60482 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 217 / Monday, November 10, 1997 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–533–810]

Stainless Steel Bar From India:

Preliminary Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review and Partial

Termination of Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of

antidumping duty administrative

review: Stainless Steel Bar from India.

SUMMARY: In response to requests from

Mukand Limited (‘‘Mukand’’) and Ferro

Alloys Corporation Limited (‘‘Facor’’),

the Department of Commerce (‘‘the

Department’’) is conducting an

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on stainless

steel bar from India. This review covers

Mukand’s sales of the subject

merchandise to the United States during

the period February 1, 1996 through

January 31, 1997.

Although we included Facor in our

initiation notice for this review, we

subsequently initiated a new shipper

review, covering the same review

period, for that company. Consequently,

we are terminating this review with

respect to Facor.

We have preliminarily determined

that Mukand’s sales have been made

below normal value (‘‘NV’’). If these

preliminary results are adopted in our

final results of administrative review,

we will instruct the U.S. Customs

Service to assess antidumping duties

equal to the difference between the

export price (EP) and the normal value

(NV).

Interested parties are invited to

comment on these preliminary results.

Parties who submit argument are

requested to submit with the argument

(1) a statement of the issue and (2) a

brief summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 10, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jennifer Yeske or Craig Matney, Office 1,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington

D.C. 20230; telephone (202) 482–0189 or

(202) 482–0588, respectively.

Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute are references to

the provisions effective January 1, 1995,

the effective date of the amendments

made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (‘‘the

Act’’) by the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On February 24, 1997, the Department

received a request from respondents to

conduct an administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on stainless

steel bar from India produced by

Mukand. The Department published in

the Federal Register, on March 18,

1997, a notice of initiation of an

administrative review of Mukand

covering the period February 1, 1996

through January 31, 1997 (62 FR 12793).

Scope of Review

Imports covered by this review are

shipments of stainless steel bar (‘‘SSB’’).

SSB means articles of stainless steel in

straight lengths that have been either

hot-rolled, forged, turned, cold-drawn,

cold-rolled or otherwise cold-finished,

or ground, having a uniform solid cross

section along their whole length in the

shape of circles, segments of circles,

ovals, rectangles (including squares),

triangles, hexagons, octagons, or other

convex polygons. SSB includes coldfinished SSBs that are turned or ground

in straight lengths, whether produced

from hot-rolled bar or from straightened

and cut rod or wire, and reinforcing bars

that have indentations, ribs, grooves, or

other deformations produced during the

rolling process.

Except as specified above, the term

does not include stainless steel semifinished products, cut length flat-rolled

products (i.e., cut length rolled products

which if less than 4.75 mm in thickness

have a width measuring at least 10 times

the thickness, or if 4.75 mm or more in

thickness having a width which exceeds

150 mm and measures at least twice the

thickness), wire (i.e., cold-formed

products in coils, of any uniform solid

cross section along their whole length,

which do not conform to the definition

of flat-rolled products), and angles,

shapes and sections.

The SSB subject to these orders is

currently classifiable under subheadings

7222.10.0005, 7222.10.0050,

7222.20.0005, 7222.20.0045,

7222.20.0075, and 7222.30.0000 of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’). Although the

HTSUS subheadings are provided for

convenience and customs purposes, our

written description of the scope of this

order is dispositive.

Period of Review

This review covers one manufacturer/

exporter, Mukand, and the period

February 1, 1996 through January 31,

1997.

Partial Termination of Review

Facor was included in our notice of

initiation of this review because we

received a request for an administrative

review of that company. However, Facor

also submitted a timely request for a

new shipper review covering the same

period. On March 28, 1997, we

published a notice of initiation of a new

shipper administrative review covering

Facor for the same review period (see 62

FR 14886). Therefore, we are

terminating this review with respect to

Ferro Alloys Corporation Limited.

Verification

As provided in section 782(i) of the

Act, we verified information provided

by the respondent by using standard

verification procedures, including onsite inspection of the respondent’s

facilities, the examination of

appropriate sales and financial records,

and selection of original documentation

containing relevant information. Our

verification results are outlined in the

public version of the verification report.

United States Price

In calculating price to the United

States, we used export price (‘‘EP’’), in

accordance with section 772(a) of the

Act, because the subject merchandise

was sold directly to the first unaffiliated

purchaser in the United States prior to

importation into the United States and

constructed export price was not

otherwise indicated.

We calculated EP based on the price

from Mukand to an unaffiliated

customer prior to importation into the

United States. In accordance with

section 772(c)(2) of the Act, we made

deductions for foreign inland freight

and international freight.

Mukand claimed an upward

adjustment to EP for a ‘‘duty drawback’’

scheme. In the preliminary

determination of the first administrative

review of this order (see 62 FR 10540 at

10541, March 7, 1997), we analyzed the

functioning of this duty drawback

scheme and found that it did not meet

the Department’s standards for an

upward adjustment to EP. We

maintained our position in the final

determination (see 62 FR 37030, July 10,

1997). We have reexamined the scheme

in regard to Mukand, and have found no

basis on which to deviate from the

Department’s previous decision.

Therefore, we have not made an

adjustment to EP. However, for those

sales for which CV is the basis for NV,

we have offset the per unit direct

materials cost to account for the credits

(see Normal Value section).
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 217 / Monday, November 10, 1997 / Notices 60483

Normal Value

In order to determine whether there

was a sufficient volume of sales in the

home market to serve as a viable basis

for calculating NV, we compared

respondent’s volume of home market

sales of the foreign like product to the

volume of U.S. sales of the subject

merchandise, in accordance with

section 773(a) of the Act. Because the

aggregate volume of home market sales

of the foreign like product was greater

than five percent of the aggregate

volume of U.S. sales of the subject

merchandise, we determined that the

home market provides a viable basis for

calculating NV. Therefore, in

accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i)

of the Act, we based NV on the prices

at which the foreign like product was

first sold to unaffiliated customers for

consumption in the exporting country,

in the usual commercial quantities and

in the ordinary course of trade.

Respondent claimed that there is no

difference in the level of trade between

the U.S. and the home markets. We

examined the data submitted regarding

the channels of distribution and selling

expenses in the two markets. While

there are different channels of

distribution, many of the selling

expenses are consistent across all

channels. While there may be some

additional expenses in the home market

for the Del Credre and consignment

sales, respondent did not claim an

adjustment or provide information

supporting such an adjustment.

Based on a cost allegation presented

by petitioners, the Department found

reasonable grounds to believe or suspect

that sales by the respondent in the home

market were made at the prices below

their respective costs of production

(‘‘COPs’’). As a result, the Department

initiated an investigation to determine

whether the respondent made home

market sales during the POR at prices

below its COP, within the meaning of

section 773(b) of the Act.

We calculated COP as the sum of the

respondent’s cost of materials, labor and

overhead for the foreign like product,

plus amounts for G&A and packing

costs, in accordance with section

773(b)(3) of the Act. We compared COP

to home market sales of the foreign like

product, as required under section

773(b) of the Act, in order to determine

whether these sales had been made at

prices below COP. On a product-specific

basis, we compared COP to the home

market prices, less any applicable

movement charges, discounts,

commissions, selling expenses and

packing expenses.

In determining whether to disregard

home market sales made at prices below

the COP, we examined whether: (1)

Within an extended period of time, such

sales were made in substantial

quantities; and (2) such sales were made

at prices which permitted recovery of all

costs within a reasonable period of time

in the normal course of trade. Where 20

percent or more of a respondent’s sales

of a given product during the POR were

at prices below COP, we found that

below cost sales of that model were

made in ‘‘substantial quantities’’ within

an extended period of time, in

accordance with section 773(b)(2) (B)

and (C). To determine whether prices

provided for recovery of costs within a

reasonable period of time, we tested

whether the prices that were below the

per unit cost of production at the time

of the sale were above the weighted

average per unit cost of production for

the POR, in accordance with section

773(b)(2)(D). Where we found that a

substantial quantity of sales during the

POR were below cost and not at prices

that provided for recovery of costs

within a reasonable period of time, we

disregarded the below cost sales.

Where NV was calculated using prices

to unaffiliated customers, we made

appropriate adjustments to those prices.

First, we deducted home market inland

freight and home market packing costs.

Where there were differences in the

merchandise to be compared, we made

adjustments in accordance with section

773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act to account for

those differences. We also added U.S.

packing costs in accordance with

section 773(a)(6)(A) of the Act. We also

made circumstance-of-sale adjustments

for differences in credit costs and bank

charges between the two markets in

accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii)

of the Act. Finally, we adjusted for

commissions paid in the home market

by deducting the commissions from the

NV and offsetting the commissions with

indirect selling expenses incurred on

sales to the United States, up to the

amount of the home market

commission.

Where there was no above cost home

market sale for comparison, NV was

based on CV. In accordance with section

773(e)(1) of the Act, we calculated CV

based on the sum of respondent’s cost

of materials (net of import duty credits

earned on its U.S. sale), labor, overhead,

SG&A, profit, and U.S. packing costs. In

accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of

the Act, we based SG&A expenses and

profit on the amounts incurred and

realized by the respondent in

connection with the production and sale

of the foreign like product in the

ordinary course of trade, for

consumption in the foreign country.

Preliminary Results of the Review

As a result of our comparison of EP

and NV, we preliminarily determine the

following weighted-average dumping

margin:

Manufacturer/

exporter Period

Margin

(percent)

Mukand ......... 2/1/96–1/31/97 8.38

Parties to the proceeding may request

disclosure within five days of the date

of publication of this notice. Any

interested party may request a hearing

within 10 days of publication. Any

hearing, if requested, will be held 44

days after the publication of this notice,

or the first workday thereafter.

Interested parties may submit case briefs

within 30 days of the date of publication

of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, which

must be limited to issues raised in the

case briefs, may be filed not later than

37 days after the date of publication of

this notice. The Department will issue

the final results of this administrative

review, which will include the results of

its analysis of issues raised in any such

comments, within 120 days of

publication of these preliminary results.

Upon completion of this

administrative review, the Department

shall determine, and the U.S. Customs

Service shall assess, antidumping duties

on all appropriate entries. Individual

differences between EP and NV may

vary from the percentages stated above.

We have calculated an importer-specific

duty assessment rate based on the ratio

of the total amount of AD duties

calculated for the examined sales made

during the POR to the total value of

subject merchandise entered during the

POR. In order to estimate the entered

value, we subtracted international

movement expenses (e.g., international

freight) from the gross sales value. This

rate will be assessed uniformly on all

entries made during the POR. The

Department will issue appraisement

instructions directly to the Customs

Service.

The following deposit requirement

will be effective upon publication of the

final results of this antidumping duty

administrative review for all shipments

of stainless steel bar from India 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

rate for the reviewed company will be

the rate established in the final results

of this review; (2) if the exporter is not

a firm covered in this review, but was
60484 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 217 / Monday, November 10, 1997 / Notices

covered in a previous review or the

original less-than-fair-value (‘‘LTFV’’)

investigation, 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, a previous 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

and/or exporters of this merchandise,

shall be 12.45 percent, the ‘‘all others’’

rate established in the LTFV

investigation (59 FR 66915, December

28, 1994).

These requirements, when imposed,

shall remain in effect until publication

of the final results of the next

administrative review.

This notice also serves as a

preliminary 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 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 353.22(c).

Dated: October 31, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–29627 Filed 11–7–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

Research Foundation of the City

University of New York; Notice of

Decision on Application for Duty-Free

Entry of Scientific Instrument

This decision is made pursuant to

Section 6(c) of the Educational,

Scientific, and Cultural Materials

Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89–

651, 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301).

Related records can be viewed between

8:30 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. in Room 4211,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and

Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C.

Docket Number: 97–073. Applicant:

Research Foundation of The City

University of New York, New York, NY

10003. Instrument: Electron

Paramagnetic Resonance Spectrometer,

EMX Series. Manufacturer: Bruker

Instruments, Germany. Intended Use:

See notice at 62 FR 47645, September

10, 1997.

Comments: None received. Decision:

Approved. No instrument of equivalent

scientific value to the foreign

instrument, for such purposes as it is

intended to be used, is being

manufactured in the United States.

Reasons: The foreign instrument

provides measurement of electron spin

resonance for characterization of

paramagnetic centers in various

materials, identification of photo- and

redox-active sites and elucidation of

reaction mechanisms. The National

Institutes of Health advises in its

memorandum dated June 26, 1997 that

(1) these capabilities are pertinent to the

applicant’s intended purpose and (2) it

knows of no domestic instrument or

apparatus of equivalent scientific value

to the foreign instrument for the

applicant’s intended use (comparable

case).

We know of no other instrument or

apparatus of equivalent scientific value

to the foreign instrument which is being

manufactured in the United States.

Frank W. Creel,

Director, Statutory Import Programs Staff.

[FR Doc. 97–29628 Filed 11–7–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

University of Utah; Notice of Decision

on Application for Duty-Free Entry of

Scientific Instrument

This decision is made pursuant to

Section 6(c) of the Educational,

Scientific, and Cultural Materials

Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89–

651, 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301).

Related records can be viewed between

8:30 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. in Room 4211,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and

Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C.

Docket Number: 97–075. Applicant:

University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT

84112. Instrument: Mass Spectrometer,

Model 215–50. Manufacturer: Mass

Analyser Products, Ltd., United

Kingdom. Intended Use: See notice at 62

FR 48811, September 17, 1997.

Comments: None received. Decision:

Approved. No instrument of equivalent

scientific value to the foreign

instrument, for such purposes as it is

intended to be used, is being

manufactured in the United States.

Reasons: The foreign instrument

provides: (1) A magnetic sector mass

analyzer, (2) sensitivity for He of 2.0 ×

10¥4 A/Torr at 200 μA trap current and

(3) background to 5.0 × 10¥4 cc STP at

M/e 36 and to 1.0 × 10¥15 cc STP at M/

e 132. These capabilities are pertinent to

the applicant’s intended purposes and

we know of no other instrument or

apparatus of equivalent scientific value

to the foreign instrument which is being

manufactured in the United States.

Frank W. Creel,

Director, Statutory Import Programs Staff.

[FR Doc. 97–29629 Filed 11–7–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

[I.D. 102797A]

Food and Agriculture Organization

(FAO) Consultation; Public Meeting;

and Workshops on Sharks

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting and

workshops.

SUMMARY: NMFS publishes information

regarding the FAO initiatives on the

conservation and management of sharks,

reduction of incidental catch of seabirds

in longline fisheries, and the

management of fishing capacity. An

FAO Consultation, planned for late

October 1998, will consider draft plans

of action in these three areas. NMFS

will hold a meeting to brief the public

on the status of preparations for the

FAO Consultation. In conjunction with

the National Fish and Wildlife

Foundation, NMFS is sponsoring two

workshops in order to gather the

information necessary to contribute to

national, regional, and high seas

strategies (by ocean area) for sharks in

North America. The workshop

proceedings will be compiled into

proposed conservation and management

strategies. The workshops will be

coordinated by the World Wildlife Fund

and are open to interested observers.

DATES: The meeting dates are:

1. Status of preparations for the FAO

Consultation: December 16, 11:00 a.m.

2. Shark regional workshops:

December 4 and 5, 1997,

8:30 a.m. - 5:30 p.m., Sarasota, FL,

and December 8 and 9, 1997, 8:30 a.m.

- 5:30 p.m., Monterey, CA.

ADDRESSES: The meeting locations are—