48592 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 179 / Tuesday, September 16, 1997 / Notices

Contact: Ron Trentham at (202) 482–

4793

A–428–061

Germany

Precipitated Barium Carbonate

Objection Date: June 13, 1997

Objector: Chemical Products

Corporation

Contact: Tom Futtner at (202) 482–3814

Dated: September 5, 1997.

Richard W. Moreland,

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for

AD/CVD Enforcement.

[FR Doc. 97–24566 Filed 9–15–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–588–015]

Television Receivers, Monochrome

and Color, From Japan: Notice of Final

Court Decision and Amended Final

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final court decision

and amended final results of

administrative review.

SUMMARY: On July 3, 1996, the U.S.

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

upheld the Department of Commerce’s

(the Department’s) remand

determination in this case. See Fujitsu

General Ltd. v. United States, 88 F.3d

1034 (Fed. Cir. 1996). As there is now

a final and conclusive court decision in

this action, we are amending our final

results of review in this matter and we

will subsequently instruct the Customs

Service to liquidate entries subject to

this review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 16, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Irene Darzenta or Sheila Forbes,

AD/CVD Enforcement, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;

telephone (202) 482–6320 and (202)

482–0065, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On February 11, 1991, the Department

published its final results of

administrative review of television

receivers, monochrome and color, from

Japan covering imports from 11

manufacturers/exporters during various

periods, including imports from Fujitsu

General Limited (FGL) for the periods

March 1, 1986 through February 28,

1987; March 1, 1987 through February

29, 1988; and March 1, 1989 through

February 28, 1990. See Television

Receivers, Monochrome and Color, from

Japan: Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review, 56 FR

25392. Subsequently, FGL challenged

the final results before the United States

Court of International Trade (CIT).

Following a voluntary remand, the

Department issued a redetermination

which was affirmed by the CIT on

March 14, 1995. See Fujitsu General

Limited v. United States, 883 F.Supp.

728 (CIT 1995). Subsequently, an appeal

was filed by FGL.

On July 3, 1996, the U.S. Court of

Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld

the Department’s remand determination.

See Fujitsu General Limited v. United

States, 88 F.3d 1034 (Fed. Cir. 1996). As

there is now a final and conclusive

court decision in this action, we are

amending our final results of review in

this matter and we will subsequently

instruct the U.S. Customs Service to

liquidate entries subject to this review.

Amendment to Final Result of Review

Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1516a(e), we are

now amending the final results of

administrative review for television

receivers, monochrome and color, from

Japan, with respect to FGL, for the

above-referenced periods. The revised

weighted-average margin for these

periods is 26.17 percent.

Accordingly, the Department will

determine, and the Customs Service will

assess, antidumping duties on all

appropriate entries of the subject

merchandise made by FGL and covered

by this review. Individual differences

between United States price and foreign

market value may vary from the

percentage stated above. The

Department will issue appraisement

instructions directly to the Customs

Service. Furthermore, the cash deposit

rate for FGL which will be effective

upon publication of these amended final

results of review for all shipments of the

subject merchandise made by FGL

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after the

publication date, and will remain in

effect until publication of the final

results of the next administrative

review, will be 26.17 percent.

Dated: September 10, 1997.

Jeffrey P. Bialos,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–24563 Filed 9–15–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–475–703]

Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin

From Italy; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of

antidumping duty administrative

review.

SUMMARY: On May 13, 1997, the

Department of Commerce published the

preliminary results of its 1995–96

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on granular

polytetrafluoroethylene resin from Italy.

The review covers one manufacturer/

exporter, Ausimont S.p.A, for the period

August 1, 1995, through July 31, 1996.

We gave interested parties an

opportunity to comment on our

preliminary results. We received

comments from Ausimont and E.I.

DuPont de Nemours & Company, the

petitioner in this proceeding. We have

changed our preliminary results as

explained below. The final margin for

Ausimont is listed below in the section

‘‘Final Results of Review.’’

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 16, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Chip Hayes or Richard Rimlinger, Office

of 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) 482–4733.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended (the Tariff Act), are references

to the provisions effective January 1,

1995, the effective date of the

amendments made to the Tariff Act by

the Uruguay Round Agreements Act

(URAA). In addition, unless otherwise

indicated, all citations to the

Department’s regulations are to 19 CFR

part 353 (1997).

Background

On May 13, 1997, the Department of

Commerce (the Department) published

in the Federal Register the preliminary

results of its 1995–96 administrative

review of the antidumping duty order

on granular polytetrafluoroethylene

resin (PTFE) from Italy (62 FR 26283).
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 179 / Tuesday, September 16, 1997 / Notices 48593

We gave interested parties an

opportunity to comment on the

preliminary results. We received briefs

from Ausimont S.p.A (Ausimont) and

E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Company

(DuPont). There was no request for a

hearing. The Department has now

conducted this review in accordance

with section 751 of the Tariff Act.

Scope of the Review

The product covered by this review is

granular PTFE resins, filled or unfilled.

This order also covers PTFE wet raw

polymer exported from Italy to the

United States. See Granular

Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from

Italy; Final Determination of

Circumvention of Antidumping Duty

Order, 58 FR 26100 (April 30, 1993).

This order excludes PTFE dispersions in

water and fine powders. During the

period covered by this review, such

merchandise was classifiable under item

number 3904.61.00 of the Harmonized

Tariff Schedule (HTS). We are providing

this HTS number for convenience and

customs purposes only. The written

description of the scope remains

dispositive.

The review covers one Italian

manufacturer/exporter of granular PTFE

resin, Ausimont, and the period August

1, 1995 through July 31, 1996.

Analysis of Comments Received

Comment 1: Ausimont contends that

the Department erred in using the

purchase order date or blanket order

date as the date of sale in the U.S.

market. The firm asserts that the

Department should have used the date

of invoice as the date of sale and states

that this is the Department’s current

practice and its intention as stated in

the proposed regulations (citing

Antidumping Duties: Proposed Rule, 61

FR 7308, February 27, 1996), finalized

in the same form on May 19, 1997 (62

FR 27296). Ausimont also cites to a

March 29, 1996 memorandum signed by

the Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration that implements the

date-of-invoice methodology effective

April 1, 1996.

DuPont replies that the proposed

regulations do not oblige the

Department to use the date-of-invoice

methodology. The petitioner points out

that the Department has the discretion

to use a date other than the date of

invoice if such a date better reflects the

date on which the exporter establishes

the material terms of sale. The petitioner

believes that the reported purchase and

blanket order dates more adequately

reflect the date on which material terms

of sale were established for most of

Ausimont’s U.S. sales. Therefore

DuPont asserts that the Department

should continue to use the purchase and

blanket order dates as the dates of sale

for identifying contemporaneous home

market sales.

Department’s Position: The record

indicates that Ausimont’s U.S. prices

and quantities are not usually fixed

before the invoice date. Thus, we

continue to hold that the date of invoice

is the correct date for determining date

of sale. (See Antidumping Duties:

Proposed Rule, 61 FR 7308, February

27, 1996, section 351.401(i) at 7381, and

preamble at 7330; March 29, 1996

memorandum from the Assistant

Secretary for Import Administration to

the Deputy Assistant Secretaries for

Import Administration; Certain InternalCombustion Industrial Forklift Trucks

From Japan, 62 FR 5592, February 6,

1997.)

Comment 2: Ausimont contends that,

in calculating the constructed export

price (CEP) profit ratio based on

Ausimont’s financial statements, the

Department erred by failing to include

manufacturing costs for U.S. operations

in the calculation of the amount of

profit for the firm, while attributing the

profit ratio to those costs in deriving a

CEP-profit adjustment. Ausimont states

that this results in a profit allocation

that is not an ‘‘apples-to-apples’’

comparison in its calculation and

application and creates an unfair and

inflated apportionment of profit both to

Ausimont’s further-manufacturing

operations and to its U.S. selling

activities. Respondent contends that the

Department should recalculate the profit

ratio by including those manufacturing

costs in the total expense amount.

DuPont responds that it agrees that

the Department’s profit-ratio calculation

is incorrect. However, DuPont argues

that, rather than correct its calculation,

the Department should calculate a CEPprofit ratio based on the operating

income and operating expenses for

Ausimont U.S.A. and the Fluoride

Specialties segment of Ausimont SpA.

DuPont states that it is the Department’s

policy to use an operating profit rather

than a net profit.

In rebuttal to DuPont’s argument,

Ausimont states, among other things,

that there is no precedent for using an

operating profit in the calculation of a

CEP-profit ratio. Respondent points out

that in section 351.402(d)(1) of its

proposed (and now finalized)

regulations the Department indicated a

preference for using the aggregate of

expenses and profit in calculating total

expenses and total actual profit.

Ausimont also refers to the

Department’s final results concerning

Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat

Products from the Netherlands (62 FR

18476, April 15, 1997) and Certain ColdRolled and Corrosion-Resistant Carbon

Steel Flat Products from Korea (62 FR

18404, April 15, 1997) as an affirmation

of this methodology. Therefore,

Ausimont maintains that the

Department should continue to use total

expenses and total actual profit to

determine CEP profit for the final

results. Ausimont also states that it

continues to protest Petitioner’s attempt

to raise an untimely affirmative

argument in Petitioner’s rebuttal brief.

Department’s Position: We agree with

Ausimont that we erred in the

calculation of its CEP-profit ratio by

failing to include manufacturing costs

for U.S. operations in the CEP-profit

ratio calculation which we applied to

total U.S. expenses. We also agree with

Ausimont that it is our normal practice

to use the aggregate of all expenses and

profit in the calculation of CEP profit.

The Department’s general practice in the

calculation of profit rates is to

incorporate all selling, general and

administrative expenses and expenses

normally employed in the calculation of

the cost of production. In this case, if we

were to use Ausimont’s operating profit

as part of the CEP-profit calculation, we

would necessarily exclude from that

calculation certain expenses that we

would usually include were we to

compute the cost of production for

Ausimont. Therefore, it is more

appropriate in this instance for the

calculation of CEP profit to start with

Ausimont’s reported net income. As in

this case, where we must compute CEP

profit using information from financial

statements, our methodology for

calculating total cost for the purpose of

determining CEP profit, although

subject to data limitations, is generally

the same as that used to calculate the

cost of manufacture and SG&A expenses

for purposes of determining the cost of

production and constructed value.

Thus, we included the total cost of

materials and fabrication and SG&A

expenses in our calculation of

Ausimont’s CEP profit.

This practice for calculating a net

profit is consistent with the Statement

of Administrative Action (H.R. Doc. 316,

Vol. 1 103d Cong., 2d sess. (1994))

(SAA), which repeatedly gives reference

to total production and selling expenses

in determining CEP profit. For example,

when discussing alternatives for the use

of financial reports, the SAA states that

the use of reports ‘‘will depend on the

detail in which such reports break down

total production and selling expenses

and profits’ (SAA at 825, emphasis

added). In addition, in cases in which

we have explained the calculation of
48594 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 179 / Tuesday, September 16, 1997 / Notices

CEP profit, we frequently refer to the

term ‘‘total profit’’ and ‘‘all expenses’’,

thus making it clear that the calculation

of CEP profit is based on the company’s

profits net of all expenses, i.e., net

income. See Certain Cold-Rolled and

Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat

Products From Korea: Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Reviews, 62 FR 18404, 18440 (April 15,

1997); Notice of Final Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain

Pasta From Italy, 61 FR 30326, 30352

(June 14, 1996). Therefore, we disagree

with DuPont that an operating profit is

appropriate for determining a CEP-profit

adjustment in this instance. For these

final results, we have calculated

respondent’s CEP-profit ratio based on

total profit and total expenses and

ensured that we have included cost for

manufacturing operations in the United

States in the computation of the profit

rate to apply to U.S. expenses.

With regard to respondent’s claim that

it was inappropriate for the Department

to accept petitioner’s untimely

submission of an affirmative argument,

we disagree with the respondent. The

Department has the right to seek

comments or additional information at

any time during a proceeding. 19 CFR

353.38(a). The CEP-profit calculation is

a new methodology to implement

provisions of the URAA. Therefore, the

Department chose to exercise its

prerogative to consider the argument

and solicit rebuttal from respondent in

order to more fully explore the issue.

The Department has now had the

opportunity to consider comments and

make a fully informed determination.

Final Results of the Review

We determine the that following

weighted-average dumping margin

exists:

Manufacturer/exporter Period Margin

(percent)

Ausimont S.p.A. ..................................................................................................................................................... 08/01/95–07/31/96 5.95

The Department shall determine, and

the Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. Ausimont’s sales were all

through its subsidiary in the United

States. Therefore, we divided the total

dumping margins for the reviewed sales

by the total entered value of those

reviewed sales. We will direct Customs

to assess the resulting percentage

margin against the entered Customs

values for the subject merchandise on

entries during the period of review

(POR). While the Department is aware

that the entered value of sales during

the POR is not necessarily equal to

entered value of entries during the POR,

use of entered value of sales as the basis

of the assessment rate permits the

Department to collect a reasonable

approximation of the antidumping

duties which would have been

determined if the Department had

reviewed those sales of merchandise

actually entered during the POR. The

Department will issue appraisement

instructions directly to the 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 by

section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act: (1)

The cash deposit rate for Ausimont will

be 5.95 percent; (2) for merchandise

exported by manufacturers or exporters

not covered in this review but covered

in the original less-than-fair-value

(LTFV) investigation or a previous

review, the cash deposit will continue

to be the most recent rate published in

the final determination or final results

for which the manufacturer or exporter

received a company-specific rate; (3) if

the exporter is not a firm covered in this

review, a previous review, or the

original investigation, but the

manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate

will be that established for the

manufacturer of the merchandise in the

final results of this review, a previous

review, or the LTFV investigation; and

(4) if neither the exporter nor the

manufacturer is a firm covered in this or

any previous review, the cash deposit

rate will be 46.46 percent, the ‘‘all

others’’ rate established in the LTFV

investigation (50 FR 26019, June 24,

1985).

This notice serves as a 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 the only

reminder to parties subject to

administrative protective orders (APOs)

of their responsibility concerning the

disposition of proprietary information

disclosed under APO in accordance

with 19 CFR 353.34(d)(1). Timely

written notification of the return/

destruction of APO materials or

conversion to judicial protective order is

hereby requested. Failure to comply

with the regulations and the terms of an

APO is a sanctionable violation.

This administrative review and notice

are in accordance with section 751(a)(1)

of the Tariff Act (19 USC 1675(a)(1)) and

section 353.22 of the Department’s

regulations (19 CFR 353.22 (1997)).

Dated: September 9, 1997.

Jeffrey P. Bialos,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–24562 Filed 9–15–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–588–835]

Oil Country Tubular Goods From

Japan; Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Final results of antidumping

duty administrative review.

SUMMARY: On May 12, 1997, the

Department of Commerce (‘‘the

Department’’) published the preliminary

results of the administrative review of

the antidumping duty order on oil

country tubular goods (‘‘OCTG’’) from

Japan. This review covers one producer/

exporter, NKK Corporation of Japan

(‘‘NKK’’), entries of drill pipe during the

period August 11, 1995 through July 31,

1996, and entries of OCTG other than

drill pipe during the period February 2,

1995 through July 31, 1996. We gave

interested parties an opportunity to

comment on our preliminary results.

After reviewing the comments received,

we have determined not to change the

results from those presented in the

preliminary results of review.

This review was initiated in response

to requests by importers, Helmerich &

Payne, Inc. (‘‘H&P’’) and Caprock Pipe

and Supply (‘‘Caprock’’), for a review of