,

by CBCC and Minasligas in connection

with the production and sale of the

foreign like product, in the ordinary

course of trade, for consumption in the

home market. In accordance with

section 773(2)(B)(i) of the Act, we based

G&A expenses (including net interest

expenses) on the amounts incurred by

the respondent in connection with the

production and sale for consumption in

the foreign country, of the same general

category of products. Where

appropriate, we made adjustments to

CV, in accordance with section 773(a)(8)

of the Act and section 353.56(a) of the

Department’s regulations, for

circumstances of sale (COS) differences.

For comparisons to EP, we made COS

adjustments by deducting home market

direct selling expenses and adding U.S.

direct selling expenses.

Price Comparisons

Where there were contemporaneous

sales of the comparison product that

passed the COP test, we based NV on

home market prices.

Where we compared export prices to

CV, we deducted from CV the home

market direct selling expenses and

added the U.S. direct selling expenses,

where applicable, in accordance with

sections 773(a)(8) and 773(a)(6)(iii) of

the Act.

Preliminary Results of Review

As a result of our comparison of EP

and NV, we preliminarily determine

that the following weighted-average

dumping margins exist for the period

July 1, 1995 through June 30, 1996:

Manufacturer/exporter Margin

(percent)

CBCC ........................................ 0.0

Minasligas ................................. 1.93

Eletrosilex ................................. 36.74

RIMA ......................................... 70.02

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 date of 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.

Parties who submit argument are

requested to submit with the argument:

(1) A statement of the issues and (2) a

brief summary of the argument. 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 or at a hearing, within 120

days of publication of these preliminary

results.

The Department shall determine, and

the Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. Upon completion of this review,

the Department will issue appraisement

instructions directly to the Customs

Service.

Furthermore, the following deposit

rates will be effective upon publication

of the final results of this administrative

review for all shipments of silicon metal

from Brazil entered, or withdrawn from
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 153 / Friday, August 8, 1997 / Notices 42763

warehouse, for consumption on or after

the publication date, as provided for by

section 751(a)(2)(c) of the Act: (1) The

cash deposit rate for the reviewed

companies will be the rate established

in the final results of this review; (2) if

the exporter is not a firm covered in this

review, or the original less than fair

value (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 (3) for all other

producers and/or exporters of this

merchandise, the cash deposit rate shall

be 91.06 percent, the all others rate

established in the LTFV investigation

(56 FR 36135, July 31, 1991).

These deposit rates, 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 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.

Dated: July 31, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–20935 Filed 8–7–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

Export Trade Certificate of Review

ACTION: Notice of application to amend

certificate.

SUMMARY: The Office of Export Trading

Company Affairs (‘‘OETCA’’),

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce, has received

an application to amend an Export

Trade Certificate of Review. This notice

summarizes the proposed amendment

and requests comments relevant to

whether the amended Certificate should

be issued. Applicant has requested and

been denied expedited review.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: W.

Dawn Busby, Director, Office of Export

Trading Company Affairs, International

Trade Administration, (202) 482–5131.

This is not a toll-free number.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title III of

the Export Trading Company Act of

1982 (15 U.S.C. 4001–21) authorizes the

Secretary of Commerce to issue Export

Trade Certificates of Review. A

Certificate of Review protects the holder

and the members identified in the

Certificate from state and federal

government antitrust actions and from

private, treble damage antitrust actions

for the export conduct specified in the

Certificate and compliance with its

terms and conditions. Section 302(b)(1)

of the Act and 15 CFR 325.6(a) require

the Secretary to publish a notice in the

Federal Register identifying the

applicant and summarizing its proposed

export conduct.

Request for Public Comments

Interested parties may submit written

comments relevant to the determination

whether an amended Certificate should

be issued. If the comments include any

privileged or confidential business

information, it must be clearly marked

and a nonconfidential version of the

comments (identified as such) should be

included. Any comments not marked

privileged or confidential business

information will be deemed to be

nonconfidential. An original and five

copies, plus two copies of the

nonconfidential version, should be

submitted no later than 20 days after the

date of this notice to: Office of Export

Trading Company Affairs, International

Trade Administration, Department of

Commerce, Room 1800H, Washington,

D.C. 20230. Information submitted by

any person is exempt from disclosure

under the Freedom of Information Act

(5 U.S.C. 552). However,

nonconfidential versions of the

comments will be made available to the

applicant if necessary for determining

whether or not to issue the Certificate.

Comments should refer to this

application as ‘‘Export Trade Certificate

of Review, application number 96–

2A003.’’ The Rice Millers’ Association’s

(‘‘RMA’’) original Certificate was issued

on August 16, 1996 (61 FR 43733,

August 26, 1996). A summary of the

application for an amendment is as

follows.

Summary of the Application

Applicant: Rice Millers’ Association,

4301 North Fairfax Drive, Suite 305,

Arlington, Virginia 22203–1616.

Contact: Cynthia H. Tough, Vice

President of International Affairs for the

USA Rice Federation. Telephone: (703)

351–8161.

Application No.: 96–2A003.

Date Deemed Submitted: July 25,

1997.

Proposed Amendment: RMA seeks to

amend its Certificate by (1) modifying

the Export Trade Activities and

Methods of Operation under which it

proposes to allocate the U.S. portion of

the E.U.’s tariff rate quotas (‘‘TRQs’’) for

semi-milled and milled rice and brown

rice and (2) expanding the eligibility for

Membership in the RMA Certificate to

include any persons, firms, or

corporations of U.S. nationality that

have been actively engaged in the

exportation of rice from the United

States in each of the past two calendar

years. RMA’s Certificate would be

amended in relevant part as follows:

Export Trade Activities and Methods of

Operation

RMA will administer a program for

allocating the U.S. share of the

European Union (EU) tariff rate quotas

(‘‘TRQs’’) for milled rice and brown rice

(roughly 38,000 tons of milled rice and

8,000 tons of brown rice) agreed to as

compensation to the United States for

the EU enlargement, to include Austria,

Finland, and Sweden, as follows:

A. Administration of ETCR

(a) The program will be administered

by an Administrator, selected by the

Membership, and not engaged in the

production, milling, distribution, or sale

of rice. The President of the USA Rice

Federation, and such employees and

contractors of the Federation as he or

she may designate, will work closely

with the Administrator as necessary for

the smooth operating of the RMA/ETCR.

(b) The Administrator may request of

Members statistical information, to be

provided on a confidential basis,

concerning their participation in the

RMA/ETCR, including the disposition

of TRQ Certificates, and may prepare

compilations of such data, in such form

as not to disclose confidential

information.

B. Acquisition and Transfer of TRQ

Certificates

(a) Certificates shall be offered to the

Membership on open tender. The

certificates issued by the RMA/ETCR

will specify the quantity and type of rice

(milled or brown) covered, and shall be

valid for certain time periods or

tranches. The quantity of rice covered

by the total number of Certificates will

reflect the total amount of U.S. rice to

be imported into the EU under the

TRQs.

(b) Certificates shall be valid only for

the tranche covered by the import

license, and shall expire at the end of

such tranche.