5590 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 25 / Thursday, February 6, 1997 / Notices

Dated: January 31, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–3004 Filed 2–5–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

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 October 1, 1996, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) published the preliminary

results of its 1994–95 administrative

review of the antidumping duty order

on granular polytetrafluoroethylene

(PTFE) resin from Italy. The review

covers one manufacturer/exporter,

Ausimont S.p.A. (Ausimont), for the

period August 1, 1994, through July 31,

1995. We gave interested parties an

opportunity to comment on our

preliminary results. We received

comments from E. I. DuPont de

Nemours & Company (DuPont), the

petitioner in this proceeding, and we

received a rebuttal from Ausimont. 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: February 6, 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 the

current regulations, as amended by the

interim regulations published in the

Federal Register on May 11, 1995 (60

FR 25130).

Background

On October 1, 1996, the Department

published in the Federal Register the

preliminary results of its 1994–95

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on granular

PTFE resin from Italy (61 FR 51266). We

gave interested parties an opportunity to

comment on the preliminary results.

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 classified 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, 1994 through July 31, 1995.

Use of Facts Available

In our initial questionnaire, we

requested that Ausimont provide valueadded data for all models which are

further manufactured in the United

States. Ausimont did not provide this

information. In a supplemental

questionnaire dated May 26, 1996, we

again requested that Ausimont report

the cost of further manufacturing

performed in the United States. In

responding, Ausimont still failed to

provide this information for certain

models.

Section 776(a) of the Tariff Act

provides that, if necessary information

is not available on the record, or an

interested party or any other person fails

to provide such information by the

deadlines for submission of the

information or in the form and manner

requested, the Department shall use the

facts otherwise available. In addition,

section 776(b) of the Tariff Act provides

that, if an interested party has failed to

cooperate to the best of its ability, the

Department may use an inference that is

adverse to the interests of that party in

selecting from among the facts

otherwise available.

Ausimont’s failure to provide furthermanufacturing data for certain models

renders it necessary that we rely upon

the facts otherwise available. Ausimont

offered no explanation for this failure on

its part, despite the Department’s

repeated requests for this information.

On this basis, we determined in our

preliminary results that Ausimont failed

to cooperate to the best of its ability.

Therefore, we determined it was

appropriate to use an inference that is

adverse to Ausimont’s interests,

pursuant to section 776(b) of the Tariff

Act. Section 776(b) authorizes the

Department to use as facts otherwise

available information derived from the

petition, the final determination, a

previous administrative review, or any

other information placed on the record.

For our final results, we have

determined that the number of models

for which Ausimont failed to provide

further-manufacturing data are

relatively few in number. Moreover, the

absence of this information has no

impact upon the remainder of

Ausimont’s database. For these reasons,

we are not resorting to total facts

available under section 776(a). As facts

available, we have selected Ausimont’s

highest reported cost of further

manufacturing and have used it in our

analysis of sales of those models for

which Ausimont failed to report the cost

of further manufacturing.

Analysis of Comments Received

We invited interested parties to

comment on our preliminary results. We

received comments from DuPont and

rebuttal comments from Ausimont.

Comment 1: DuPont contends that the

Department erred in using a negative

profit amount in the calculation of

constructed export price (CEP) for

further-manufactured transactions.

Petitioner points out that section

772(d)(3) of the statute directs the

Department to make an adjustment to

CEP for profit allocable to the selling,

distribution, and further-manufacturing

expenses incurred in the United States.

However, petitioner asserts that the

Statement of Administrative Action

(SAA) to the new law states, at 825, that

‘‘if there is no profit to be allocated

(because the affiliated entity is operating

at a loss in the United States * * *)

Commerce will make no adjustment

under section 772(d)(3).’’ DuPont

therefore contends that, under the new

law, the Department cannot use a profit

amount of less than zero in adjusting

CEP on sales of further-manufactured

products. DuPont argues further that the
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 25 / Thursday, February 6, 1997 / Notices 5591

Department should revise its

calculations to limit any allocated profit

figure to an amount that is no less than

zero.

Ausimont responds that DuPont has

misinterpreted the SAA, in that the SAA

clearly intends that the Department use

total profit for an affiliated entity in the

United States and foreign markets to

adjust CEP, rather than test the

profitability of each U.S. transaction.

Furthermore, respondent asserts that the

affiliated U.S. entity, Ausimont U.S.A.,

did not operate at a loss during the

period of review (POR) and that

petitioner’s argument does not fit the

facts of the present case and should be

rejected.

Department’s Position: We agree with

DuPont that the allocated profit which

we deduct in calculating CEP should

not be a negative amount. In our

calculations for the preliminary results

we made two deductions from CEP for

allocated profit. This was an error.

Section 772(d)(3) of the Act directs us

to allocate profit to the expenses and

further-manufacturing costs identified

in sections 772(d) (1) and (2). This is a

change from the pre-URAA statute,

which directed us to make a deduction

for ‘‘any increased value’’ (see 772(e)(3)

(1994)), which we interpreted as

requiring allocations of selling, general,

and administrative (SG&A) expenses

and profit associated with furthermanufacturing activities in the United

States. The language in section 772(d)(3)

of the 1995 Act in effect for this review

requires us to allocate profit to the

expenses associated with selling the

subject merchandise in the United

States and the cost of any further

manufacture. The additional

transaction-specific allocation of profit

to reflect ‘‘any increased value’’ is not

appropriate. Therefore, for these final

results, we have changed our

calculations such that we have not made

two deductions from CEP for profit on

further-manufactured sales.

We do not agree, however, that, when

calculating the CEP-profit deduction, we

should set the profit on each transaction

we use to calculate total actual profit to

be no less than zero. The determination

of the amount of profit to deduct from

CEP transactions is essentially a twostep process. We first calculate the total

actual profit for all sales of the subject

merchandise and the foreign like

product. We then allocate the total

profit to individual CEP transactions

based on the applicable percentage. In

the first step, i.e., determining total

actual profit, we use all sales of the

subject merchandise in the United

States and the foreign like product in

the foreign market, including sales made

at a loss. ‘‘Total actual profit’’ means

that losses in one market may offset

profits in another. In the second step,

i.e., allocation, if there is no total actual

profit to allocate (i.e., the losses in both

markets outweigh profits), we will make

no CEP-profit deduction. DuPont relies

incorrectly on the section of the SAA

which identifies this latter situation

(SAA at 825 (‘‘(i)f there is no profit to

be allocated (because the affiliated

entity is operating at a loss in the United

States and foreign markets) Commerce

will make no adjustment under section

772(d)(3)’’); see also Proposed

Regulations (61 FR 7308, February 27,

1996) (comments on section 351.402) at

7331).

Comment 2: DuPont asserts that the

Department incorrectly transcribed the

profit ratio for calculating the CEP profit

adjustment from its preliminary analysis

memorandum to the program it used to

calculate the dumping margins.

Ausimont agrees that the Department

transcribed the ratio incorrectly.

Department’s Position: We agree with

the parties. We have corrected the profit

ratio for the final results.

Comment 3: DuPont contends that, in

assigning a value of zero for variable

costs of manufacturing as facts

otherwise available to categories of U.S.

merchandise for which Ausimont did

not submit variable costs of

manufacturing, the Department

rewarded respondent for failing to

provide data required to calculate a

difference-in-merchandise adjustment.

Petitioner claims that setting the value

to zero distorts the difference-inmerchandise adjustment and eliminates

potential margins. Petitioner contends

that a more appropriate choice for facts

available is the highest variable cost of

manufacturing for any U.S. product

code.

Ausimont rejoins that the inadvertent

omission of variable cost of

manufacturing was for only one U.S.

product code and affected a negligible

number of U.S. transactions. Therefore,

Ausimont states that the use of facts

available is unnecessary and

unwarranted.

Department’s Position: We agree with

DuPont that designating a value of zero

for variable costs of manufacturing that

Ausimont did not submit is not

appropriate. However, we disagree that

using the highest variable cost of

manufacturing is appropriate in this

case. In light of the nature and the

extent of the deficiency, we have

determined to use the average of

Ausimont’s submitted variable costs of

manufacture in our calculation of the

difference-in-merchandise adjustment

for these transactions.

Comment 4: DuPont claims that, in

calculating further-manufacturing costs,

the Department relied upon the amount

in Ausimont’s computer tape for

determining the cost of further

manufacturing and omitted a

component for total general expense

Ausimont reported in its February 21,

1996 questionnaire response. Petitioner

believes the Department should add the

reported amount to the furthermanufacturing costs.

Ausimont answers that the amount it

reported in an exhibit of its response is

simply the sum of three expense items

that it reported in the same exhibit and

that it included these expense items in

its submission of total costs of further

manufacturing.

Department’s Position: We disagree

with petitioner that we omitted an

element of further-manufacturing costs

in our calculation of total costs.

Including the amount DuPont cites

would cause us to double-count

Ausimont’s reported expenses because

that amount is a sum of specific

expenses submitted by Ausimont.

Therefore, we have not changed our

calculation for the final results.

Comment 5: DuPont avers that the

Department must review Ausimont’s

reported data to identify all instances

where it omitted required data from the

questionnaire and supplemental

responses and to apply facts otherwise

available where any such omission

occurs.

Ausimont counters that, other than

the omission mentioned in Comment 3,

no required data were unreported and

that the use of facts otherwise available

is unwarranted.

Department’s Position: We agree with

petitioner that it is proper to apply facts

otherwise available in any instance

where Ausimont did not submit

required data. In our analysis, we

conduct various checks of the

transaction-specific data to determine

where data are missing. Other than the

missing data discussed in the Fact

Available section and in Comment 3

above, we found no indication that

Ausimont neglected to report requested

data.

Final Results of the Review

We determine the following weightedaverage dumping margin exists:

Manufacturer/exporter

Period Margin

(percent)

Ausimont

S.p.A. ..... 08/01/94–07/31/95 17.73

The Department shall determine, and

the Customs Service shall assess,
5592 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 25 / Thursday, February 6, 1997 / Notices

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. Individual differences between

U.S. price and normal value (NV) may

vary from the percentage stated above.

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 17.73 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 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 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1))

and section 353.22 of the Department’s

regulations (19 CFR 353.22 (1996)).

Dated: January 27, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–2881 Filed 2–5–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[A–588–703]

Certain Internal-Combustion Industrial

Forklift Trucks From Japan; 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 August 2, 1996, the

Department of Commerce published the

preliminary results of administrative

review of the antidumping duty order

on certain internal-combustion

industrial forklift trucks from Japan. The

review covers three manufacturers/

exporters. The period of review is June

1, 1994 through May 31, 1995.

Based on our analysis of the

comments received, we have made

changes, including corrections of certain

inadvertent programming and clerical

errors, in the margin calculation for

Toyota Motor Corporation. Therefore,

the final results differ from the

preliminary results. The final weightedaverage dumping margins for the

reviewed firms are listed below in the

section entitled ‘‘Final Results of the

Review.’’

EFFECTIVE DATE: Febraury 6, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thomas O. Barlow, Davina Hashmi or

Kris Campbell, at Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, Washington, D.C. 20230;

telephone: (202) 482–4733.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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 citations

to the Department’s regulations are to

the current regulations, as amended by

the interim regulations published in the

Federal Register on May 11, 1995 (60

FR 25130).

Background

On August 2, 1996, the Department of

Commerce (the Department) published

the preliminary results of administrative

review of the antidumping duty order

on certain internal-combustion

industrial forklift trucks from Japan (61

FR 40400)(Preliminary Results). The

review covers three manufacturers/

exporters. The period of review (the

POR) is June 1, 1994, through May 31,

1995. We invited parties to comment on

our Preliminary Results. We received

briefs and rebuttal briefs on behalf of

NACCO Materials Handling Group, Inc.

(petitioners), and Toyota Motor

Corporation and Toyota Motor Sales,

U.S.A., Inc. (Toyota). At the request of

Toyota, a hearing was scheduled but

was subsequently canceled at Toyota’s

request. The Department has conducted

this administrative review in

accordance with section 751 of the Act.

Scope of Review

The products covered by this review

are certain internal-combustion,

industrial forklift trucks, with lifting

capacity of 2,000 to 15,000 pounds. The

products covered by this review are

further described as follows: Assembled,

not assembled, and less than complete,

finished and not finished, operatorriding forklift trucks powered by

gasoline, propane, or diesel fuel

internal-combustion engines of off-thehighway types used in factories,

warehouses, or transportation terminals

for short-distance transport, towing, or

handling of articles. Less-than-complete

forklift trucks are defined as imports

which include a frame by itself or a

frame assembled with one or more

component parts. Component parts of

the subject forklift trucks which are not

assembled with a frame are not covered

by this order.

Imports of these products are

classified under the following

Harmonized Tariff Schedules (HTS)

subheadings: 8427.20.00, 8427.90.00,

and 8431.20.00. The HTS item numbers

are provided for convenience and

Customs purposes. The written

descriptions remain dispositive.

This review covers the following

firms: Toyota, Nissan Motor Company

(Nissan), and Toyo Umpanki Company,

Ltd. (Toyo).

Use of Facts Available

In accordance with section 776 of the

Act, we have determined that the use of

facts available is appropriate for certain

portions of our analysis of Toyota’s data.

For a discussion of our application of

facts available, see Comments 1 through

3, below.