Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 207 / Monday, October 27, 1997 / Notices 55589

of KISCO’s data and found that the

variable cost of manufacturing and the

total cost of manufacturing reported in

KISCO’s U.S. sales data set were also

misread. Therefore, we also have

corrected these fields for the final

results.

Comment 3: KISCO argues that the

Department failed to adjust USP for the

interest revenue it earned as a result of

the charges its U.S. subsidiary made to

late-paying customers. KISCO maintains

that it is the Department’s long-standing

practice to offset interest income earned

on sales of subject merchandise against

imputed credit costs in calculating the

credit expense adjustment to USP.

Department’s Position: We agree with

KISCO and have corrected our USP

calculations to account for interest

revenue.

Final Results of Review

We determine that the following

percentage weighted-average margins

exist for the period April 28, 1992,

through October 31, 1993:

Company

Margin

(percent)

Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd ...................... 1.71

Korea Iron & Steel Co., Ltd./Union

Steel Co., Ltd ................................ 1.53

Korea Steel Pipe Co., Ltd ................. 3.15

Pusan Steel Pipe Co., Ltd ................ 6.00

The Department shall determine, and

the U.S. Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. Because the inability to link

sales with specific entries prevents

entry-by-entry assessments, we will

calculate wherever possible an exporter/

importer-specific assessment value.

With respect to assessment for ESP,

purchase price, and IPP transactions, for

the reasons explained in the ‘‘General

Issues’’ section of this notice, we

calculated a per-unit dollar amount of

dumping duty by dividing the total

dumping duties due for each importer/

customer by the corresponding number

of units used to determine the duties

due. We will direct Customs to assess

the resulting per-ton dollar amount

against each ton of merchandise on each

of the importers’/customers’ subject

entries during the review period.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective upon

publication of these final results of

review for all shipments of subject

merchandise entered, or withdrawn

from warehouse, for consumption on or

after the date of publication, as provided

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

The cash deposit rates for the reviewed

companies will be the rates outlined

above; (2) for previously investigated

companies not listed above, the cash

deposit rate will continue to be the

company-specific rate published for the

most recent period; (3) if the exporter is

not a firm covered in this 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; and (4) the cash

deposit rate for all other manufacturers

or exporters will continue to be 4.80

percent, the ‘‘All Others’’ rate made

effective by the amended final

determination of the LTFV investigation

published on November 3, 1995. See

Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe

from Korea; Notice of Final Court

Decision and Amended Final

Determination, 60 FR 55833 (November

3, 1995).

This notice also serves as a reminder

to importers of their responsibility

under § 353.26 of the Department’s

regulations 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 order (APO) of

their responsibility concerning the

disposition of proprietary information

disclosed under APO in accordance

with 19 CFR 353.34(d) of the

Department’s regulations. 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 terms of an

APO is a violation which is subject to

sanction.

This administrative review and this

notice are in accordance with section

751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act (19 U.S.C.

1675(a)(1)) and § 353.22 of the

Department’s regulations.

Dated: October 20, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–28408 Filed 10–24–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C–357–403]

Oil Country Tubular Goods From

Argentina; 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 13, 1997, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) published in the Federal

Register the preliminary results of its

1991 administrative review of the

countervailing duty order on oil country

tubular goods (OCTG) from Argentina.

We have now completed this review

and determine the total net subsidy to

be 0.49 percent ad valorem, which is de

minimis. For further information, see

the Final Results of Review section of

this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 27, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Richard Herring, 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) 482–4149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On June 13, 1997, the Department

published in the Federal Register (62

FR 32307) the preliminary results of its

1991 administrative review of the

countervailing duty order on OCTG

from Argentina (49 FR 46564; November

27, 1984). The Department has now

completed this administrative review in

accordance with section 751 of the

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

This review involves one producer/

exporter, Siderca, which accounts for all

exports of the subject merchandise

during the review period and 19

programs.

We invited interested parties to

comment on the preliminary results. On

July 14, 1997, a case brief was submitted

by Siderca.

On August 1, 1997, the Department

published in the Federal Register the

final results of changed circumstances

countervailing duty reviews covering

the orders on leather, wool, oil country

tubular goods, and cold-rolled steel

from Argentina (see Leather From
55590 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 207 / Monday, October 27, 1997 / Notices

Argentina, Wool From Argentina, Oil

Country Tubular Goods From Argentina,

and Carbon Steel Cold-Rolled Flat

Products From Argentina; Final Results

of Changed Circumstances

Countervailing Duty Reviews (62 FR

41361)). In these changed circumstances

reviews, the Department determined

that, based upon the ruling of the U.S.

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

in Ceramica Regiomontana v. United

States, 64 F.3d 1579, 1582 (Fed. Cir.

1995), it does not have the authority to

assess countervailing duties on entries

of merchandise covered by this order

occurring on or after September 20,

1991. As a result, the countervailing

duty order on OCTG was revoked

effective September 20, 1991. Therefore,

the results of this administrative review

will only apply to entries of the subject

merchandise made between January 1,

1991 and September 19, 1991. (See

Final Results of Review section of this

notice).

Applicable Statute

The Department is conducting this

administrative review in accordance

with section 751(a) of the Act. Unless

otherwise indicated, all citations to the

statute and to the Department’s

regulations are in reference to the

provisions as they existed on December

31, 1994.

Scope of Review

Imports covered by this review are

shipments of Argentine oil country

tubular goods. These products include

finished and unfinished oil country

tubular goods, which are hollow steel

products of circular cross section

intended for use in the drilling of oil or

gas, and oil well casing, tubing and drill

pipe of carbon or alloy steel, whether

welded or seamless, manufactured to

either American Petroleum Institute

(API) or proprietary specifications.

During the review period this

merchandise was classifiable under item

numbers 7304.20.20, 7304.20.40,

7304.20.50, 7304.20.60, 7304.20.70,

7304.20.80, 7304.39.00, 7304.51.50,

7304.59.60, 7304.59.80, 7304.90.70,

7305.20.40, 7305.20.60, 7305.20.80,

7305.31.40, 7305.31.60, 7305.39.10,

7305.39.50, 7305.90.10, 7305.90.50,

7306.20.20, 7306.20.30, 7306.20.40,

7306.20.60, 7306.20.80, 7306.30.50,

7306.50.50, 7306.60.70, and 7306.90.10

of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule

(HTS). The HTS numbers are provided

for convenience and Customs purposes.

The written description of the scope

remains dispositive.

Calculation Methodology for

Assessment and Cash Deposit Purposes

Because Siderca accounted for

virtually all exports of OCTG from

Argentina during the period of review,

the subsidy calculated for Siderca

constitutes the country-wide rate.

Analysis of Programs

I. Programs Conferring Subsidies

A. Programs Previously Determined To

Confer Subsidies

1. Government Counterguarantees. In

the preliminary results, we found that

this program conferred countervailable

benefits on the subject merchandise. 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. Accordingly, the

net subsidy for this program is:

Manufacturer/exporter Rate

percent

Program Rate ................................. 0.05

2. Pre-shipment Export Financing. In

the preliminary results, we found that

this program conferred countervailable

benefits on the subject merchandise. 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. Accordingly, the

net subsidy for this program is:

Manufacturer/exporter Rate

percent

Program Rate ................................. 0.18

3. Rebate of Indirect Taxes

(Reembolso/Reintegro). In the

preliminary results, we found that there

was no benefit from this program during

the review period. Our analysis of the

comments submitted by the interested

parties, summarized below, has not led

us to change our findings from the

preliminary results.

B. New Program Found To Confer

Subsidies Preferential Electricity Tariff

Rates

In the preliminary results, we found

that this program conferred

countervailable benefits on the subject

merchandise. 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.

Accordingly, the net subsidy for this

program is:

Manufacturer/exporter Rate

percent

Program rate ................................... 0.26

II. Program Found Not To Confer

Subsidies

In the preliminary results, we found

the following program to be noncountervailable:

Preferential Natural Gas Tariffs

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.

III. Programs Found To Be Not Used

In the preliminary results, we found

that the producers and/or exporters of

the subject merchandise did not apply

for or receive benefits under the

following programs:

1. Medium-And Long-Term Loans

2. Capital Grants

3. Income and Capital Tax Exemptions

4. Government Trade Promotion

Programs

5. Exemption from Stamp Taxes Under

Decree 186/74

6. Incentives for Trade (Stamp Tax

Exemption Under Decree 716)

7. Incentive for Export

8. Export Financing Under OPRAC 1,

Circular RF–21

9. Pre-Financing of Exports Under

Circular RF–153

10. Loan Guarantees

11. Post-Export Financing Under

OPRAC 1–9

12. Debt Forgiveness

13. Tax Deduction Under Decree 173/85

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.

IV. Program Found Not To Exist

In the preliminary results, we found

the following program not to exist:

Tax Concessions for the Steel Industry

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.

Analysis of Comments Received

Comment

The respondent argues that, in

calculating the allowable tax rebate

under the Reembolso/Reintegro

program, the Department failed to

exclude the taxes on gas used in the

direct reduction process. It claims that,
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 207 / Monday, October 27, 1997 / Notices 55591

while the Department correctly

recognized in its preliminary

determination and supporting

documents that Siderca consumes gas at

its production plant for general use in

the plant and for use in the direct

reduction of iron ore, the Commerce

Department incorrectly excluded the

taxes on the portion of the gas used for

the direct reduction process. This,

according to the respondent, is contrary

to the Department’s finding in the

previous administrative reviews.

Department’s Position

We determined that this program did

not provide a countervailable benefit

during this review period. Thus, the

issue of whether the Department should

exclude taxes on the portion of gas that

Siderca used for the direct reduction

process would have no impact on the

Department’s determination. As such,

the issue is moot.

Final Results of Review

As discussed above in the

BACKGROUND section , the Department

has revoked this countervailing duty

order on OCTG effective September 20,

1991. Therefore, the results of this

administrative review will only apply to

entries of the subject merchandise made

between January 1, 1991 and September

19, 1991. Since the net subsidy of 0.49

percent ad valorem for this review is de

minimis (see 19 CFR 355.7), the

Department will instruct the U.S.

Customs Service to liquidate, without

regard to countervailing duties, all

entries of subject merchandise made

between January 1, 1991 and September

19, 1991. Separate instructions

regarding entries made on or after

September 20, 1991 have already been

sent to Customs. Because this

countervailing duty order has been

revoked, no further instructions will be

sent to Customs regarding cash deposits.

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)) and 19

CFR 355.22.

Dated: October 16, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–28309 Filed 10–24–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

Secretarial Business Development

Mission to India

AGENCY: International Trade

Administration, Commerce.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice serves to inform

the public of a Secretarial Business

Development Mission to India,

December 6–13, 1997, and the

opportunity to apply for participation in

the mission; sets forth objectives,

procedures, and participation criteria

for the mission; and requests

applications.

DATES: Applications should be

submitted to Cheryl Bruner by

November 14, 1997, in order to ensure

sufficient time to obtain in-country

appointments for applicants selected to

participate in the mission. Applications

received after that date will be

considered only if space and scheduling

constraints permit. The mission is

scheduled for: New Delhi, December 6–

9; Calcutta, December 10, Chennai,

December- 11; and Mumbai, December

12–13, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Request for and submission

of applications—Applications are

available from: Cheryl Bruner, Director

of the Office of Business Liaison or

Jennifer Johnson at (202) 482–1360 or

via facsimile at (202) 482–4054.

Numbers listed in this notice are not

toll-free. An original and two copies of

the required application materials

should be sent to the Project Officer

noted above. Applications sent by

facsimile must be immediately followed

by submission of the original

application to Ms. Bruner at the

following address: Office of Business

Liaison, Room 5062, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th & Constitution, Ave.,

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Cheryl Bruner or Jennifer Johnson at 202

482–1360. Information is also available

via the International Trade

Administration’s (ITA) Internet home

page at ‘‘http://www.ita.doc.gov/uscs/

doctm’’.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Trade Mission Description

Secretary of Commerce William M.

Daley, will lead a business development

trade mission to India, one of Asia’s

most significant emerging markets, to

promote expanded trade opportunities,

advocate U.S. business interests,

advance significant commercial policy

objectives, and support the efforts of the

U.S.-India Commercial Alliance

(USICA) and the U.S.-India Business

Council. The Secretary’s mission will

include U.S. companies whose interests

range from assessing the opportunities

in the Indian market to expanding

existing business relationships. With

stops in New Delhi, Calcutta, Chennai,

and Mumbai, the Secretary’s mission

will meet with government and business

leaders in the dynamic commercial

centers of four distinctly different

regions of this large market.

The itinerary of the India Mission will

be as follows:

December 5 (Fri.) Leave United States

December 6 (Sat.) Arrive New Delhi

December 7 (Sun.) New Delhi

December 8 (Mon.) New Delhi

December 9 (Tues) New Delhi

December 10 (Wed) New Delhi depart

for Calcutta/Arrive Calcutta

December 11 (Thurs.) Depart Calcutta,

Arrive Chennai

December 12 (Fri) Depart Chennai,

Arrive Mumbai

December 13 (Sat) Depart Mumbai,

return to USA

December 14 (Sun) Arrive USA

The goals for the Mission are:

• Reaffirm the U.S. Government’s

commitment and support for India’s

program of economic reform and

heighten U.S. private sector

participation in India’s economic

growth. Emphasize how India and the

U.S. can benefit from continued

liberalization and privatization in India,

and convey in public and private sector

fora during the mission’s stay in the

country the U.S. Government’s interest

in seeing that the reforms undertaken by

the Indian Government proceed.

• Seek resolution of outstanding

bilateral commercial issues and

advocate U.S. interests regarding

specific problems and opportunities.

Key areas of focus: (1) Intellectual

property rights; (2) banking and other

financial services; (3) economic reforms;

(4) power generation; and (5)

broadcasting.

A full description of the mission is set

forth in the Mission Statement, which is

available from Cheryl Bruner, Director

of the Office of Business Liaison, at the

above address or at website.