60688 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 218 / Wednesday, November 12, 1997 / Notices

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. Individual differences between

EP and NV may vary from the

percentages stated above. We have

calculated importer-specific duty

assessment rates for each class or kind

of HFHTs by dividing the total dumping

margins (calculated as the difference

between NV and EP) for each importer/

customer by the total number of units

sold to that importer/customer. We will

direct Customs to assess the resulting

per-unit dollar amount against each unit

of merchandise in each of the

importer’s/customer’s entries under the

relevant order during the review period.

Cash Deposit Requirements

The following deposit requirements

will be effective upon publication of the

final results of these administrative

reviews for all shipments of HFHTs

from the PRC entered, or withdrawn

from warehouse, for consumption on or

after the publication date, as provided

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

The cash deposit rates for the reviewed

companies named above which have

separate rates (Shandong Huarong,

LMC, TMC, FMEC, and SMC) will be

the rates for those firms established in

the final results of these administrative

reviews for the classes or kinds listed

above; (2) for all other PRC exporters,

the cash deposit rates will be the PRCwide rates established in the final

results of the previous administrative

reviews; and (3) the cash deposit rates

for non-PRC exporters of subject

merchandise from the PRC will be the

rates applicable to the PRC supplier of

that exporter. The PRC-wide rates are:

21.93 percent for axes/adzes; 66.32

percent for bars/wedges; 44.41 percent

for hammers/sledges; and 108.2 percent

for picks/mattocks. These deposit

requirements, when imposed, shall

remain in effect until publication of the

final results of the next administrative

reviews.

Notification of Interested Parties

This notice serves as a preliminary

reminder to importers of their

responsibility under section 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.

These administrative reviews and

notice are in accordance with section

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

1675(a)(1)) and section 353.22 of the

Department’s regulations.

Dated: October 31, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–29763 Filed 11–10–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–428–820]

Small Diameter Circular Seamless

Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line

and Pressure Pipe From Germany;

Notice of Rescission 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 (‘‘the

Department’’) published in the Federal

Register (62 FR 50292) a notice

announcing the initiation of an

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on Small

Diameter Circular Seamless Carbon and

Alloy Steel Standard, Line and Pressure

Pipe from Germany, covering the period

August 1, 1996 through July 31, 1997.

The review has now been rescinded as

a result of the withdrawal of the request

for administrative review by the

interested party that requested the

review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 12, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nancy Decker, Group III, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20230,

telephone: (202) 482–0196.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On August 29, 1997, the Department

received a request from the respondent

in this case, Mannesmannrohren-Werke

AG (‘‘MRW’’) and Mannesmann Pipe &

Steel Corporation (‘‘MPS’’) (collectively

‘‘Mannesmann’’), to conduct an

administrative review of Mannesmann,

pursuant to section 19 CFR 351.213(b)

of the Department’s regulations. The

period of review is August 1, 1996

through July 31, 1997. On September 25,

1997, the Department published in the

Federal Register (62 FR 50292) a notice

announcing the initiation of an

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on Small

Diameter Circular Seamless Carbon and

Alloy Steel Standard, Line and Pressure

Pipe from Germany, covering the period

August 1, 1996 through July 31, 1997.

Rescission of Review

On October 7, 1997, we received a

timely request for withdrawal of the

request for administrative review from

Mannesmann. Because there were no

other requests for administrative review

from any other interested party, in

accordance with section 351.213 (d) (1)

of the Department’s regulations, we

have rescinded this administrative

review.

This notice is published in

accordance with section 751 of the

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19

U.S.C. 1675) and 19 CFR 351.213 (d) (4).

Dated: October 29, 1997.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Enforcement

Group III.

[FR Doc. 97–29766 Filed 1–10–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–588–068]

Steel Wire Strand for Prestressed

Concrete From Japan; Notice of Final

Court Decision and Amended Final

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Reviews

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final court decision

and amended final results of

antidumping duty administrative

reviews.

SUMMARY: On April 22, 1997, the Court

of International Trade (the Court)

affirmed the Department of Commerce’s

(the Department) second remand

determination arising out of the

administrative reviews of the

antidumping finding on steel wire

strand for prestressed concrete (‘‘PC

Strand’’) from Japan. See Mitsui & Co.,

Ltd. v. United States, Slip Op. 97–49

(CIT April 22, 1997). As there is now a

final and conclusive court decision in

this action, we are amending the final

results of review in this matter and will

instruct the U.S. Customs Service to

liquidate Mitsui’s entries covered by

these amended final results at the rates

assigned to each of Mitsui’s suppliers

for the periods April 1, 1978 through
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 218 / Wednesday, November 12, 1997 / Notices 60689

1For the period December 1, 1983 through

November 30, 1985, Mitsui had no shipments of

merchandise subject to the order.

March 31, 1979; April 1, 1979 through

November 30, 1980; December 1, 1980

through November 30, 1981; December

1, 1981 through November 30, 1982; and

December 1, 1982 through November

30, 1983.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 12, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mike Heaney or Linda Ludwig, Office

Eight, Antidumping and Countervailing

Duty Enforcement Group III,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue NW.,

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202)

482–4475.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On March 11, 1994, the Court issued

an order remanding to the Department

the final results of the administrative

reviews of the antidumping finding on

PC Strand from Japan, covering exports

by Mitsui & Co. (Mitsui) during the

period April 1, 1978 through November

30, 1985.1 Mitsui & Co. v. United States,

Slip Op. 94–44 (CIT March 11, 1994).

On August 5, 1994, in accordance

with the Court’s remand order, the

Department filed its final results of

redetermination. (See Final

Redetermination Pursuant to the Court

Remand, August 5, 1994, Mitsui & Co.,

Ltd. v. United States, Court No. 90–12–

00633 (Remand Results 1)). In this

determination, to determine whether

Mitsui had engaged in middleman

dumping during each period of review

(POR), the Department considered

whether a substantial portion of Mitsui’s

sales were at prices that were

substantially below its acquisition costs.

Based on our analysis of the number of

sales made at prices below acquisition

costs and the magnitude of resulting

losses, the Department determined that

Mitsui had engaged in middleman

dumping because Mitsui made a

‘‘substantial number of sales at prices

substantially below its acquisition cost’’

(See Final Remand Results 1 at 9).

In response to comments on the

redetermination submitted by the

plaintiffs and the defendant intervener,

the Department requested a remand to

address clerical errors and

methodological questions raised by both

parties concerning the existence or

absence of middleman dumping. (See

Defendant’s Response to the Comments

Filed by Plaintiffs and the Intervenor to

the Redetermination Upon Remand

Filed by the Department of Commerce,

Nov. 30, 1994 Mitsui & Co., Ltd. v.

United States.)

On June 10, 1996, the Court issued an

order remanding the Department’s Final

Redetermination of August 1994. The

Court directed the Department to: (1)

Correct clerical errors noted by the

plaintiffs and the defendant intervener

relating to currency conversion, average

movement charges, and acquisition

costs; (2) consider the methodological

questions raised by plaintiffs relating to

(a) the use of number of transactions as

opposed to the relative quantity or value

of PC strand, (b) the calculation of

‘‘value’’ in determining the extent of

below-cost sales, (c) the calculation of

the cost of acquisition, and (d) the need

for information from Mitsui’s suppliers

in order to review the existence or

absence of middleman dumping; and (3)

consider the intervenor’s claim that the

Department failed to include certain

expenses reported by Mitsui in its sales

listings.

On October 9, 1996, the Department

filed its second redetermination with

the Court. (See Prestressed Concrete

Strand from Japan, Final Results of

Redetermination Pursuant to Court

Remand, October 9, 1996, Court No. 90–

12–00633 (Remand Results 2).) In this

redetermination, the Department

corrected clerical errors identified by

both parties. With respect to the

methodological issues, the Department

determined that because a value-based

methodology provides a more

meaningful understanding of the extent

to which merchandise has been sold

below acquisition costs, a value-based

methodology was appropriate to

determine whether Mitsui had engaged

in middleman dumping during the

PORs. Accordingly, we determined

whether a substantial portion of Mitsui’s

sales were below acquisition costs by

comparing the total value of PC strand

sales below acquisition costs to the total

value of PC strand sales. Based on our

examination of Mitsui’s sales, we

determined that Mitsui did not make a

substantial portion of sales below

acquisition costs during each POR.

Because the portion of belowacquisition-cost sales during each POR

was not substantial, and examination of

whether prices were substantially below

acquisition cost was unnecessary. See

Remand Results 2 at 6.

We also determined that (1)

reexamining our methodology for

calculating ‘‘value’’ was unnecessary

because we did not need to determine

whether Mitsui’s sales were

substantially below acquisition cost, (2)

Mitsui’s acquisition costs should be

calculated using currency conversions

based on the exchange rate in effect on

the date of shipment, (3) we did not

require additional information from

Mitsui’s suppliers during the PORs, and

(4) we included all actual expenses

incurred and reported by Mitsui in

comparing Mitsui’s resale prices to its

acquisition costs. See Remand Results 2

at 7. Finally, because we had

determined that Mitsui did not engaged

in middleman dumping during the

periods covered by the redetermination,

we concluded that it was appropriate to

instruct the U.S. Customs Service to

liquidate Mitsui’s entries according to

the rates determined for reach of

Mitsui’s suppliers for the relevant

periods. We noted that this was the

methodology followed in the relevant

administrative reviews of the

antidumping finding on PC Strand from

Japan for other exporters. See Steel Wire

Strand for Prestressed Concrete from

Japan; Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review, 48 FR

45586 (Oct. 6, 1983) (1978–1979; 1979–

1980 POR); and Steel Wire Strand for

Prestressed Concrete from Japan; Final

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 51 FR 30894

(Aug. 29, 1986) (1980–1981; 1981–1982

POR) Steel Wire Strand for Prestressed

Concrete from Japan; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 52 FR 4373 (Feb. 11, 1987)

(1982–1983 POR).

On April 22, 1997, the Court upheld

the Department’s second

redetermination on remand. Mitsui &

Co., Ltd. v. United States, Slip Op. 97–

49 (CIT April 22, 1997). The period to

appeal has expired and no appeal was

filed. Therefore, as there is now a final

and conclusive court decision in this

action, we are amending our final

results of review.

Amended Final Results of Reviews

Pursuant to section 516A(e) of the

Act, we are now amending the final

results of the administrative reviews of

the antidumping finding on PC strand

from Japan with respect to exports by

Mitsui and determine that the following

margins exist:
60690 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 218 / Wednesday, November 12, 1997 / Notices

Manufacturer/exporter Period Margin

(percent)

Shrinko Wire Company, Ltd./Mitsui & Co., Ltd ................................................................................................ 04/01/78–03/31/79 0

04/01/79–11/30/80 0

12/01/80–11/30/81 0

12/01/81–11/30/82 0

12/01/82–11/30/83 0

Sumitomo Electric Ind., Ltd./Mitsui & Co., Ltd ................................................................................................. 04/01/78–03/31/79 0

04/01/79–11/30/80 0

12/01/80–11/30/81 0

12/01/81–11/30/82 0

12/01/82–11/30/83 0

Suzuki Metal Ind. Co., Ltd./Mitsui & Co., Ltd .................................................................................................. 04/01/78–03/31/79 0

04/01/79–11/30/80 0

12/01/80–11/30/81 0

12/01/81–11/30/82 0

12/01/82–11/30/83 0

Teikoku Sangyo Co., Ltd./Mitsui & Co., Ltd .................................................................................................... 04/01/78–03/31/79 0

04/01/79–11/30/80 0

12/01/80–11/30/81 0

12/01/81–11/30/82 0

12/01/82–11/30/83 0

Tokyo Rope Mfg. Co. Ltd./Mitsui & Co., Ltd .................................................................................................... 04/01/78–03/31/79 0

04/01/79–11/30/80 0

12/01/80–11/30/81 4.5

12/01/81–11/30/82 4.5

12/01/82–11/30/83 1 4.5

1 No shipments during the POR.

The Department will instruct the U.S.

Customs Service to assess antidumping

duties on all appropriate entries. We

will issue appraisement instructions

directly to the U.S. Customs Service.

Further, for any shipments form the

remaining known manufacturers and/or

exporters not covered by these reviews,

the current cash deposit shall remain in

effect until publication of the final

results of the next administrative

review.

This notice is published in

accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the

Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19

CFR 353.22(c)(8).

Dated: November 3, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–29765 Filed 11–10–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

Export Trade Certificate of Review

AGENCY: International Trade

Administration, Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of initiation of process to

revoke Export Trade Certificate of

Review No. 83–00034.

SUMMARY: The Secretary of Commerce

issued an export trade certificate of

review to Micro Products Company.

Because this certificate holder has failed

to file an annual report as required by

law, the Department is initiating

proceedings to revoke the certificate.

This notice summarizes the notification

letter sent Micro Products Company.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Morton Schnabel, Acting Director,

Office of Export Trading Company

Affairs, International Trade

Administration, (202) 482–5131. This is

not a toll-free number.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title III of

the Export Trading Company Act of

1982 (‘‘the Act’’) (15 U.S.C. 4011–21)

authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to

issue export trade certificates of review.

The regulations implementing Title III

(‘‘the Regulations’’) are found at 15 CFR

part 325. Pursuant to this authority, a

certificate of review was issued on April

13, 1984 to Micro Products Company.

A certificate holder is required by law

(Section 308 of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 4018)

to submit to the Department of

Commerce annual reports that update

financial and other information relating

to business activities covered by its

certificate. The annual report is due

within 45 days after the anniversary

date of the issuance of the certificate of

review (§ 325.14(a) and (b) of the

Regulations). Failure to submit a

complete annual report may be the basis

for revocation. (§ 325.10(a) and

325.14(c) of the Regulations).

The Department of Commerce sent to

Micro Products Company on April 3,

1997, a letter containing annual report

questions with a reminder that its

annual report was due on May 28, 1997.

Additional reminders were sent on

August 7, 1997, and on September 12,

1997. The Department has received no

written response to any of these letters.

On November 6, 1997, and in

accordance with § 325.10 (c)(1) of the

Regulations, a letter was sent by

certified mail to notify Micro Products

Company that the Department was

formally initiating the process to revoke

its certificate. The letter stated that this

action is being taken because of the

certificate holder’s failure to file an

annual report.

In accordance with § 325.10(c)(2) of

the Regulations, each certificate holder

has thirty days from the day after its

receipt of the notification letter in

which to respond. The certificate holder

is deemed to have received this letter as

of the date on which this notice is

published in the Federal Register. For

good cause shown, the Department of

Commerce can, at its discretion, grant a

thirty-day extension for a response.

If the certificate holder decides to

respond, it must specifically address the

Department’s statement in the

notification letter that it has failed to file

an annual report. It should state in

detail why the facts, conduct, or

circumstances described in the

notification letter are not true, or if they

are, why they do not warrant revoking

the certificate. If the certificate holder

does not respond within the specified

period, it will be considered an

admission of the statements contained