54822 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1997 / Notices

Public comment on the application is

invited from interested parties.

Submissions (original and 3 copies)

shall be addressed to the Board’s

Executive Secretary at the address

below. The closing period for their

receipt is December 22, 1997. Rebuttal

comments in response to material

submitted during the foregoing period

may be submitted during the subsequent

15-day period (to January 5, 1997).

A company of the application and

accompanying exhibits will be available

during this time for public inspection at

the following locations:

Gregg County Courthouse 101 E.

Methvin Street, Suite 300 Longview,

Texas 75601

Office of the Executive Secretary

Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room

3716 U.S. Department of Commerce

14th & Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20230

Dated: October 15, 1997.

John J. Da Ponte, Jr.,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–27989 Filed 10–21–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–588–707]

Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin

From Japan; Notice of Rescission of

Initiation of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of rescission of

antidumping duty administrative

review.

SUMMARY: On September 25, 1997, the

Department of Commerce published in

the Federal Register a notice

announcing the initiation of an

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on granular

polytetrafluoroethylene from Japan,

covering one manufacturer/exporter of

the subject merchandise, Mitsui-DuPont

Polychemical, for the period August 1,

1996 through July 31, 1997. On

September 17, 1997, we received a

request for withdrawal from this review

from Mitsui. Because Mitsui submitted

a timely request for withdrawal and

because no other interested party

requested a review, we are rescinding

this review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 22, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Davina Hashmi or Gregory Thompson,

AD/CVD Enforcement, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202)

482–5760 or (202) 482–0410,

respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Department of

Commerce’s (the Department)

regulations are to the regulations

published in the Federal Register on

May 19, 1997 (62 FR 27296).

Background

On August 28, 1997, Mitsui-DuPont

Polychemical (Mitsui) requested an

administrative review with respect to its

entries or sales of granular

polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) resin.

On September 25, 1997, in accordance

with section 351.221(b) of our

regulations, we initiated an

administrative review of this order for

the period August 1, 1997 through July

31, 1997 (62 FR 50292). On September

17 and 25, 1997, Mitsui withdrew of its

request for review.

Pursuant to section 351.213(d)(1) of

the Department’s regulations, a party

may withdraw its request for an

administrative review not later than 90

days after the date of publication of the

notice of initiation of the administrative

review. The Department may extend

this time limit if the Department decides

it is reasonable to do so.

Because Mitsui submitted a timely

withdrawal of its request for review and

because no other party requested a

review, the Department is rescinding

this initiation.

This notice is published in

accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1).

Dated: October 14, 1997.

Richard W. Moreland,

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, AD/CVD

Enforcement.

[FR Doc. 97–27997 Filed 10–21–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–588–706]

Nitrile Rubber From Japan:

Termination of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Termination of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review.

SUMMARY: On August 1, 1997, the

Department of Commerce initiated an

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on Nitrile

Rubber from Japan for one manufacturer

or producer of nitrile rubber from Japan,

Japan Synthetic Rubber Co., Ltd.,

covering the period June 1, 1996

through May 31, 1997. The Department

of Commerce is terminating the review

after receiving a withdrawal of its

request for a review from Japan

Synthetic Rubber Co., Ltd.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 22, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sheila Forbes or Irene Darzenta, AD/

CVD Enforcement Group II, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th and Constitution

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

telephone: (202) 482–0065 and (202)

482–6320, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended (the Tariff Act), are 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 of Commerce’s (the

Department’s) regulations are to the

regulations as codified at 19 CFR Part

353 (1997).

Background

On June 30, 1997, Japan Synthetic

Rubber Co., Ltd., a manufacturer and

exporter of merchandise subject to this

order, requested that the Department

conduct an administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on nitrile

rubber from Japan for the period June 1,

1996 through May 31, 1997.

On August 1, 1997, the Department

published in the Federal Register (62

FR 41339) a notice of initiation of

administrative review with respect to

Japan Synthetic Rubber Co., Ltd. for the

period June 1, 1996 through May 31,

1997. On August 13, 1997, Japan

Synthetic Rubber Co., Ltd. requested

that it be allowed to withdraw its

request for a review and that the review

be terminated.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 353.22(a)(5) of the

Department’s regulations, the

Department may allow a party that

requests an administrative review to

withdraw such request not later than 90
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1997 / Notices 54823

days after the date of publication of the

notice of initiation of the administrative

review. In light of the fact that Japan

Synthetic Rubber Co., Ltd.’s request for

termination was submitted within the

90-day time limit and there were no

requests for review from other interested

parties, we are terminating this review

for Japan Synthetic Rubber Co., Ltd. See

Certain Welded Stainless Steel Pipe

from Korea, Termination of

Antidumping Duty Administration

Review, 62 FR 47460, (September 9,

1997). We will issue appraisement

instructions directly to the U.S. Customs

Service.

This notice is in accordance with 19

CFR 353.22(a)(5).

Dated: October 15, 1997.

Richard W. Moreland,

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, Group II,

Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–27993 Filed 10–21–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–583–824]

Notice of Termination of New Shipper

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review: Polyvinyl Alcohol From

Taiwan

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 22, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Everett Kelly or Brian Smith, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

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

telephone: (202) 482–4194 or (202) 482–

1766, respectively.

The Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended (the Act), are references to the

provisions effective January 1, 1995, the

effective date of the amendments made

to the Act by the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act (URAA). In addition,

unless otherwise indicated, all

references to the Department’s

regulations are to those codified at 19

CFR part 353, as they existed on April

1, 1996.

Background

On December 18, 1996, the

Department published in the Federal

Register notice the initiation of a new

shipper administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on polyvinyl

alcohol from Taiwan covering the

exporter Perry Chemical Corporation

(‘‘Perry’’) and the period May 1, 1996,

through October 31, 1996 (61 FR 68237,

December 28, 1996).

Under Section 751(a)(2)(B)(i) of the

Act, the Department will conduct an

administrative review to establish an

individual weighted average dumping

margin if the Department receives a

request from an exporter or producer

that establishes (1) it did not export the

merchandise that was the subject of the

antidumping duty order to the United

States during the period of investigation

and (2) it is not affiliated within the

meaning of section 771(33), any

exporter or producer who exported the

merchandise to the United States during

that period of investigation.

In the less than fair value (LTFV)

investigation, the Department

investigated the sales of Chang Chun

Petrochemicals, Ltd. (Chang Chun), the

only exporter of PVA from Taiwan

during the period of investigation,

including sales to Perry, a U.S. importer.

The record indicates that Perry has had

a longstanding business relationship as

an importer of PVA produced by Chang

Chun and imported the subject

merchandise produced and exported by

Chang Chun during the period of the

LTFV investigation. The Department

found Chang Chun to be dumping at a

rate of 19.21 percent during the LTFV

investigation. In this review, the

business relationship remains

essentially unchanged. As shown by

proprietary information on the record in

this review, Perry continues to be the

importer and Chang Chun continues to

undertake the entire production of PVA.

For the sales in question in this

review, Perry states that in addition to

being the importer, it is now also the

‘‘manufacturer/exporter’’ of the subject

merchandise, and that as a new

exporter, it is entitled to a new shipper

rate. Perry indicates that to produce the

subject merchandise, Perry purchased

the primary input of PVA, vinyl acetate

monomer (VAM) from a Taiwan

producer of VAM through an

unaffiliated U.S. trading company. Perry

contracted with Chang Chun to produce

PVA utilizing Perry’s VAM under a

tolling arrangement. Perry then sold the

PVA to unaffiliated customers in the

United States and Canada during the

period of review (POR).

In most past cases involving tolling

arrangements the Department

considered the manufacturer of the

product exported to the United States to

be the processor or toller, and not the

party which controlled the production

process, set the prices of the finished

product in all markets, and held title to

both the inputs and the subject

merchandise (see, e.g., Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Certain Small Diameter

Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes

from the Phillippines, 51 FR 33099,

September 18, 1986).

Within the last few years, the

Department has reconsidered its

position of deeming the toller the

manufacturer. A toller has no control

over the price charged to U.S. and

domestic buyers of the finished product,

nor does a toller set the price in either

market. Moreover, because the

Department only considered the price or

cost of the tolling in making

comparisons between U.S. prices and

prices of sales of the foreign like

product, the Department did not capture

all of the costs of manufacturing the

subject merchandise, e.g., cost of inputs,

as required by the statute section 773.

Therefore, this approach did not allow

for analysis of price comparisons

between the finished products.

To resolve this situation, the

Department revised its tolling practice.

Rather than treat the toller as the

producer, the Department now will treat

the party who keeps title to the inputs

and the finished product, controls the

entire production process, and sets the

price of the finished product in each

market as the producer and, hence, the

proper respondent (see Discussion

Memorandum: A Proposed Alternative

to Current Tolling Methodology in the

Current Antidumping (AD) Reviews of

Carbon Steel Flat Products,

Memorandum from Joseph A. Spetrini,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for

Compliance, to Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration, dated December 12,

1994).

This approach is also reflected in the

Department’s preamble to its new

regulations (Antidumping Duties;

Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR

27295 (May 19,1997). Under section

351.401(h) of the new regulations,

which, although not legally in effect for

this new shipper review, are, at the time

of this request for review, an expression

of the Department’s practice, the

Department will not consider a toller or

subcontractor to be a manufacturer or

producer where the toller or

subcontractor does not acquire

ownership of the finished product and

does not control the relevant sale of the

subject merchandise and the foreign like

product. See also Antidumping Duties;

Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR

27296, 27411 (legally effective only for

segments of the proceeding initiated

based on requests filed after June 18,