Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 21 / Friday, January 31, 1997 / Notices 4723

Submission for OMB Review;

Comment Request

DOC has submitted to OMB for

clearance the following proposal for

collection of information under the

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1995 Public Law 104–13.

Agency: Bureau of Economic

Analysis.

Title: Institutional Remittances to

Foreign Countries.

Agency Form Number: BE–40.

OMB Number: 0608–0002.

Type of Review: Reinstatement of a

previously approved collection.

Burden: 1,212 reporting hours.

Number of Respondents: 382

respondents.

Avg. Hours Per Response: 1.5 hours.

Needs and Uses: The survey is

required in order to obtain

comprehensive initial data concerning

the transfer (gifts, grants, donations,

etc.) by private nonprofit U.S.

institutions to foreign countries. The

data are needed primarily to compile

the U.S. international accounts.

Affected Public: Non-profit

Institutions.

Frequency: Quarterly for institutions

transferring $1 million or more each

year, annually for all others.

Respondent’s Obligation: Voluntary.

OMB Desk Officer: Paul Bugg, (202)

395–7340.

Copies of the above information

collection proposal can be obtained by

calling or writing Acting DOC Forms

Clearance Officer, Linda Engelmeier,

(202) 482–3272, Department of

Commerce, Room 5327, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230.

Written comments and

recommendations for the proposed

information collection should be sent to

Paul Bugg, OMB Desk Officer, Room

10201, New Executive Office Building,

Washington, D.C. 20503.

Dated: January 24, 1997.

Linda Engelmeier,

Acting Departmental Forms Clearance

Officer, Office of Management and

Organization.

[FR Doc. 97–2354 Filed 1–30–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE: 3510–EA–P

International Trade Administration

[A–201–504]

Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware From

Mexico: 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 a request by

respondents, Cinsa, S.A. de C.V.

(‘‘Cinsa’’) and Esmaltaciones de Norte

America, S.A. de C.V. (‘‘ENASA’’), the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) is conducting an

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on porcelainon-steel cookware from Mexico. This

review covers the above manufacturers/

exporters of the subject merchandise to

the United States. The period of review

(POR) is December 1, 1994, through

November 30, 1995. This is the ninth

period of review.

We preliminarily determine that sales

have been made below normal value

(NV). If these preliminary results are

adopted in our final results of

administrative review, we will instruct

U.S. Customs to assess antidumping

duties on all appropriate entries.

Interested parties are invited to

comment on these preliminary results.

Parties who submit arguments in this

proceeding should also submit with the

argument: (1) a statement of the issue,

and (2) a brief summary of the

argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 31, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dolores Peck or Kate Johnson, AD/CVD

Enforcement Group II, Import

Administration—Room B099,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202)

482–4929.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The 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 Rounds 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

On October 10, 1986, the Department

published in the Federal Register (51

FR 36435) the final affirmative

antidumping duty determination on

certain porcelain-on-steel cookware

from Mexico. We published an

antidumping duty order on December 2,

1986 (51 FR 43415). On December 4,

1995, the Department published the

Opportunity to Request an

Administrative Review of this order for

the period December 1, 1994, through

November 30, 1995 (60 FR 62071). The

Department received a request for an

administrative review of exports from

Cinsa and ENASA, affiliated producers/

exporters of the subject merchandise,

and from General Housewares

Corporation, the petitioner. We

published a notice of initiation of the

review on February 1, 1996 (61 FR

3670).

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

the Department may extend the

deadline for completion of an

administrative review if it determines

that it is not practicable to complete the

review within the statutory time limit of

365 days. On August 6, 1996, the

Department extended the time limit for

the preliminary results in this case. See

Extension of Time Limit for

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 61 FR 40819 (August 6, 1996).

The Department is conducting this

review in accordance with section

751(a) of the Act.

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.

Transactions Reviewed

In accordance with section 751(a)(2)

of the Act, the Department is required

to determine the EP (or CEP) and NV of

each entry of subject merchandise.

In determining NV, based on a review

of respondents’ submissions, the

Department determined that ENASA

should report all sales of heavy gauge

(HG) cookware in conjunction with a

promotion agreement signed during the

POR because the Department

determined that the sales in question

occurred during the POR. See

Memorandum For Louis Apple From

The Team, dated December 16, 1996

(‘‘Issues Memorandum’’).
4724 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 21 / Friday, January 31, 1997 / Notices

Affiliated Parties Issue

Petitioner claimed that the facts on

the record of this administrative review

indicate that the relationship of

respondents Cinsa and ENASA to their

parent, Grupo Industrial Saltillo, S.A. de

C.V. (‘‘GIS’’ or ‘‘GISSA’), is such that

there exists a strong possibility of

manipulating prices or affecting

production decisions. In addition,

petitioner placed on the record of this

review correspondence from Cinsa in

the previous review wherein Cinsa

stated that all GIS majority-owned

related companies should be collapsed.

Furthermore, petitioner argued that in

the previous review, in making the

preliminary decision not to collapse

these two companies, the Department

had failed to consider other criteria

which the Department normally looks at

in making such decisions.

In the preliminary results for the 8th

review, the Department decided not to

collapse Cinsa and ENASA because

during that review we verified that

ENASA’s manufacturing facilities are

separate from Cinsa’s. The verification

report noted that the machinery that

Cinsa used to make light-gauge (LG)

cookware could not be used to make the

heavy-gauge (HG) cookware produced

by ENASA without fundamental and

expensive retooling.

The Department’s proposed

regulations would codify its current

practice for determining when to

‘‘collapse’’ producers of subject

merchandise:

In an antidumping proceeding under this

part, the Secretary will treat two or more

affiliated producers as a single entity where

those producers have production facilities for

similar or identical products that would not

require substantial retooling of either facility

in order to restructure manufacturing

priorities and the Secretary concludes that

there is a significant potential for the

manipulation of price or production.

See Antidumping Duties;

Countervailing Duties (Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking and Request for

Public Comments). 61 FR 7308, 7330

and 7381 (February 27, 1996), at section

351.401.

As is evident from the above

regulation, the Department will collapse

two producers if each of three

requirements are met: (1) the producers

must be ‘‘affiliated’’; (2) they must have

manufacturing facilities sufficiently

similar that no substantial retooling

would be needed to restructure

manufacturing priorities with respect to

the subject merchandise, and (3) the

Department concludes, based on the

listed factors, that there is a significant

potential for manipulation of pricing or

production decisions.

Under the new statute (which applies

to this 9th review), the definition of

‘‘affiliated parties’’ includes ‘‘[t]wo or

more persons directly or indirectly

controlling, controlled by, or under

common control with, any person.’’ 19

U.S.C. 1677(33)(F)(1996). The facts on

the record of this review indicate that

Cinsa and ENASA are controlled by the

same parent, and are thus affiliated.

Although we consider both HG and

LG cookware to be subject merchandise,

they are not similar products and

therefore cannot be reasonably

compared for the purposes of

determining dumping margins. HG and

LG cookware differ significantly in the

area of material composition and

fabrication. HG cookware is made with

a heavier gauge of steel and has a

heavier coating of enamel with a

different chemical composition than the

enamel types used for LG cookware.

Also, HG and LG are usually not

approximately equal in commercial

value.

Moreover, we verified in the 8th

review that extensive and expensive

retooling would be necessary for Cinsa

to produce HG products or for ENASA

to produce LG products. According to

Cinsa, although both Cinsa and ENASA

use stamping equipment to stamp metal

forms out of sheet metal, the stamping

machines are not interchangeable. Also,

more powerful equipment is needed for

the production of HG cookware,

equipment which is not suitable for LG

steel. In addition, LG and HG cookware

require totally different die types for use

in the stamping equipment. Moreover,

HG cookware production requires three

different furnaces: one for the enamel

coatings, one for decorative coatings,

and one for the application of the

nonstick surface. However, in LG

cookware production a single furnace is

used for enamel and decorative coatings

and there is no application of nonstick

coatings. Finally, the different chemical

composition of the enamel coatings

used in HG and LG cookware requires

different cleaning treatments prior to the

application of the enamel. (See April 22,

1996, response at 28.) Verification did

not contradict any of these statements.

We have determined that the

differences between the production

facilities for LG and HG cookware

dictate that the second criterion for

collapsing affiliated parties is not met.

Therefore, Cinsa and ENASA will

receive separate dumping margins.

Petitioner further argued that Cinsa

and ENASA should be collapsed

because they both have the capability to

produce medium gauge cookware. This

issue of medium gauge of cookware was

not raised in prior reviews. Respondents

asserted that this issue was irrelevant

since neither respondent sold medium

gauge cookware in the United States.

We requested supplemental information

from respondents regarding the

possibility that both respondents

manufacture an overlapping product.

Respondents claimed that prior to 1994

Cinsa produced a few medium and

heavy gauge products. However Cinsa

ceased its production of older models of

medium and heavy gauge after the

establishment of ENASA in late 1993

and Cinsa’s tooling was sold off as

scrap. Evidence on the record does not

suggest that Cinsa and ENASA both

produced medium gauge cookware

during the POR.

Petitioner argues that any collapsing

decision must be based on the totality

of the circumstances, such that the

absence of overlapping production

facilities must be weighed against the

concerns associated with a substantial

degree of common control. However,

under the Department’s current practice,

the existence of production facilities for

similar or identical merchandise, while

not necessarily determinative, is

essential. Thus, while we would not

collapse based solely upon that one

criterion, we will not collapse if that

criterion is not met. See Certain

Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat

Products and Certain Cut-to-Length

Carbon Steel Plate From Canada, 60 FR

42511, 42512 (August 16, 1995)

(Preliminary); 61 FR 13815 (March 28,

1996) (Final). In Certain Cold Rolled

Carbon Steel Flat Products From Korea,

60 FR 65284, 65285 (December 19,

1995) (Preliminary); 61 FR 18547 (April

26, 1996) (Final).

Because we have preliminarily

determined that the production facilities

of Cinsa and ENASA would require

substantial retooling in order to produce

similar or identical products, we are not

treating these firms as a single entity for

the purpose of assigning an

antidumping margin.

Product Comparisons

In accordance with section 771(16) of

the Act, we considered all products

produced by the respondents, covered

by the description in the ‘‘Scope of the

Review’’ section, above, and sold in the

home market during the POR, to be

foreign like products 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 the description of the merchandise

and product description sections of
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 21 / Friday, January 31, 1997 / Notices 4725

respondents’ March 11, 1996, and April

22, 1996, questionnaire responses. In

making the product comparisons, we

matched foreign like products based on

the physical characteristics reported by

the respondents.

We have rejected respondent Cinsa’s

argument that HG and LG cookware

constitute distinct ‘‘classes or kinds’’ of

merchandise and, therefore, we should

calculate separate margins for HG and

LG cookware. The scope of an order

constitutes a single class or kind of

merchandise, i.e. the ‘‘subject

merchandise.’’

The order under review covers both

HG and LG cookware. Cinsa has

conceded that point by requesting rates

for both HG and LG cookware. Thus, in

effect, Cinsa argues not that there are

separate classes or kinds of

merchandise, but rather that HG and LG

are sufficiently different to warrant

separate rates. While the Department

has calculated separate margins for

different classes of products in

exceptional circumstances, the record of

this proceeding does not establish

circumstances sufficient to warrant

product-specific rates.

Date of Sale

For Cinsa sales to the United States,

we used the invoice date as the date of

sale since this represents the first

occasion where the price and quantity

are fixed.

ENASA stated that its date of sale for

sales to the United States should be the

date of the ultimate reconciliation

between ENASA’s affiliated distributor,

Yamaka China, Inc. (‘‘Yamaka’’) and the

unaffiliated customer, while petitioner

favored the date of the contract between

Yamaka and its unaffiliated customer.

We reviewed the terms of the contract

between Yamaka and an unaffiliated

customer. Because the contract

constitutes a binding agreement in the

nature of a requirements contract,

whereby Yamaka and the unaffiliated

customer agreed upon the price and

quantity (whatever was sold in

connection with the promotion, with a

guarantee of repurchase for items not

sold at retail), the date of this contract

is the appropriate date of sale for all

cookware sold to the United States in

connection with the promotion. See

Issues Memorandum.

For Cinsa and ENASA sales in the

home market, we used invoice date as

the date of sale.

Fair Value Comparisons

To determine whether sales of

porcelain-on-steel cookware by Cinsa

and ENASA to the United States were

made at less than fair value, we

compared EP (or CEP) to the NV, as

described in the ‘‘Export Price (or

Constructed Export Price)’’ and ‘‘Normal

Value’’ sections of this notice.

Mexico experienced significant

inflation during the POR, as measured

by the consumer price index published

in International Financial Statistics and

the consumer price index from the Bank

of Mexico. Accordingly, to avoid the

distortions caused by the effects of this

level of inflation on prices, we limited

our comparisons to sales in the same

month and did not apply the

Department’s 90/60 rule, whereby the

Department uses NV from three months

prior to and two months after the month

in which the U.S. sale was made. See

Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and

Tubes from Thailand: Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 56 FR 58356, 58359 (November

19, 1991).

Export Price and Constructed Export

Price

For certain sales made by Cinsa, and

all sales made by ENASA, we calculated

EP in accordance with section 772(a) of

the Act, because the subject

merchandise was sold directly to the

first unaffiliated purchaser in the United

States prior to importation and because

CEP was not otherwise indicated. We

based EP on packed prices to

unaffiliated purchasers in the United

States. We made deductions from the

gross unit price, where appropriate, for

U.S. and foreign inland freight, U.S. and

Mexican brokerage and handling

expenses, U.S. duty and rebates.

For certain sales made by Cinsa

during the POR, we used CEP in

accordance with section 772(b) of the

Act, because the subject merchandise

was sold for the account of the Cinsa by

its affiliated sales companies after

having been imported into the United

States. We based CEP on packed prices

to unaffiliated purchasers in the United

States. We made deductions from the

gross unit price, where appropriate, for

U.S. and foreign inland freight, U.S. and

Mexican brokerage and handling

expenses, U.S. duty and rebates.

We made further deductions, where

appropriate, for credit, commissions,

and indirect selling expenses that were

associated with economic activities

occurring in the United States. Finally,

we made an adjustment for CEP profit

in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of

the Act.

Normal Value

Based on a comparison of the

aggregate quantity of home market and

U.S. sales, we determined that the

quantity of the 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 (1) either the VATexclusive price at which the foreign like

product was first sold for consumption

in the home market or (2) CV, as noted

in the ‘‘Price to Price Comparisons’’ and

‘‘Price to CV Comparisons’’ sections of

this notice.

Level of Trade

As set forth in section 773(a)(1)(B)(i)

of the Act and in the Statement of

Administrative Action (SAA)

accompanying the URAA, H.R. Doc. No.

316, 103d Cong., 2d Sess at 870. (1994)

(SAA), at 829–831, to the extent

practicable, the Department will

calculate NV based on sales at the same

level of trade as the U.S. sale. When the

Department is unable to find sale(s) in

the comparison market at the same level

of trade as the U.S. sale(s), the

Department may compare sales in the

U.S. to foreign market sales at a different

level of trade. See Final Determination

of Sales at Less than Fair Value; Certain

Pasta from Italy, 61 FR 30326 (June 14,

1996) (Pasta from Italy).

In accordance with section

773(a)(7)(A) of the Act, in comparing

U.S. sales to NV sales, the Department

will adjust the NV to account for any

difference in level of trade if two

conditions are met. First, the sales must

in fact be made at different levels of

trade, which can exist only if there are

differences between the actual selling

functions performed by the seller at the

level of trade of the U.S. sale and the

level of trade of the NV sale. Second, the

difference must affect price

comparability as evidenced by a pattern

of consistent price differences between

sales at the different levels of trade in

the market in which NV is determined.

Section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act

establishes that a CEP ‘‘offset’’ may be

made when two conditions exist: (1) NV

is established at a level of trade which

constitutes a more advanced stage of

distribution than the level of trade of the

CEP and; (2) the data available do not

provide an appropriate basis for a levelof-trade adjustment.

In order to determine that there is a

difference in level of trade, the

Department must find that two sales

have been made at different stages of

marketing, or the equivalent. Different

stages of marketing 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
4726 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 21 / Friday, January 31, 1997 / Notices

trade. Similarly, seller and customer

descriptions (such as ‘‘distributor’’ and

‘‘wholesaler’’) are useful in identifying

different levels of trade, but are

insufficient to establish that there is a

difference in the level of trade. See

Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon

Steel Flat Products and Certain Cut-toLength Carbon Steel Plate from Canada:

Preliminary Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR

51891, 51895–96 (October 4, 1996)

(Steel from Canada).

Pursuant to section 773(a)(7)(B)(i) of

the Act and the SAA at 827, in

identifying levels of trade for EP and

home market sales, we considered the

selling functions reflected in the starting

price of these transactions before any

adjustments. For CEP sales, we

considered only the selling activities

reflected in the constructed price, i.e.,

after expenses and profit were deducted

under section 772(d) of the Act.

Whenever sales were made by or

through an affiliated company or agent,

we considered all selling activities by

affiliated parties, except for those selling

activities associated with the expenses

deducted under section 772(d) of the

Act in CEP situations.

In implementing this principle in this

review, we examined information

regarding the selling activities of the

producers/exporters associated with

each stage of marketing, or the

equivalent. In addition, we examined

any claimed levels of trade (LOTs)

reported by each respondent in response

to our initial and supplemental

questionnaires (see February 8, 1996,

and September 10, 1996, letters from the

Department to respondents).

In reviewing the selling functions

reported by the respondents, we

considered all types of selling activities,

both claimed and unclaimed, that had

been performed. In analyzing whether

separate LOTs existed in this review, we

found that no single selling activity was

sufficient to warrant a separate LOT (see

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and

Request for Public Comments, 61 FR

7307, 7348 (February 27, 1996)). For this

review, we determined that the

following selling functions and

activities are relevant to the cookware

industry: (1) Inventory maintenance; (2)

technical services; (3) warranty services;

(4) customer advice and product

information; (5) delivery arrangements;

(6) sales from warehouse vs. direct sales;

and (7) direct advertising. We did not

consider trade discounts as a selling

function (see Pasta from Italy).

When examining claimed LOTs, we

analyzed the selling activities associated

with the classes of customers and

marketing stages the respondents

reported. In applying this analysis, we

expect that, if claimed LOTs are the

same, the functions and activities of the

seller should be similar. Conversely, if

a party claims that LOTs are different

for different groups of sales, the

functions and activities of the seller

should be dissimilar. The Department

not only examines the types of selling

activities, but weighs the overall

function performed for each claimed

level of trade. In determining whether

separate LOTs existed in the home

market, pursuant to section

773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we considered

the selling functions reflected in the

starting price of the home market sales

before any adjustment.

In their questionnaire responses,

Cinsa and ENASA stated that there were

no differences in selling activities by

customer categories within each market.

Respondents requested a level of trade

adjustment based on the fact that U.S.

sales are made at a level of trade more

remote from the customer and in

significantly larger quantities than sales

in the home market. However, as

discussed below, we did not find any

differences in levels of trade and

therefore no level of trade adjustment or

CEP offset is warranted.

We reviewed respondents’

questionnaire responses in order to

confirm that the selling functions of

Cinsa and ENASA did not differ among

customer categories in the U.S. and

home market.

Cinsa and ENASA sold to multiple

customers both in the United States and

home markets. In their April 22, 1996,

questionnaire responses both Cinsa and

ENASA indicated that they do not

differentiate pricing, sales terms or

delivery terms by type of customer.

They also stated in their request for a

level of trade adjustment that sales

support activities for both markets were

generally the same. Thus, our analysis

of the questionnaire responses leads us

to conclude that sales within each

market and between markets are not

made at different levels of trade.

Accordingly, we preliminarily find that

all sales in the home market and the

U.S. market are made at the same level

of trade. Therefore, all sales

comparisons are at the same level of

trade and an adjustment pursuant to

section 773(a)(7)(A) is unwarranted.

Cost of Production Analysis

The Department disregarded certain

sales made by Cinsa for the period

December 1, 1991, through November

30, 1992, (the most recently completed

review of Cinsa) pursuant to a finding

in that review that sales were made

below cost. Thus, in accordance with

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

are reasonable grounds to believe or

suspect that respondent Cinsa made

sales in the home market at prices below

the cost of producing the merchandise

in the current review period. As a result,

the Department initiated an

investigation to determine whether the

respondent made home market sales

during the POR at prices below their

COP within the meaning of section

773(b) of the Act.

A. Calculation of COP

We calculated the COP based on the

sum of Cinsa’s cost of materials and

fabrication costs for the foreign like

product, plus amounts for home market

selling, general, and administrative

expenses (‘‘SG&A’’) and packing costs in

accordance with 19 C.F.R. 353.51(c).

As noted above in the Fair Value

section, we determined that the

Mexican economy experienced high

inflation during the POR. Therefore, in

order to avoid the distortive effect of

inflation on our comparisons of costs

and prices, we requested that Cinsa

submit current monthly model-specific

production costs incurred during each

month of the POR. For certain models

sold during the POR, Cinsa

approximated current production costs

because the company did not

manufacture these models during the

POR. We calculated a model-specific

total and variable cost of manufacturing

during the POR. Using the consumer

price index for Mexico maintained by

the Bank of Mexico and provided by

respondents in their response, we

indexed the total and variable POR

model-specific costs to an common

point (November, 1995), the last month

of the POR). We then divided the sum

of the total POR model-specific costs by

the total model-specific production

quantity to obtain a model-specific POR

weighted-average cost corresponding to

the November, 1995, common point.

The weighted average cost of

manufacturing was then restated in the

currency value of each respective month

and used to calculate a monthly COP for

each product.

We relied on COP information

submitted by Cinsa, except in the

following instances where it was not

appropriately quantified or valued : (1)

frit prices from an affiliated supplier did

not approximate fair market value

prices; therefore, we increased direct

materials by the percentage required to

adjust the reported cost of frit to reflect

fair market prices; (2) we included

revalued depreciation in our calculation

of fixed overhead since this cost related

to depreciation of the production plant

and equipment; (3) we added profit
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 21 / Friday, January 31, 1997 / Notices 4727

sharing expenses to the variable cost of

manufacture because they relate to the

compensation of direct labor; and (4) we

revised Cinsa’s submitted interest costs

to exclude the calculation of negative

interest expense.

B. Test of Home Market Prices

We compared the monthly weightaveraged per unit COP figures, indexed

to account for the effects of inflation as

noted above, to home market sales of the

foreign like product as required under

section 773(b) of the Act, in order to

determine whether these sales were

made at prices below the COP. In

determining whether to disregard home

market sales made at prices below the

COP, we examined whether (1) within

an extended period of time, such sales

were made in substantial quantities, and

(2) such sales were made at prices

which permitted the recovery of all

costs within a reasonable period of time.

On a product-specific basis, we

compared the COP to the home market

prices, less any applicable movement

charges, rebates, discounts, and direct

and indirect selling expenses.

C. Results of COP Test

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C),

where less than 20 percent of

respondent’s sales of a given product

were at prices less than the COP, we did

not disregard any below-cost sales of

that product because we determined

that the below-cost sales were not made

in ‘‘substantial quantities.’’ Where 20

percent or more of a respondent’s sales

of a given product during the POR were

at prices less than the COP, we

disregarded the below-cost sales where

such sales were found to be made at

prices which would not permit the

recovery of all costs within a reasonable

period of time (in accordance with

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

all sales of a specific product were at

prices below the COP, we disregarded

all sales of that product, and calculated

NV based on CV, in accordance with

section 773(b)(1)of the Act .

D. Calculation of CV

In accordance with section 773(e)(1)

of the Act, we calculated a CV based on

the sum of respondents’ cost of

materials, fabrication, SG&A, and U.S.

packing costs as reported in the U.S.

sales listing. We calculated CV based on

the methodology described in the

calculation of COP above.

In accordance with section

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

on the actual amounts incurred and

realized by Cinsa and ENASA 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 expense.

Where we compared EP to CV, we

deducted from CV the weighted-average

home market direct selling expenses

and added the weighted-average U.S.

product-specific direct selling expenses,

in accordance with section 353.56(a)(2)

of the Department’s regulations.

E. Price to Price Comparisons

For those comparison products for

which there were sales at prices above

the COP, we based Cinsa’s NV on home

market prices. We based ENASA’s NV

on home market prices. For both

respondents, we calculated NV based on

the VAT-exclusive gross unit price and

deducted, where appropriate, inland

freight, rebates, and early payment

discounts.

For comparisons to Cinsa and

ENASA’s EP sales, we made a

circumstance-of-sale adjustment, where

appropriate, for differences in credit

expenses. For comparisons to Cinsa’s

CEP sales, we also deducted credit

expenses and commissions from NV.

We did not make an adjustment for

packing expenses because both

respondents reported that such costs

were identical on a per-unit basis in the

two markets. We also made adjustments

to NV, where appropriate, for

differences in costs attributable to

differences in physical characteristics of

the merchandise, pursuant to section

773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act.

In order to make appropriate

comparisons of differences in costs

between models sold over the POR, and

to account for the effects of inflation, all

costs were expressed in currency values

corresponding to November, 1995, the

last month of the POR. Using these

November based costs, we then

calculated a per-unit model-specific

weighted-average variable and total cost

of manufacturing. These weightedaverage costs were then indexed to the

currency value of the month of the

comparison U.S. sale. The adjusted

monthly variable costs of manufacturing

for U.S. and home market products were

then compared to arrive at the

difference in merchandise adjustment.

Where the difference in merchandise

adjustment for any product exceeded 20

percent of the indexed COM of the U.S.

product, we based NV on CV.

F. Price to CV

Where we compared EP or CEP to CV,

we deducted from CV the weightedaverage home market direct selling

expenses and added the United States

direct selling expenses.

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 773 A(a) of the Act

directs the Department to use a daily

exchange rate in order to convert foreign

currencies into U.S. dollars, unless the

daily rate involves a ‘‘fluctuation.’’ In

accordance with the Department’s

practice, we have determined as a

general matter that a fluctuation exists

when the daily exchange rate differs

from a benchmark by 2.25 percent. The

benchmark is defined as the rolling

average of rates for the past 40 business

days. When we determine a fluctuation

existed, we substitute the benchmark for

the daily rate. However, for the

preliminary results in this review, we

have not determined that a fluctuation

exists, and we have not substituted the

benchmark for the daily rate.

Preliminary Results of the Review

As a result of this review, we

preliminarily determine that the

following weighted-average dumping

margins exist:

Manufacturer/exporter Period Margin

Cinsa .............................................................................................................................................................. 12/1/94–11/30/95 12.39

ENASA.. ......................................................................................................................................................... 12/1/94–11/30/95 12.64

Parties to the proceeding may request

disclosure within five days of the date

of publication of this notice. Any

interested party may request a hearing

within 10 days of publication. Any

hearing, if requested, will be held 44

days after the date of publication or the

first business day thereafter.

Issues raised in hearings will be

limited to those raised in the respective

case briefs and rebuttal briefs. Case

briefs from interested parties and

rebuttal briefs, limited to the issues

raised in the respective case briefs, may

be submitted not later than 30 days and
4728 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 21 / Friday, January 31, 1997 / Notices

37 days, respectively, from the date of

publication of these preliminary results.

Parties who submit case briefs or

rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are

requested to submit with each argument

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

brief summary of the argument.

The Department will subsequently

publish the final results of this

administrative review, including the

results of its analysis of issues raised in

any such written briefs or at the hearing,

if held, not later than 120 days after the

date of publication of this notice.

The Department shall determine and

the Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. The Department will issue

appropriate appraisement instructions

directly to the Customs Service upon

completion of this review.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective upon

publication of the final results of this

antidumping duty review for all

shipments of porcelain-on-steel

cookware from Mexico, entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after the publication

date, as provided by section 751(a) of

the Tariff Act: (1) The cash deposit rates

for the reviewed companies will be

those established in the final results of

review; (2) for exporters not covered in

this review, but covered in the LTFV

investigation or prior reviews, the cash

deposit rate will continue to be the

company-specific rate from the LTFV

investigation or the prior review; (3) if

the exporter is not a firm covered in this

review, a prior review, or the original

LTFV investigation, but the

manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate

will be the rate established for the most

recent period for the manufacturer of

the merchandise; (4) the cash deposit

rate for all other manufacturers or

exporters will continue to be 29.52

percent, the ‘‘All Others’’ rate made

effective by the LTFV investigation.

These requirements, when imposed,

shall remain in effect until publication

of the final results of the next

administrative review.

This notice serves as a preliminary

reminder to importers of their

responsibility under 19 C.F.R. 353.26 to

file a certificate regarding the

reimbursement of antidumping duties

prior to liquidation of the relevant

entries during this review period.

Failure to comply with this requirement

could result in the Secretary’s

presumption that reimbursement of

antidumping duties occurred and the

subsequent assessment of double

antidumping duties.

This administrative review and notice

are published in accordance with

section 751(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR

353.22.

Dated: January 21, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–2350 Filed 1–30–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

Intent to Revoke Antidumping Duty

Orders and Findings and to Terminate

Suspended Investigations

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Intent to Revoke

Antidumping Duty Orders and Findings

and to Terminate Suspended

Investigations.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

(the Department) is notifying the public

of its intent to revoke the antidumping

duty orders and findings and to

terminate the suspended investigations

listed below. Domestic interested parties

who object to these revocations and

terminations must submit their

comments in writing no later than the

last day of February 1997.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 31, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael Panfeld or the analyst listed

under Antidumping Proceeding at:

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution

Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Department may revoke an

antidumping duty order or finding or

terminate a suspended investigation if

the Secretary of Commerce concludes

that it is no longer of interest to

interested parties. Accordingly, as

required by § 353.25(d)(4) of the

Department’s regulations, we are

notifying the public of our intent to

revoke the following antidumping duty

orders and findings and to terminate the

suspended investigations for which the

Department has not received a request

to conduct an administrative review for

the most recent four consecutive annual

anniversary months:

Antidumping Proceeding

Austria

Railway Track Maintenance

Equipment

A–433–064

43 FR 6937

February 17, 1978

Contact: Paul Stolz at (202) 482–4474

Germany

Sodium Thiosulfate

A–428–807

56 FR 6623

February 19, 1991

Contact: Lyn Johnson at (202) 482–

5287

Japan

Benzyl Paraben

A–588–816

56 FR 5795

February 13, 1991

Contact: Leon McNeill at (202) 482–

4236

Japan

Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings

A–588–602

52 FR 4167

February 10, 1987

Contact: Sheila Forbes at (202) 482–

5253

Japan

Melamine

A–588–056

42 FR 6366

February 2, 1977

Contact: Todd Peterson at (202) 482–

4195

The People’s Republic of China

Sodium Thiosulfate

A–570–805

56 FR 6623

February 19, 1991

Contact: Lyn Johnson at (202) 482–

5287

The United Kingdom

Sodium Thiosulfate

A–412–805

56 FR 6623

February 19, 1991

Contact: Lyn Johnson at (202) 482–

5287

Venezuela

Gray Portland Cement and Clinker

A–307–803

57 FR 6706

February 27, 1992

Contact: Nithya Nagarajan at (202)

482–0193

Spain

Potassium Permanganate

A–469–007

49 FR 2277

January 19, 1984

Contact: Paul Stolz at (202) 482–4474

If no interested party requests an

administrative review in accordance

with the Department’s notice of

opportunity to request administrative

review, and no domestic interested

party objects to the Department’s intent

to revoke or terminate pursuant to this

notice, we shall conclude that the

antidumping duty orders, findings, and

suspended investigations are no longer

of interest to interested parties and shall

proceed with the revocation or

termination.

Opportunity to Object

Domestic interested parties, as

defined in § 353.2(k)(3), (4), (5), and (6)