Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 178 / Monday, September 15, 1997 / Notices 48213

governments delinquent in providing

audits to the Federal Audit

Clearinghouse is provided to the OMB

in April as required under the Single

Audit Act Amendments of 1996.

Affected Public: State, local or tribal

government; Not-for-profit institutions.

Frequency: Annually.

Respondent’s Obligation: Voluntary.

Legal Authority: OMB Circular A–133,

‘‘Audits of States, Local Governments,

and Non-Profit Organizations’’; Single

Audit Act Amendments of 1996 (Public

Law 104–156).

OMB Desk Officer: Jerry Coffey, (202)

395–7314.

Copies of the above information

collection proposal can be obtained by

calling or writing Linda Engelmeier,

DOC Forms Clearance Officer, (202)

482–3272, Department of Commerce,

room 5327, 14th and Constitution

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230.

Written comments and

recommendations for the proposed

information collection should be sent

within 30 days of publication of this

notice to Jerry Coffey, OMB Desk

Officer, room 10201, New Executive

Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.

Dated: September 8, 1997.

Linda Engelmeier,

Departmental Forms Clearance Officer, Office

of Management and Organization.

[FR Doc. 97–24322 Filed 9–12–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–07–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Office of the Secretary

Performance Review Board;

Membership

The following individuals are eligible

to serve on the Performance Review

Board in accordance with the Office of

the Secretary Senior Executive Service

performance appraisal system:

Eileen M. Albanese

Mark E. Brown

Frank W. Deliberti

Ronald P. Hack

Shirl G. Kinney

Clyde W. Robinson, Jr.

Sonya G. Stewart

Kathleen J. Taylor

Paul R. Webber, IV

Anthony J. Calza,

Acting Executive Secretary, Office of the

Secretary, Performance Review Board.

[FR Doc. 97–24397 Filed 9–12–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–BS–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Economic Development

Administration

Performance Review Board;

Membership

The following individuals are eligible

to serve on the Performance Review

Board in accordance with the Economic

Development Administration Senior

Executive Service performance

appraisal system:

John E. Corrigan

Wilbur F. Hawkins

John D. Newell

Charles R. Sawyer

Chester J. Straub, Jr.

Anthony J. Calza,

Acting Executive Secretary, Economic

Development Administration, Performance

Review Board.

[FR Doc. 97–24399 Filed 9–12–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–BS–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–122–601]

Brass Sheet and Strip From Canada,

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review; Time Limits

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of extension of time limit

for preliminary results.

SUMMARY: At the request of the

petitioner, the Department of Commerce

(the Department) is extending the time

limit for the preliminary results of the

antidumping duty administrative review

of Brass Sheet and Strip from Canada.

The review covers one manufacturer/

exporter of the subject merchandise to

the United States and the period January

1, 1996 to December 31, 1996.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 15, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Paul M. Stolz or Tom Futtner, Program

Manager, Office of Antidumping/

Countervailing Duty Enforcement,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,

DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482–4474 or

(202) 482–3814 respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Respondent in this review has requested

revocation of the antidumping duty

order with respect to its shipments of

the subject merchandise to the United

States. Verification is required.

Petitioner has submitted a request for an

extension of the deadline for the

preliminary results stating that the issue

of revocation calls for development of

the record and thorough analysis.

Petitioner states that it is not practicable

to complete the review by the current

deadline, October 3, 1997. In this case

we agree with the petitioner and have

determined that additional time is

required to adequately develop the

record with respect to revocation and to

conduct verification. Thus, in

accordance with section 353.22(c)(4) of

our regulations, we are extending the

time limit for the completion of the

preliminary results to January 31, 1998.

(See Memorandum from Jeffrey P. Bialos

to Robert S. LaRussa.) We will issue our

final results for this review within 120

days after publication of the preliminary

results.

This extension is in accordance with

section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of

1930, as amended (19 U.S.C.

1675(a)(3)(A)).

Dated: September 5, 1997.

Jeffrey P. Bialos,

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for

Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–24279 Filed 9–12–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–423–805]

Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From

Belgium: 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.

SUMMARY: In response to requests from

petitioners and respondent, the

Department of Commerce (‘‘the

Department’’) is conducting an

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on Cut-toLength Carbon Steel Plate from Belgium

(58 FR 44164). This review covers one

manufacturer and exporter of the subject

merchandise. The period of review

(‘‘POR’’) is August 1, 1995 through July

31, 1996.

We preliminarily determine that a de

minimis dumping margin of 0.22

percent exists for Fabrique de Fer de

Charleroi during the POR. Interested

parties are invited to comment on these

preliminary results. Parties who submit
48214 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 178 / Monday, September 15, 1997 / Notices

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: September 15, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Maureen McPhillips, Enforcement

Group III, Office 8, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW, Room 7866, Washington,

DC 20230; telephone (202) 482–0405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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 current regulations, as amended by

the interim regulations published in the

Federal Register on May 11, 1995 (60

FR 25130).

Background

The Department published an

antidumping duty order on Cut-toLength Carbon Steel Plate from Belgium

on August 19, 1993 (58 FR 44164). The

Department published a notice of

‘‘Opportunity to Request an

Administrative Review’’ of the

antidumping duty order for the 1995/96

review period on August 12, 1996 (61

FR 41768). On August 20, 1996,

respondent Fabrique de Fer de

Charleroi, S.A. (‘‘FAFER’’) requested

that the Department conduct an

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on cut-to-length

carbon steel plate from Belgium. On

August 30, 1996, petitioners (Bethlehem

Steel Corporation, U.S. Steel Company

(a Unit of USX Corporation), Inland

Steel industries, Inc. Geneva Steel, Gulf

States Steel Inc. of Alabama, Sharon

Steel Corporation, and Lukens Steel

Company) requested that the

Department conduct an administrative

review of this order. We published a

notice of initiation of this review on

September 17, 1996 See 61 FR 48882

(September 17, 1996).

Scope of the Review

The products covered by this

administrative review constitute one

‘‘class or kind’’ of merchandise: certain

cut-to-length carbon steel plate. These

products include hot-rolled carbon steel

universal mill plates (i.e., flat-rolled

products rolled on four faces or in a

closed box pass, of a width exceeding

150 millimeters but not exceeding 1,250

millimeters and of a thickness of not

less than 4 millimeters, not in coils and

without patterns in relief), of

rectangular shape, neither clad, plated

nor coated with metal, whether or not

painted, varnished, or coated with

plastics or other nonmetallic substances;

and certain hot-rolled carbon steel flatrolled products in straight lengths, or

rectangular shape, hot rolled, neither

clad, plated, nor coated with metal,

whether or not painted, varnished, or

coated with plastics or other

nonmetallic substances, 4.75

millimeters or more in thickness and of

a width which exceeds 150 millimeters

and measures at least twice the

thickness, as currently classifiable in the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS)

under item numbers 7208.40.3030

7208.40.3060, 7208.51.0030,

7208.51.0045, 7208.51.0060,

7208.52.0000, 7208.53.0000,

7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000,

7210.90.9000, 7211.13.0000,

7211.14.0030, 7211.14.0045,

7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000,

7212.40.5000, and 7212.50.0000.

Included are flat-rolled products of

nonrectangular cross-section where

such cross-section is achieved

subsequent to the rolling process (i.e.,

products which have been ‘‘worked

after rolling’’)—for example, products

which have been beveled or rounded at

the edges. Excluded is grade X–70 plate.

These HTS item numbers are provided

for convenience and Customs purposes.

The written description remains

dispositive.

Verification

As provided in section 782(i)(3) of the

Act, we verified information provided

by the respondent 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.

Transactions Reviewed

In accordance with section 751 of the

Act, the Department determined the

constructed export price (CEP) and

normal value (NV) of each sale to the

first unaffiliated customer in the United

States during the POR.

Product Comparisons

In accordance with section 771(16) of

the Act, we considered all plate

products produced by the respondent,

covered by the descriptions in the

‘‘Scope of the Review’’ section of this

notice, supra, and sold in the home

market during the POR, to be a foreign

like product for purposes of determining

appropriate product comparisons to

U.S. sales. Where there were no sales of

identical merchandise in the home

market to compare to U.S. sales, we

compared U.S. sales to the next most

similar foreign like product on the basis

of the characteristics listed in Appendix

V of the Department’s September 19,

1996, antidumping questionnaire. In

making the product comparisons, we

matched each foreign like product based

on the physical characteristics reported

by the respondent and verified by the

Department. Where sales were made in

the home market on a different weight

basis from the U.S. sales (e.g.,

theoretical versus actual weight), we

converted all quantities to the same

weight basis, using the conversion

factors supplied by the respondent,

before making our fair value

comparisons.

Fair Value Comparisons

To determine whether sales of cut-tolength carbon steel plate by the

respondent to the United States were

made at less than fair value, we

compared CEP to NV, as described in

the ‘‘Constructed Export Price’’ and

‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this notice.

In accordance with section 77A(d)(2),

we calculated monthly weighted

average prices for NV and compared

these to individual U.S. transactions.

Constructed Export Price (CEP)

We have preliminarily determined the

U.S. sales reported as EP sales were CEP

sales. Our determination is based on the

evidence in the record of this review

establishing that U.S. sales were made

through an affiliated sales agent in

which FAFER has a substantial equity

interest and which performed more than

clerical functions for the producer/

exporter, as detailed in a proprietary

memorandum to the file dated May 5,

1997.

Whenever sales are made prior to

importation through an affiliated sales

agent in the United States, The

Department typically determines

whether to characterize the sales as EP

based upon the following criteria: (1)

Whether the merchandise was shipped

directly to the unaffiliated buyer,

without being introduced into the

affiliated selling agent’s inventory; (2)

whether this procedure is the customary

sales channel between the parties; and

(3) whether the affiliated selling agent

located in the United States acts only as

a processor of documentation and a
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 178 / Monday, September 15, 1997 / Notices 48215

communication link between the foreign

producer and the unrelated buyer. See,

e.g., Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel

Plate from Germany: Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 62 FR 18389, 18391 (April 15,

1997); Large Newspaper Printing Presses

and Components Thereof, Whether

Assembled or Unassembled From

Germany, 61 FR at 38174, 38175 (July

23, 1996); Certain Corrosion-Resistant

Carbon Steel Flat Products From Korea:

Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 61 FR 18547,

18551 (April 26, 1996). This test has

been approved by the CIT. Independent

Radionic Workers of America v. United

States, Slip Op. 95–45 at 2–3 (CIT Mar.

15, 1995); PQ Corp. v. United States,

652 F. Supp. at 733–35 (CIT 1987).

Applying the first two criteria to the

present review, the merchandise was

shipped directly to the unaffiliated U.S.

customer without being introduced into

the agent’s inventory. The Department

verified that the terms of sale during the

POR were CIF to a port of entry near the

customer’s plant, and that the agent did

not take physical possession of the

shipment. Moreover, we determined

that this procedure was the customary

sales channel between the two parties.

Concerning the third criterion,

however, the Department has

determined that the agent did act as

more than a processor of sales

documents and a communications link

between the unaffiliated U.S. customer

and FAFER, the producer in Belgium.

Although FAFER sets minimum list

prices, its sales agent negotiates the sale

with the customer. See Verification

Exhibit 10. The sales agent essentially

negotiates all sales in accordance with

FAFER’s minimum price list and the

sales take place in the United States, not

in Belgium.

Because we have determined that the

CEP methodology is appropriate, we

sought to deduct from CEP the allocated

actual selling expenses incurred by the

agent, pursuant to section 772(d)(1) (C)

and (D). In addition, we adjusted CEP,

where appropriate, for all value added

in the Untied States, including the

proportional amount of profit

attributable to the value added,

pursuant to section 772(d)(2) and

772(d)(3) of the Act. See Final

Determination of Sales at Less than Fair

Value: Furfuryl Alcohol from South

Africa, 60 FR 22550, 22552–53 (1995).

In this case, however, respondent did

not report indirect selling expenses

incurred in either the U.S. or the home

market. Therefore, in accordance with

section 776(a) of the Act, the

Department has deducted from CEP, as

the ‘‘facts otherwise available,’’ the

commission that FAFER paid its agent

in connection with the U.S. sales.

We also rejected as unverifiable the

interest rate reported by FAFER to

calculate imputed credit expenses in the

U.S. market, in accordance with section

776(a)(2)(D) of the Act. In its place, as

the facts available, we used the average

prime rate on short-term business loans

in 1996, as reported by the Federal

Reserve System.

Normal Value

Based on a comparison of the

aggregate quantity of home market and

U.S. sales, we determined that the

quantity of foreign like product sold in

the exporting country was sufficient to

permit a proper comparison with the

sales of the subject merchandise to the

United States, pursuant to section 773(a)

of the Act. Therefore, in accordance

with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act,

we based NV on the price at which the

foreign like product was first sold to an

unaffiliated customer for consumption

in the home market, in the usual

commercial quantities and in the

ordinary course of trade.

We have preliminarily determined

that sales of subject merchandise to a

Belgian university research center were

outside the ordinary course of trade.

The relevant statutory provision defines

the term ‘‘ordinary course of trade’’ as

‘‘the conditions and practices which, for

a reasonable time prior to the

exportation of the subject merchandise,

have been normal in the trade under

consideration with respect to

merchandise of the same class or kind.’’

The statute defines certain sales below

cost of production and sales to affiliated

parties that are not made at arm’s length

as sales outside the ordinary course of

trade. See section 771(15) of the Act.

However, the statute does not specify

any criteria that the Department should

use in determining appropriate

‘‘conditions and practices.’’

The purpose of the ordinary course of

trade provision is to prevent dumping

margins from being based on sales

which are not representative of the

home market. See Monsanto Co. v.

United States, 698 F. Supp. 275, 278

(CIT 1988). Commerce examines the

totality of the facts in each case to

determine if sales are being made for

‘‘unusual reasons’’ or under ‘‘unusual

circumstances.’’ Electrolytic Manganese

Dioxide from Japan; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 58 FR 28551, 28552 (1993).

In its Section B response of November

18, 1996, FAFER asked the Department

to consider the sales to the university

‘‘separately, as they cannot be deemed

part of traditional mercantile

operation.’’ In making its determination

to consider these sales as outside the

ordinary course of trade, the Department

took into account all facts, including the

small number of these sales, the

circumstance that these sales were made

directly by FAFER, rather than by its

sales agent in the home market, the fact

that the models were unique during the

POR, the fact that the merchandise was

intended to be used for research at a

welding institute and not for

commercial purposes, and the fact that

these were unprofitable. During the

POR, the overwhelming majority of

FAFER’s home market sales was made

through its affiliated sales agent to

industrial end-users.

We have preliminarily determined

that one home market customer, a steel

service center to which FAFER sells

directly, is an affiliated party. This

finding is based on common control by

the Boe ̈l family group within the

meaning of section 771(33)(F), as

detailed in a proprietary analysis

memorandum to the file dated, May 5,

1997.

In regard to affiliated party

transactions, the SAA states (quoting the

statute):

The traditional focus on control through

stock ownership fails to address adequately

modern business arrangements, which often

find one firm ‘‘operationally in a position to

exercise restraint or direction’’ over another

even in the absence of an equity relationship.

A company may be in a position to exercise

restraint or direction, for example, through

corporate or family groupings, franchises or

joint venture agreements, debt financing, or

close supplier relationships in which the

supplier or buyer becomes reliant upon the

other. SAA at 168 (emphasis added).

In FAFER’s response to the

Department’s original questionnaire

FAFER reported all of its customers as

unaffiliated. However, information on

corporate structure and possible

affiliations revealed relationships that

led us to examine the possibility that

the Boe ̈l family exercises control over

many business entities, including

FAFER and one of its customers, a steel

service center. In an effort to determine

the nature and extent of the Boe ̈l

family’s control over its numerous

affiliations, the Department requested

FAFER to supply specific information

on the shareholders of its various

business associations. To date, FAFER

has failed to provide the requested

information on the Boe ̈l family’s

shareholdings.

Since this information is critical to

our analysis, we have preliminarily

determined that the Boe ̈l family controls

both FAFER and the steel service center.

It controls FAFER through the Board of
48216 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 178 / Monday, September 15, 1997 / Notices

Directors (three out of five Directors are

members of the Boe ̈l family) and, as

facts otherwise available, controlling

equity interests. In addition, FAFER

holds shares in a private investment

holding company whose Chairman is a

member of the Boe ̈l family. This

investment holding company owns a

significant percentage of the shares of

one of FAFER’s customers, the steel

service center. Because FAFER did not

provide complete information on its

shareholders and the shareholders of

several holding companies, as requested

by the Department, we preliminarily

determine that the Boe ̈l family controls

FAFER’s customer through its board

members and, as facts available,

controlling equity interests.

Consequently, we ran our arm’s

length test and found that sales to the

affiliated customer were not made at

arm’s length prices, i.e., at prices

comparable to prices at which the

respondent sold identical merchandise

to unaffiliated customer. Therefore, we

did not use these sales in our

calculations of the margin.

Based on the Department’s previous

determination to disregard sales made at

below the cost of production (COP) in

the original LTFV investigation, we had

reasonable grounds to believe or suspect

that sales of the foreign like product

under consideration for the

determination of NV in this review may

have been made at prices below the

COP, as provided by section

773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act. Therefore,

pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act,

we initiated a COP investigation of sales

by FAFER in the home market.

We compared sales of the foreign like

product in the home market with the

model-specific cost of production figure

for the POR. In accordance with section

773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the

COP based on the sum of the costs of

materials and fabrication employed in

producing the foreign like product plus

selling, general and administrative

(SG&A) expenses and all costs and

expenses incidental to placing the

foreign like product in condition ready

for shipment. Based on our verification

of the cost responses submitted by

FAFER, we adjusted the company’s

reported COP to reflect certain

adjustments to the cost of

manufacturing and general and

administrative expenses. Specifically,

we eliminated the double counting of

scrap revenue, adjusted the raw material

inputs for certain products to the actual

quantities used, added an amount for

major repair provisions to fixed

overhead, recalculated G&A as a

percentage of COM, and corrected

several minor data errors.

After calculating COP, we tested

whether home market sales of subject

merchandise were made at prices below

COP and, if so, whether the below-cost

sales were made within an extended

period of time in substantial quantities.

Because each individual price was

compared against the average COP

during the extended window period,

any sales that were below cost were also

not at prices which permitted cost

recovery within a reasonable period of

time. We compared model-specific

COPs to the reported home market

prices less any applicable movement

charges.

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

Act, where less than 20 percent of

respondent’s sales of a given product

were at prices less than COP, we did not

disregard any below-cost sales of that

product because the below-cost sales

were not made in substantial quantities

within an extended period of time.

Where 20 percent or more of

respondent’s sales of a given product

during the POR were at prices less than

the weighted-average COPs for the

extended window period, we

disregarded the below-cost sales

because they were made within an

extended period of time in substantial

quantities in accordance with sections

773(b)(2) (B) and (C) of the Act, and

were at prices which would not permit

recovery of all costs within a reasonable

period of time in accordance with

section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Where

we disregarded all contemporaneous

sales of a specific product, we

calculated NV based on CV.

In accordance with section 773(e) of

the Act, we calculated CV based on the

sum of respondent’s cost of materials,

fabrication, SG&A, interest expenses,

and profit. In accordance with sections

773(e)(2)(A), we based SG&A and profit

on the amounts incurred and realized by

the respondent in connection with the

production and sale of the foreign like

product in the ordinary course of trade,

for consumption in the foreign country.

For selling expenses, we used the

weighted-average home-market selling

expenses. Based on our verification of

the cost response submitted by FAFER,

we adjusted the reported CV to reflect

adjustments to COM and G&A, as

described in the COP section.

Differences in Levels of Trade

To the extent practicable, we

determine normal value based on sales

at the same level of trade as the U.S.

sales (either EP or 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 level of trade.

For both EP and CEP, the relevant

transaction for level of trade is the 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 EP 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) and the profit associated with

these expenses. These expenses

represent activities undertaken by, or on

behalf of, 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 is

used for the starting price. Movement

charges, duties and taxes deducted

under 772(c) do not represent activities

of the affiliated importer, and we do not

remove them to obtain the level of trade.

The NV level of trade is that of the

starting price of sales in the home

market. When NV is based on

constructed value, the level of trade is

that of the sales from which we derive

SG&A and profit.

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

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, are

insufficient to establish that a claimed

level of trade is valid. An analysis of

selling functions substantiates or

invalidates claimed levels of trade. If the

claimed levels are different, the selling

functions performed in selling to those

levels should also be different.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 178 / Monday, September 15, 1997 / Notices 48217

Conversely, if levels of trade are

nominally the same, the selling

functions performed should also be the

same. 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 level of trade.

Differences in levels of trade are

characterized by purchasers at different

places 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 level of trade affects

price comparability. Any effect on price

comparability is determined 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 the NV when NV is

based on a level of trade different from

that of the export sale. If there is a

pattern of no price differences, then the

difference in level of trade does not

have a price effect, and no adjustment

in 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, provided the NV level is more

remote from the factory than the CEP

level, and we are unable to determine

whether there is or is not a price effect

of different levels of trade in the home

market. See section 773(a)(7)(B). 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 the lower of the two following:

• The indirect selling expenses on the

home market sale

• The indirect selling expenses

deducted from the starting price used to

calculate CEP.

The CEP offset is not automatic each

time export price is constructed. We

only make a CEP offset when the level

of trade of the home market sale is more

advanced than the level of trade of the

CEP and there is not an appropriate

basis for determining whether the

different levels of trade affect price

comparability.

In our supplemental questionnaire

dated October 28, 1996, we asked

FAFER to respond to the original

questionnaire’s inquiry on level of trade.

In its November 5, 1996, response,

FAFER stated that its selling activities

in the U.S. and home markets did not

warrant an adjustment related to level of

trade. We found no indication at

verification that FAFER sells at different

levels of trade. Therefore, we made no

adjustment.

Currency Conversion

For purposes of the Preliminary

results, we made currency conversions

based on the official exchange rates in

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

certified by the Federal Reserve Bank of

New York. Section 773A(a) directs the

Department to use a daily exchange rate

in order to convert foreign currencies

into U.S. dollars, unless the daily rate

involves a ‘‘fluctuation.’’ In accordance

with the Department’s practice, we have

determined that a fluctuation exists

when the daily exchange rate differs

from a benchmark by 2.25 percent. See,

e.g., Certain Stainless Steel Wire Rods

from France: Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review (61 FR 8915, 8918—March 6,

1996). The benchmark is defined as the

rolling average of rates for the past 40

business days.

Duty Absorption

On October 7, 1996, the petitioners

requested, pursuant to section 751(a)(4)

of the Act, that the Department

determine whether antidumping duties

had been absorbed by respondent

during the POR. Section 751(a)(4)

provides for the Department, if

requested, to determine, during an

administrative review initiated two

years or four years after publication of

the order, whether antidumping duties

have been absorbed by a foreign

producer or exporter subject to the order

if the subject merchandise is sold in the

United States through an importer who

is affiliated with such foreign producer

or exporter. Section 751(a)(4) was added

to the Act by the URAA. The

Department’s interim regulations do not

address this provision of the Act.

For transition orders as defined in

section 751(c)(6)(C) of the Act, i.e.,

orders in effect as of January 1, 1995,

section 351.213(j)(2) of the Department’s

new antidumping regulations provides

that the Department will make a dutyabsorption determination, if requested,

in any administrative review initiated in

1996 or 1998. See 19 CFR

§ 351.213(j)(2), 62 FR 27394 (May 19,

1997). While the new regulations are not

binding on the Department in the

instant reviews, which were initiated

under the interim regulations, they

nevertheless serve as a statement of

departmental policy. Because the order

on cut-to-length carbon steel plate from

Belgium has been in effect since 1993,

it is a transition order in accordance

with section 751(c)(6)(C) of the Act.

Since this review was initiated in 1996

and a request for a duty-absorption

inquiry was made, the Department will

undertake a duty-absorption inquiry as

part of this administrative review.

The Act provides for a determination

on duty absorption if the subject

merchandise is sold in the United States

through an affiliated importer. In this

case, the reviewed firm sold through an

importer that is ‘‘affiliated’’ within the

meaning of section 751(a)(4) of the Act.

Furthermore, we have preliminarily

determined that there is a dumping

margin on one hundred percent of

FAFER’s sales. In addition, we cannot

conclude from the record that the

unaffiliated purchaser in the United

States will pay the ultimate assessed

duty. Therefore, under these

circumstances, we preliminarily find

that antidumping duties have been

absorbed by FAFER on one hundred

percent of its U.S. sales. If interested

parties wish to submit evidence that the

unaffiliated purchasers in the United

States will pay any ultimately assessed

duty charged to affiliated importers,

they must do so no later than 15 days

after publication of these preliminary

results. This information would be

considered by the Department if we

determine in our final results that there

are dumping margins on certain U.S.

sales.

Preliminary Results of the Review

As a result of this review, we

preliminarily determine that the

following dumping margin exists:

Manufacturer/exporter Period

of review

Margin

(percent)

Fabrique de Fer de Charleroi .................................................................................................................................. 8/1/95–7/31/96 0.22
48218 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 178 / Monday, September 15, 1997 / Notices

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 of this notice. The

Department will publish a notice of the

final results of the 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.

Cash Deposit

The following deposit requirements

will be effective upon completion of the

final results of this administrative

review for all shipments of cut-to-length

carbon steel plate form Belgium 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) of the Act: (1) The cash

deposit rate for the reviewed company

will be the rate established in the final

results of this administrative review; (2)

for exporters not covered in this review,

but covered in the LTFV investigation,

the cash deposit rate will continue to be

the company-specific rate published

from the LTFV investigation; (3) if the

exporter is not a firm covered in this

review, or the original LTFV, 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 6.84

percent, the ‘‘all others’’ rate made

effective by the LTFV investigation.

These deposit requirements, when

imposed, shall remain if 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 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 CFR § 353.22.

Dated: September 2, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–24278 Filed 9–12–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–351–820]

Ferrosilicon From Brazil: Extension of

Time Limits of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of extension of time

limits of antidumping duty

administrative review.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

(the Department) is extending the time

limits for the preliminary results in the

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on ferrosilicon

from Brazil, covering the period March

1, 1996 through February 28, 1997.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 15, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sal

Tauhidi or Irene Darzenta, Office of

Antidumping/Countervailing Duty

Enforcement, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th &

Constitution Avenue, NW. Washington,

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–4851 or

(202) 482–6320.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April

24, 1997, the Department initiated the

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on ferrosilion

from Brazil. The current time limits are

December 1, 1997 for the preliminary

results and April 2, 1998 for the final

results. Because it is not practicable to

complete this review within the original

time limits as mandated by section

751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (as

amended by the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act), the Department is

extending the time limits for the

preliminary results to January 12, 1997.

(See Memorandum to Robert S. LaRussa,

Postponement of Preliminary Results of

the Administrative Review on

Ferrosilicon from Brazil, September 2,

1997.) Accordingly, we will issue the

final results within 120 days from the

date of publication of the preliminary

results.

These extensions are in accordance

with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

Dated: September 8, 1997.

Jeffrey P. Bialos,

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for

Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–24277 Filed 9–12–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–570–848]

Notice of Amendment to Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value and Antidumping Duty

Order: Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat

From the People’s Republic of China

AGENCY: International Trade

Administration, Import Administration,

Department of Commerce

EFFECTIVE DATE: (September 15, 1997.)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Elisabeth Urfer, Rebecca Trainor, or

Maureen Flannery, AD/CVD

Enforcement, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington D.C. 20230; telephone:

(202) 482–0780, (202) 482–0666, or

(202) 482–3020, respectively.

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 Round Agreements Act.

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).

Case History and Amendment of the

Final Determination

On August 1, 1997, the Department of

Commerce (the Department) published

in the Federal Register (62 FR 41347)

the final determination of its sales-atless-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation

of freshwater crawfish tail meat

(crawfish tail meat) from the People’s

Republic of China (PRC). The

investigation covered the period March

1, 1996 through August 31, 1996. We are

amending the final determination to

correct ministerial errors made in the

list of exporters receiving weightedaverage dumping margins. In the final

determination, we inadvertently

included Anhui Cereals, Oils and

Foodstuffs Import and Export