Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 191 / Thursday, October 2, 1997 / Notices 51635

DOC Position: We agree with Borusan

and have corrected this error in the final

results. To make the COS adjustment,

we have deducted home market direct

selling expenses from FMV and then

added U.S. direct selling expenses to

FMV.

Comment 15: Conversion of Certain

Direct Selling and Movement Expenses.

Borusan contends that the Department

incorrectly converted certain direct

selling and movement expenses from

Turkish Lira to U.S. dollars by using

exchange rates based on dates of sale

rather than on dates of shipment.

The petitioners did not comment on

this issue.

DOC Position: We agree with Borusan.

In accordance with our practice, we

have corrected the error by using

exchange rates based on the date of

shipment to convert expenses from

Turkish lira to U.S. dollars. See Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Silicon Metal From Brazil,

56 FR 26977, 26980 (June 12, 1991)

(Comment 3).

Comment 16: Assessment Rate. On

August 1, 1997, we informed Borusan

and the petitioners that we intended to

calculate importer-specific ad valorem

assessment rates on entered value. Since

our antidumping questionnaire did not

request Borusan to submit entered

values in its questionnaire response, we

informed the parties that we would

calculate entered values by subtracting

international freight charges from the

gross unit prices reported in the U.S.

sales database.

The petitioners contend that to

calculate the entered values the

Department should also subtract from

the gross unit prices the discount that

Borusan grants its customers.

Borusan did not comment on this

issue.

DOC Position: We agree with the

petitioners. We have removed all

discounts from gross unit prices to

calculate entered values.

Final Results of Review

As a result of our review, we

determine that the following margins

exist for the period May 1, 1993,

through April 30, 1994:

Manufacturer/

exporter Review period Margin(percent)

Borusan ......... 5/1/93–4/30/94 4.01

Yucelboru ...... 5/1/93–4/30/94 0.00

The Department shall determine, and

Customs shall assess, antidumping

duties on all appropriate entries. The

Department will issue appraisement

instructions directly to Customs.

For Yucelboru, a cash deposit rate of

zero will be effective for all its

shipments of the subject merchandise

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after the

publication date of these final results of

this administrative review, as provided

by section 751(a) of the Act.

For Borusan, the cash deposit rate

will continue to be 2.57 percent, the rate

effective since May 16, 1997, which was

published in the Notice of Amended

Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review: Certain Welded

Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube from

Turkey, 62 FR 27013 (May 16, 1997).

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; if the exporter is

not a firm covered in this or a prior

review or the original investigation, but

the manufacturer is, the cash deposit

rate will be that established for the

manufacturer of the merchandise; and if

neither the exporter nor the

manufacturer is a firm covered in this or

any previous review, the cash deposit

rate will be 14.74 percent, the ‘‘all

others’’ rate established in the LTFV

investigation.

These deposit requirements shall

remain in effect until publication of the

final results of the next administrative

review.

This notice also serves as final

reminder to importers of their

responsibility 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 is the only reminder to

parties subject to administrative

protective order (APO) of their

responsibility concerning the return or

destruction of proprietary information

disclosed under APO in accordance

with 19 C.F.R. 353.34(d). Failure to

comply is a violation of the APO.

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

C.F.R. 353.22.

Dated: September 25, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–26196 Filed 10–1–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C–401–056]

Viscose Rayon Staple Fiber From

Sweden; Final Results of

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of

countervailing duty administrative

review.

SUMMARY: On June 6, 1997, the

Department of Commerce (‘‘the

Department’’) published in the Federal

Register its preliminary results of

administrative review of the

countervailing duty order on viscose

rayon staple fiber from Sweden for the

period January 1, 1995 through

December 31, 1995 (62 FR 31079). The

Department has now completed this

administrative review in accordance

with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of

1930, as amended. For information on

the net subsidy for each reviewed

company, and for all non-reviewed

companies, please see the Final Results

of Review section of this notice. We will

instruct the U.S. Customs Service to

assess countervailing duties as detailed

in the Final Results of Review section of

this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 2, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Stephanie Moore or Russell Morris,

Office of CVD/AD Enforcement VI,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone:

(202) 482–2786.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Pursuant to 19 CFR 355.22(a), this

review covers only those producers or

exporters of the subject merchandise for

which a review was specifically

requested. Accordingly, this review

covers Svenska Rayon AB (Svenska).

This review also covers the period

January 1, 1995 through December 31,

1995, and ten programs.
51636 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 191 / Thursday, October 2, 1997 / Notices

We published the preliminary results

on June 6, 1997 (62 FR 31079). We

invited interested parties to comment on

the preliminary results. We received no

comments from any of the parties.

Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute are references to

the provisions of the Tariff Act of 1930,

as amended by the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act (URAA) effective

January 1, 1995 (the Act). The

Department is conducting this

administrative review in accordance

with section 751(a) of the Act.

Scope of the Review

Imports covered by this review are

shipments from Sweden of regular

viscose rayon staple fiber from Sweden

of regular viscose rayon staple fiber and

high-wet modulus (modal) viscose

rayon staple fiber. Such merchandise is

classifiable under item number

5504.10.00 of the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule (HTS). The HTS item is

provided for convenience and Customs

purposes. The written description

remains dispositive.

Analysis of Programs

Based upon the responses to our

questionnaire, we determine the

following:

I. Programs Found Not To Confer

Subsidies

A. Investment Grants from the Working Life

Fund

B. Recruitment Incentive Program

C. Trainee Temporary Replacement

D. Recruitment Subsidy Program

In the preliminary results, we found

that these programs did not confer

countervailable subsidies on the subject

merchandise. We did not receive any

comments on these programs from the

interested parties, and our review of the

record has not led us to change our

findings from the preliminary results.

We will examine the Recruitment

Subsidy Program in any future

administrative reviews of this order

because we did not make a specificity

determination in this review since, even

if the program were found to be specific,

the subsidy rate would be so small that

it would not change the overall subsidy

rate of Svenska.

II. Programs Found To Be Not Used

In the preliminary results, we found

that Svenska did not apply for or receive

benefits under the following programs:

A. Manpower Reduction Grants

B. Grants for Temporary Employment for

Public Works

C. Regional Development Grant

D. Transportation Grants

E. Location-of-Industry Loans

We did not receive any comments on

these programs from the interested

parties, and our review of the record has

not led us to change our findings from

the preliminary results.

III. Programs Found To Be Terminated

In the preliminary results, we found

the following program to be terminated

and that no residual benefits were being

provided:

Elderly Employment Compensation

Program

We did not receive any comments on

this program from the interested parties,

and our review of the record has not led

us to change our findings from the

preliminary results.

Final Results of Review

For the reasons discussed in the

preliminary determination, we

determine that no countervailable

subsidies were conferred on Svenska for

the period January 1, 1995 through

December 31, 1995. We will instruct the

U.S. Customs Service (‘‘Customs’’) to

liquidate without regard to

countervailing duties, all shipments of

this merchandise exported on or after

January 1, 1995, and on or before

December 31, 1995. The Department

will also instruct Customs to collect a

cash deposit of estimated countervailing

duties of zero percent ad valorem, as

provided for by section 751(a) of the

Act, on all shipments of this

merchandise from Svenska, entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after the date of

publication of the final results of this

review.

Because the URAA replaced the

general rule in favor of a country-wide

rate with a general rule in favor of

individual rates for investigated and

reviewed companies, the procedures for

establishing countervailing duty rates,

including those for non-reviewed

companies, are now essentially the same

as those in antidumping cases, except as

provided for in § 777A(e)(2)(B) of the

Act. The requested review will normally

cover only those companies specifically

named. See 19 CFR § 355.22(a) (1997).

Pursuant to 19 CFR § 355.22(g), for all

companies for which a review was not

requested, duties must be assessed at

the cash deposit rate, and cash deposits

must continue to be collected at the rate

previously ordered. As such, the

countervailing duty cash deposit rate

applicable to a company can no longer

change, except pursuant to a review of

that company. See Federal-Mogul

Corporation and The Torrington

Company v. United States, 822 F.Supp.

782 (CIT 1993) and Floral Trade Council

v. United States, 822 F.Supp. 766 (CIT

1993) (interpreting 19 CFR § 353.22(e),

the antidumping regulation on

automatic assessment, which is virtually

identical to 19 CFR § 355.22(g)).

Therefore, the cash deposit rates for all

companies except those covered by this

review will be unchanged by the results

of this review.

We will instruct Customs to continue

to collect cash deposits for nonreviewed companies at the most recent

company-specific or country-wide rate

applicable to the company. Accordingly,

the cash deposit rates that will be

applied to non-reviewed companies

covered by this order are those

established in the most recently

completed administrative proceeding

conducted pursuant to the statutory

provisions that were in effect prior to

the URAA amendments. These rates

shall apply to all non-reviewed

companies until a review of a company

assigned these rates is conducted. In

addition, for the period January 1, 1995

through December 31, 1995, the

assessment rates applicable to all nonreviewed companies covered by this

order are the cash deposit rates in effect

at the time of entry.

This notice 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 § 355.34(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 an 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)).

Dated: September 25, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–26194 Filed 10–1–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

Export Trade Certificate of Review

ACTION: Notice of application to amend

certificate.

SUMMARY: The Office of Export Trading

Company Affairs (‘‘OETCA’’),

International Trade Administration,