47440 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 174 / Tuesday, September 9, 1997 / Notices

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 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 published in accordance with

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

353.22.

Dated: September 2, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary, for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–23855 Filed 9–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–614–801]

Fresh Kiwifruit From New Zealand;

Amended Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Amendment to Final

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review.

SUMMARY: On September 3, 1996, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) published the final results

of its administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on fresh

kiwifruit from New Zealand. On

December 27, 1996, the Department

published amended final results of this

review. The review covers one exporter,

the New Zealand Kiwifruit Marketing

Board (NZKMB), and the period from

June 1, 1994, through May 31, 1995.

Based on the correction of ministerial

errors made with respect to the

amended final results of December 27,

1996, we are amending the final results

a second time.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 9, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Paul M. Stolz or Thomas F. Futtner,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,

DC 20230; telephone (202) 482–4474 or

482–3814, respectively.

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

Departments regulations are to 19 CFR

part 353 (1997).

Background

On September 3, 1996, the

Department published the final results

(61 FR 46438) of its administrative

review of the antidumping duty order

on fresh kiwifruit from New Zealand (57

FR 23203 (June 2, 1992)). On December

27, 1996 the Department published

amended final results of this review.

The review covered one exporter, the

NZKMB. The Department has now

amended the final results of this

administrative review a second time in

accordance with section 751 of the Act.

Scope of the Review

The product covered by the order

under review is fresh kiwifruit.

Processed kiwifruit, including fruit

jams, jellies, pastes, purees, mineral

waters, or juices made from or

containing kiwifruit, are not covered

under the scope of the order. The

subject merchandise is currently

classifiable under subheading

0810.90.20 of the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule (HTS). Although the HTS

number is provided for convenience and

customs purposes, our written

description of the scope of this review

is dispositive.

Amended Final Results

After publication of our amended

final results, we received timely

allegations of ministerial errors from the

respondent, NZKMB, and the petitioner,

the California Kiwifruit Commission.

Allegation 1: NZKMB alleges that the

Department failed to properly initialize

the variable for home market pallet

expenses, PALEXPH, in the computer

program. The petitioner agrees with

NZKMB’s allegation. The Department

agrees with both respondent and

petitioner and has adjusted the

computer program to properly initialize

the variable.

Allegation 2: NZKMB alleges that the

Department incorrectly added imputed

credit and inventory carrying costs into

the computation of constructed value

(CV). Since these costs are already

included in CV, as elements of selling,

general and administrative expenses,

respondent asserts that adding them

would result in double-counting. We

agree and have revised the program

accordingly.

Allegation 3: NZKMB argues that

imputed credit expenses should be

deducted from CV and inventory

carrying costs should be deducted up to

the CEP offset cap. We agree regarding

the deduction of credit and inventory

carrying costs and have revised the

program accordingly.

Allegation 4: NZKMB alleges that the

Department treated the sum of the cost

of manufacturing (COM) and G&A as the

COM, and then double-counted G&A by

adding it again in the calculation of

COP. We agree and have corrected the

computer program as appropriate.

Allegation 5: NZKMB alleges that the

Department converted normal value for

price-to-price comparisons into U.S.

dollars by erroneously multiplying,

instead of dividing, the NV by the

exchange rate, We agree and have

corrected the computer program as

appropriate.

Allegation 6: Petitioner alleges that

the Department’s program applies the

New Zealand rate of exchange twice to

the United States packing cost used to

create the variable ‘‘FUPDOL’’. We agree

and have corrected the program as

appropriate.

For a description of allegations we did

not agree were clerical errors, see the

memorandum from Tom Futtner,

Program Manager, to Holly Kuga, Senior

Office Director, dated July 25, 1997.

Upon correction of the error described

above as allegation 1, the Department

has determined that all home market

sales were below the cost of production,

thus requiring the calculation of

constructed value. Section 773(e)(2)(B)

of the Act states that in the absence of

above cost sales, selling expenses and

profit shall be based on (i) expenses and

profit of the respondent’s other

products, or (ii) the expenses and profit

of other producers subject to the

antidumping investigation or review, or

(iii) any other reasonable method. The

first two alternatives and not available

in this case, since NZKMB sells no other

products and since there are no other

New Zealand exporters subject to this

review. Therefore we must rely on

‘‘other reasonable’’ methods. In this

case, since NZKMB earned no profits on

home market sales and we have no other

information on the record with respect

to profit earned in the home market, as

facts available we used the profits
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 174 / Tuesday, September 9, 1997 / Notices 47441

realized at the grower level. In this

instance, we used the average profit of

the twenty sampled growers as the

profit figure in our margin calculations.

With respect to selling expenses, we

have used the selling expenses

associated with the home market sales.

See Final Results of Administrative

Review, Ferrosilicon from Brazil, (61 FR

59407), dated November 22, 1996.

Amended Final Results of Review

As a result of our correction of the

ministerial errors, we have determined

the following margin exists for the

period June 1, 1994, through May 31,

1995:

Manufacturer/exporter Margin (percent)

New Zealand Kiwifruit

Marketing Board .......... 0.00

The Customs Service shall assess

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. Individual differences between

U.S. price and NV may vary from the

percentage stated above. The

Department will issue appraisement

instructions concerning the respondent

directly to the U.S. Customs Service.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective for all

shipments of the subject merchandise

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after the

publication date of these final results of

administrative review, as provided for

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

cash deposit rate for the reviewed firm

will be 0.00 percent; and (2) the cash

deposit rate for merchandise exported

by all other manufacturers and exporters

will be the ‘‘all others’’ rate of 98.60

percent established in the less-than-fairvalue investigation; in accordance with

the Department practice. See Floral

Trade Council v. United States, 822 F.

Supp. 766 (1993), and Federal Mogul

Corporation, 822 F. Supp. 782 (1993).

These deposit requirements shall

remain in effect until publication of the

final results of the next administrative

review.

This notice serves as the final

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 notice also serves as a reminder

to parties subject to administrative

protective order (APO) of their

responsibility concerning the

disposition of proprietary information

disclosed under APO in accordance

with 19 CFR 353.34(d). Timely written

notification of return/destruction of

APO materials or conversion to judicial

protective order is hereby requested.

Failure to comply with the regulations

and the terms of the APO is a

sanctionable violation.

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: August 27, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–23851 Filed 9–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–351–806]

Silicon Metal From Brazil: Amended

Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Amended Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

(the Department) is amending its final

results of review, published on

September 5, 1996, of the antidumping

duty order on silicon metal from Brazil,

to reflect the correction of ministerial

errors in those final results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 9, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred

Baker, Alain Letort, or John Kugelman,

AD/CVD Enforcement Group III—Office

8, Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230, telephone 202/

482–2924 (Baker), 202/482–4243

(Letort), or 202/482–0649 (Kugelman),

fax 202/482–1388.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute and to the

regulations are references to the

provisions as they existed on December

31, 1994.

Background

The Department published the final

results of the second administrative

review of the antidumping duty order

on silicon metal from Brazil on

September 5, 1996 (61 FR 46763)

(Second Review Final Results), covering

the period July 1, 1992 through June 30,

1993. The respondents are Companhia

Brasileira Carbureto de Ca ́lcio (CBCC),

Companhia Ferroligas Minas Gerais—

Minasligas (Minasligas), Eletroila, S.A.

(currently known as Eletrosilex Belo

Horizonte (Eletrosilex)), and Rima

Industrial S.A. (RIMA). The petitioners

are American Alloys, Inc., Elken Metals,

Co., Globe Metallurgical, Inc., SMI

Group, and SKW Metals & Alloys.

On September 20, 1996, the

petitioners filed clerical error

allegations with respect to each of the

four respondents in the review. The

same day we received clerical error

allegations from respondent CBCC. On

September 27, 1996, we received

rebuttal comments from the petitioners,

CBCC, and Minasligas. On September

30, 1996, we received rebuttal

comments from Eletrosilex. The

Department agreed that certain of the

allegations constituted ministerial

errors, but the Department was unable

to issue a determination correcting these

errors before the petitioners filed a

complaint with the Court of

International Trade (CIT) challenging

the final results of review. Therefore,

the Department requested leave from the

CIT to correct these errors. On July 9,

1997, the CIT granted the Department

leave to correct the errors. See American

Silicon Technologies et al., v. United

States, Slip Op. 97–94, July 9, 1997.

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 a higher

aluminum content 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 2804.50 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.