60228 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 1997 / Notices

price was for the appropriate type of

container used, whereas the Indian

Import Statistics were aggregated over

various types of containers. We made

further adjustments to account for

freight costs incurred between the PRC

supplier and manganese metal

producers.

• To value electricity, we used the

average rate applicable to large

industrial users throughout India as

reported in the 1995 Confederation of

Indian Industries Handbook of

Statistics. We adjusted the March 1,

1995 value to reflect inflation up to the

POR using the WPI published by the

IMF.

• To value rail freight, we relied upon

rates quoted by a manganese mine in

India. We adjusted the rate to reflect

inflation up to the POR using WPI

published by the IMF.

• To value truck freight, we used a

rate derived from a newspaper article in

the April 20, 1994 issue of The Times

of India. We adjusted the rate to reflect

inflation up to the POR using WPI

published by the IMF.

Preliminary Results of the Review

As a result of our comparison of the

EP to NV, we preliminarily determine

that the following dumping margins

exist for the period June 14, 1995,

through January 31, 1997:

Manufacturer exporter Margin

(percent)

HIED ......................................... 11.00

CMIECHN/CNIECHN ................ 6.43

Minmetals .................................. 5.88

CEIEC ....................................... 11.77

Country-Wide Rate ................... 143.32

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

approximately 44 days after the

publication of this notice. Interested

parties may submit written comments

(case briefs) within 30 days of the date

of publication of this notice. Rebuttal

comments (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. The

Department will issue a notice of final

results of this administrative review,

including the results of its analysis of

issues raised in any such written

comments, within 120 days of

publication of these preliminary results.

The Department shall determine, and

the 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 and

marine insurance) from the gross sales

value. This rate will be assessed

uniformly on all entries of that

particular importer made during the

POR. The Department will issue

appraisement instructions directly to

the Customs Service.

Furthermore, the following cash

deposit requirements will be effective

upon publication of the final results of

this administrative review for all

shipments of the subject merchandise

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) for the

PRC companies that have separate rates

and were reviewed (HIED and CMIECN/

CNIECN), the cash deposit rates will be

the rates for these firms established in

the final results of this review; (2) for

Minmetals and CEIEC, which we

determined to be entitled to a separate

rate in the LTFV investigation but

which did not have shipments to the

United States during the POR, the rates

will continue to be 5.88 percent and

11.77 percent, respectively, the rates

which currently apply to these

companies; and (3) for all other PRC

exporters, the cash deposit rate will be

143.32 percent. These deposit

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.

Dated: October 31, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–29494 Filed 11–6–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–570–501]

Natural Bristle Paintbrushes and Brush

Heads From The People’s Republic of

China; Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of

the antidumping duty administrative

review of natural bristle paintbrushes

and brush heads from the People’s

Republic of China.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

(the Department) is conducting an

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on natural

bristle paintbrushes and brush heads

(paintbrushes) from the People’s

Republic of China (PRC) in response to

a request by petitioner, the Paint

Applicator Division of the American

Brush Manufacturers Association (the

Paint Applicator Division). This review

covers shipments of this merchandise to

the United States during the period of

February 1, 1996, through January 31,

1997.

We have preliminarily determined

that sales have been made below normal

value (NV). If these preliminary results

are adopted in our final results, we will

instruct the U.S. Customs Service to

assess antidumping duties equal to the

difference between export price and NV.

Interested parties are invited to

comment on these preliminary results.

Parties who submit argument are

requested to submit with each argument

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

brief summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 7, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric

Scheier, Elisabeth Urfer, or Maureen

Flannery, Antidumping/Countervailing

Duty 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.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 1997 / Notices 60229

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.

In addition, unless otherwise indicated,

all citations to the Department’s

regulations are to the provisions

codified at 19 CFR part 353, as of April

1, 1996.

Background

The Department published in the

Federal Register an antidumping duty

order on paintbrushes from the PRC on

February 16, 1986 (51 FR 5580). On

February 3, 1997, the Department

published in the Federal Register (62

FR 4978) a notice of opportunity to

request an administrative review of the

antidumping order on paint brushes

from the PRC covering the period

February 1, 1996, through January 31,

1997.

On January 29, 1997, in accordance

with 19 CFR 353.2(k)(1), Brenner

Associates, a U.S. importer of the

subject merchandise, requested that we

conduct an administrative review of

Hebei Animal By-Products I/E

Corporation (Hebei). On February 24,

1997, the Hunan Provincial Native

Produce & Animal By-Products I/E

Corporation (Hunan) submitted a

request for a review. We published a

notice of initiation of this antidumping

duty administrative review on March

18, 1997 (62 FR 12793). The Department

is conducting this administrative review

in accordance with section 751 of the

Act.

Scope of Review

Imports covered by this review are

shipments of natural bristle paint

brushes and brush heads from the PRC.

Excluded from the order are paint

brushes and brush heads with a blend

of 40% natural bristles and 60%

synthetic filaments. The merchandise

under review is currently classifiable

under item 9603.40.40.40 of the

Harmonized tariff Schedule of the

United States (HTSUS). Although the

HTSUS subheading is provided for

convenience and customs purposes, the

written description of the merchandise

is dispositive.

This review covers the period

February 1, 1996, through January 31,

1997.

Verification

As provided in section 782(i) of the

Act, we verified information provided

by Hunan and its supplier by using

standard verification procedures,

including on-site inspection of the

manufacturer’s facilities, the

examination of relevant sales and

financial records, and the selection of

original documentation containing

relevant information. Our verification

results are outlined in the public

version of the verification report.

Facts Available

We premliinarily determine that, in

accordance with section 776(a) of the

Act, the use of facts available is

appropriate for Hebei because this firm

did not respond to the Department’s

antidumping questionnaire. Hebei had

requested and was granted an extension

to file its questionnaire response with

the Department. Hebei requested a

second extension after the response was

due, and was denied its request. (See

letter from Edward Yang to Perry

Gartner, June 10, 1997.) Because

necessary information is not available

on the record with regard to sales by

Hebei, the use of facts available is

warranted.

Where a respondent has failed to

cooperate to the best of its ability,

Section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the

Department to use facts available that

are adverse to the interests of that

respondent, which include information

derived from the petition, the final

determination, a previous

administrative review, or other

information placed on the record. As

facts available, we are using the rate

calculated the Hebei in the review

covering the period from February 1,

1994, through January 31, 1995 (1994–

1995 review), 351.92 percent.

Because information from prior

proceedings constitutes secondary

information, section 776(b) provides

that the Department shall, to the extent

practicable, corroborate that secondary

information from independent sources

reasonably at its disposal. The

Statement of Administration Action

(SAA) provides that ‘‘corroborate’’

means simply that the Department will

satisfy itself that the secondary

information to be used has probative

value.

To corroborate secondary information,

the Department examines, to the extent

practicable, the reliability and relevance

of the information to be used. However,

unlike other types of information, such

as surrogate values, there are no

independent sources for calculated

dumping margins. The only source for

calculated margins is administrative

determinations. Thus, in an

administrative review, if the Department

chooses as total adverse facts available

a calculated dumping margin from a

prior segment of the proceeding, it is not

necessary to question the reliability of

the margin for that time period. With

respect to the relevance aspect of

corroboration, however, the Department

will consider information reasonably at

its disposal as to whether there are

circumstances that would render a

margin not relevant. Where

circumstances indicate that the selected

margin is not appropriate as adverse

facts available, the Department will

disregard the margin and determine an

appropriate margin. (See, e.g., Fresh Cut

Flowers from Mexico; Preliminary

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 60 FR 49567

(September 26, 1995), where the

Department disregarded the highest

margin as best information available

because that margin was based on an

uncharacteristic business expense,

which resulted in the high margin.) In

this case, we have used the highest rate

from any prior segment of the

proceeding, 351.92 percent, which was

the rate calculated for Hebei in the

1994–1995 review. There is no

information that indicates that this rate

is not appropriate. Because Hebei is a

part of the PRC entity, this rate becomes

the PRC rate (see Separate Rates below).

Separate Rates

To establish whether a company

operating in a state-controlled economy

is sufficiently independent to be

entitled to a separate rate, the

Department analyzes each exporting

entity under the test established in the

Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the

People’s Republic of China, 56 FR 20588

(May 6, 1991) (Sparklers), as amplified

by the Final Determination of Sales at

Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide

from the People’s Republic of China, 59

FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (Silicon

Carbide). Under this policy, exporters in

non-market economies (NMEs) are

entitled to separate, company-specific

margins when they can demonstrate an

absence of government control, both in

law and in fact, with respect to export

activities. Evidence supporting, though

not requiring, a finding of de jure

absence of government control over

export activities includes: (1) an absence

of restrictive stipulations associated

with an individual exporter’s business

and export licenses; (2) any legislative

enactments decentralizing control of

companies; and (3) any other formal

measures by the government

decentralizing control of companies. De

facto absence of government control

over exports is based on four factors: (1)

Whether each exporter sets its own

export prices independently of the

government and without the approval of
60230 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 1997 / Notices

a government authority; (2) whether

each exporter retains the proceeds from

its sales and makes independent

decisions regarding the disposition of

profits or financing of losses; (3)

whether each exporter has the authority

to negotiate and sign contracts and other

agreements; and (4) whether each

exporter has autonomy from the

government regarding the selection of

management.

With respect to the absence of de jure

government control over export

activities, evidence on the record

indicates that Hunan is a collectivelyowned enterprise. The ‘‘law of the

People’s Republic of China on Industrial

Enterprises Owned by the Whole

People’’ identify rules and regulations

pertaining to collectively-owned

enterprises which give rural collective

enterprise such rights as the right to act

on their own behalf, adopt independent

accounting, assume the sole

responsibility for their profits and

losses, and elect their own management.

(See Exhibit 3 of Hunan’s May 21, 1997,

questionnaire response.) Additionally,

paintbrushes do not appear on the

‘‘Temporary Provisions for

Administration of Export

Commodities,’’ approved on December

21, 1992, and are not, therefore, subject

to the constraints of this provision. (See

Questionnaire Response of May 21,

1997, at A–6 and Memorandum to the

File dated October 10, 1997, ‘‘Natural

Bristle Paintbrushes and Brush Heads:

Laws and Regulations Governing

Exports from the PRC’’.) At verification

we confirmed that paintbrushes are not

subject to export controls. See public

version of Verification Repot of Sales for

Hunan Provincial Native Produce &

Animal By-Products Corp. dated

September 25, 1997.

With respect to the absence of de

facto control over export activities,

Hunan’s management is elected by

Hunan’s staff, and is responsible for all

decisions such as the determination of

its export prices, profit distribution to

employee distributions, employee

welfare funds and investments,

employment policy, marketing strategy,

and for negotiating contracts. At

verification we found that the

department heads negotiated sales of

paint brushes, that Hunan planned to

distribute unallocated profit, and that

employees could be fired or reassigned,

and salaries could be reduced. See

Separate Rate for Hunan Provincial

Native Produce and Animal By-Products

Im/Ex Corp. in the 1996–1997

Administrative Review of Paintbrushes

and Brush Heads from the People’s

Republic of China dated October 31,

1997, (Separate Rates Memorandum)

and public version of Verificaiton

Report dated September 25, 1997, which

is on file in the Central Records Unit

(room B099 of the Main Commerce

Building).

Because evidence on the record

demonstrates an absence of government

control, both in law and in fact, over

Hunan’s export activities, the

Department preliminarily grants Hunan

a separate rate. For further discussion of

the Department’s preliminary

determination that Hunan is entitled to

a separate rate, see Separate Rates

Memorandum.

In the administrative review covering

the period from February 1, 1994

through January 31, 1995 (1994–95

review), we determined that Hebei

merited a separate rate. However,

because Hebei did not respond to the

questionnaire in the present (1996–97)

review, it will not be considered for a

separate rate in this review.

United States Price

For sales made by Hunan, we based

United States Price on export price, in

accordance with section 772(a) of the

Act, because the subject merchandise

was sold to unrelated purchasers in the

United States prior to importation into

the United States.

We calculated export price based on

the price to unrelated purchasers. We

deducted an amount for foreign inland

freight, insurance, and brokerage and

handling. We selected Indonesia for all

surrogate values with the exception of

inland insurance, for the reasons

explained in the ‘‘Normal Value’’

section of this notice.

Normal Value

For companies located in NME

countries, section 773(c)(1) of the Act

provides that the Department shall

determine NV using a factors-ofproduction methodology if (1) the

merchandise is exported from an NME

country, and (2) available information

does not permit the calculation of NV

using home-market prices, third-country

prices, or constructed value under

section 773(a) of the Act.

In every case conducted by the

Department involving the PRC, the PRC

has been treated as an NME country.

Pursuant to section 771(18)(C)(i) of the

Act, any determination that a foreign

country is an NME country shall remain

in effect until revoked by the

administering authority. None of the

parties to this proceeding has contested

such treatment in this review.

Accordingly, we have applied surrogate

values to the factors of production to

determine NV.

We calculated NV based on factors of

production in accordance with section

773(c)(4) of the Act and section

353.52(c) of our regulations. We

determined that Indonesia (1) is

comparable to the PRC in terms of level

of economic development, and (2) is a

significant producer of comparable

merchandise. See Memorandum to the

File dated October 24, 1997, ‘‘Natural

Bristle Paint Brushes from the People’s

Republic of China—Significant

Production in Indonesia of Comparable

Merchandise.’’ Therefore, for this

review, we used publicly available

information relating to Indonesia to

value the various factors of production.

Additionally, we used publicly

available information relating to India to

value inland insurance, where

Indonesian surrogate values for

insurance were not available. See

Memorandum to the File from Eric

Scheier, dated October 24, 1997, ‘‘Factor

Values Used for the Final Results of the

1996–1997 Administrative Review of

Natural Bristle Paintbrushes and Brush

Heads from the People’s Republic of

China.’’

We valued the factors of production

as follows:

• For brush handles, bristles, epoxy,

wood, and packing materials, we used a

per kilogram value obtained from the

Foreign Trade Statistical Bulletin

(Indonesian Import Statistics).

Adjustments for inflation with respect

to these four factors of production and

with respect to packing materials were

not necessary, as statistics were

available for the entire POR. For

transportation distances used for the

calculation of freight expenses on raw

materials, we added to surrogate values

from Indonesia a surrogate freight cost

using the shorter of (a) the distances

between the closest PRC port and the

factory, or (b) the distance between the

domestic supplier and the factory. See

Notice of Final Determination of Sales

at Less Than Fair Value: Collated

Roofing Nails From the People’s

Republic of China, 62 FR 51410

(October 1, 1997) (Roofing Nails).

• It is the Department’s current policy

to value an input purchased from a

market economy in a market-economy

currency by using the actual price paid

for that input. Because the purchase of

ferrule was made from a marketeconomy supplier and paid for in a

market-economy currency, we have

used the actual price paid by Hunan for

ferrule to value ferrule inputs.

• We do not have information on

Indonesian insurance rates, nor do we

have information on inland insurance

rates from any of our five possible

surrogate countries. We have therefore
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 1997 / Notices 60231

used the most recent figure available for

Indian marine insurance, in place of

inland insurance, as we did in Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Freshwater Crawfish Tail

Meat from the People’s Republic of

China, 62 FR 41347 (August 1, 1997).

We adjusted this rate to reflect inflation

through the end of the period of review

(POR) using the Indian Wholesale Price

Index (WPI) inflator derived from

wholesale price indices published by

the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

• For brokerage and handling, we

used the publicly available information

from a United States shipper that was

used in the Final Determination of Sales

at Less Than Fair Value: Saccharin from

People’s Republic of China, 59 FR 58818

(November 15, 1994). This value was

adjusted to reflect inflation through the

end of the POR using the Indonesian

WPI published by the IMF.

• For unskilled, skilled and indirect

labor, as well as for packing labor, we

used the labor rates reported in the 1995

Statistical Yearbook of Indonesia. This

source provides weekly labor rates and

hours worked per week for unskilled

labor only. Indonesian skilled labor

rates were unavailable. We used this

source to value unskilled, skilled and

indirect labor. We used unskilled labor

rates to value skilled labor in the 1994–

1995 administrative review of this case.

We adjusted these rates to reflect

inflation through the end of the POR

using Indonesian WPI published by the

IMF.

• For factory overhead, selling,

general and administrative expenses

(SG&A), and profit, we used data

provided by the respondent, from the

Large and Medium Manufacturing

Statistics: 1995, Vol. II, published by the

Indonesian Bureau of Statistics. (See

Hunan’s submission dated July 28,

1997.) This source provides a cost

breakdown for large and medium sized

manufacturers of hand tools and cutlery,

and was used in Roofing Nails.

Petitioner did not contest the use of this

data, but argued that we should add

certain categories to our calculations,

such as ‘‘New and Second-Hand

Purchases,’’ and ‘‘Construction

Undertaken by the Establishment and by

Others,’’ and that we replace ‘‘Value of

Gross Output’’ with ‘‘Total Value of

Gross Output.’’ We made the

petitioner’s suggested adjustments

because each of these items represent

part of the costs incurred to produce the

subject merchandise. We also subtracted

‘‘Sale of Used Items’’ from SG&A and

‘‘Increase in Stock of Semifinished

Goods’’ from ‘‘Total Value of Gross

Output.’’ We calculated factory

overhead as a percentage of the total

cost of manufacture. We calculated an

SG&A rate by dividing SG&A expenses

by the cost of manufacture. Lastly, we

calculated a profit rate by dividing

profit by the cost of production.

• To value electricity, we used a

value found in A Brief Guide for

Investors: 1995, published by the

Indonesian Government’s Investment

Coordinating Board. We adjusted this

value to reflect inflation through the end

of the POR using Indonesian WPI

published by the IMF. We then

converted that figure to dollars using the

exchange rate on the date of sale

certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.

• To value truck and rail freight, we

used the rates reported in a September

1991 cable from the U.S. Consulate in

Indonesia submitted for the Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Certain Carbon Steel ButtWeld Pipe Fittings from the People’s

Republic of China, 58 FR 47859

(September 20, 1993). More recent

information was not available in this

review. We adjusted the rates to reflect

inflation through the end of the POR

using Indonesian WPI published by the

IMF.

Currency Conversion

We made currency conversions

pursuant to section 353.60 of the

Department’s regulations at the rates

certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.

Preliminary Results of Review

We preliminarily determine that the

following dumping margins exist:

Manufacturer/exporter Time period Margin

(percent)

Hunan Provincial Native Produce & Animal By-Products I/E Corp ................................................................. 02/01/96–01/31/97 0.01

PRC rate .......................................................................................................................................................... 02/01/96–01/31/97 351.92

Parties to the proceeding may request

disclosure within 5 days of the date of

publication of this notice in accordance

with 19 CFR 353.22(c)(6). Any

interested party may request a hearing

within 10 days of publication in

accordance with 19 CFR 353.38(b). 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 in accordance with 19 CFR

353.38(c). 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. The

Department will publish a notice of

final results of this administrative

review, which will include the results of

its analysis of issues raised in any such

comments.

The Department shall determine, and

the U.S. Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. Individual differences between

export price and NV may vary from the

percentage stated above. The

Department will issue appraisement

instructions directly to the U.S. Customs

Service.

Furthermore, the following deposit

rate will be effective upon publication

of the final results of this administrative

review for all shipments of paintbrushes

from the PRC entered, or withdrawn

from warehouse, for consumption on or

after the publication date, as provided

for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1)

For Hunan, which has a separate rate,

the cash deposit rate will be zero,

because the company-specific rate

established in the final results of this

administrative review is, in accordance

with 19 CFR 353.6, de minimis, i.e., less

than 0.5 percent; (2) for all other PRC

exporters, the rate will be the PRC

country-wide rate; and (3) for non-PRC

exporters of subject merchandise from

the PRC, the cash deposit rate will be

the rate applicable to the PRC supplier

of that exporter.

These deposit rates, 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)
60232 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 1997 / Notices

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

CFR 353.22.

Dated: October 31, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–29497 Filed 11–6–97; 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. 92–00005.

SUMMARY: The Secretary of Commerce

issued an export trade certificate of

review to World International

Investments Corp. 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

World International Investments Corp.

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 June

5, 1992 to World International

Investments Corp.

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 (Sections 325.14 (a) and (b) of

the Regulations). Failure to submit a

complete annual report may be the basis

for revocation. (Sections 325.10(a) and

325.14(c) of the Regulations).

The Department of Commerce sent to

World International Investments Corp.

on May 23, 1997, a letter containing

annual report questions with a reminder

that its annual report was due on July

20, 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 3, 1997, and in

accordance with Section 325.10(c)(1) of

the Regulations, a letter was sent by

certified mail to notify World

International Investments Corp. 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 Section

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

in the notification letter (Section

325.10(c)(2) of the Regulations).

If the answer demonstrates that the

material facts are in dispute, the

Department of Commerce and the

Department of Justice shall, upon

request, meet informally with the

certificate holder. Either Department

may require the certificate holder to

provide the documents or information

that are necessary to support its

contentions (Section 325.10(c)(3) of the

Regulations).

The Department shall publish a notice

in the Federal Register of the revocation

or modification or a decision not to

revoke or modify (Section 325.10(c)(4)

of the Regulations). If there is a

determination to revoke a certificate,

any person aggrieved by such final

decision may appeal to an appropriate

U.S. district court within 30 days from

the date on which the Department’s

final determination is published in the

Federal Register (Sections 325.10(c)(4)

and 325.11 of the Regulations).

Dated: November 3, 1997.

Morton Schnabel,

Acting Director, Office of Export Trading

Company Affairs.

[FR Doc. 97–29433 Filed 11–6–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DR–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

Export Trade Certificate of Review

ACTION: Notice of issuance of an export

trade certificate of review, application

No. 97–00002.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

has issued an Export Trade Certificate of

Review to Goff-Chem, Inc. This notice

summarizes the conduct for which

certification has been granted.

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 l982

(15 U.S.C. 4001–21) authorizes the

Secretary of Commerce to issue Export

Trade Certificates of Review. The

regulations implementing Title III are

found at 15 CFR Part 325 (1997).

The Office of Export Trading

Company Affairs (‘‘OETCA’’) is issuing

this notice pursuant to 15 CFR 325.6(b),

which requires the Department of

Commerce to publish a summary of a

Certificate in the Federal Register.

Under Section 305(a) of the Act and 15

CFR 325.11(a), any person aggrieved by

the Secretary’s determination may,

within 30 days of the date of this notice,

bring an action in any appropriate

district court of the United States to set

aside the determination on the ground

that the determination is erroneous.

Description of Certified Conduct

Export Trade

1. Products

All products.

2. Services

All services.

3. Technology Rights

Technology Rights, including, but not

limited to, patents, trademarks,

copyrights and trade secrets that relate

to Products and Services.