5588 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 25 / Thursday, February 6, 1997 / Notices

11:00 a.m. Briefing on Equal Educational

Opportunity Project

CONTACT PERSON FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION: Barbara Brooks, Press and

Communications (202) 376–8312.

Stephanie Y. Moore,

General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 97–3087 Filed 2–4–97; 12:20 pm]

BILLING CODE 6335–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–580–812]

Dynamic Random Access Memory

Semiconductors of One Megabit or

Above From the Republic of Korea;

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review; Time Limits

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of extension of time

limits of preliminary results of review.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

(the Department) is extending the time

limits of the preliminary results of the

third antidumping duty administrative

review of dynamic random access

memory semiconductors (DRAMs) from

the Republic of Korea. The review

covers two manufacturers/exporters of

the subject merchandise to the United

States and the period May 1, 1995

through April 30, 1996.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 6, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thomas F. Futtner, AD/CVD

Enforcement Office 4, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

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

telephone: (202) 482–3814.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Both

respondents in this proceeding have

requested revocation of the antidumping

duty order. At the request of parties to

this proceeding, we have allowed

parties to submit factual information on

the record pertaining to the revocation

issue and the likelihood of dumping in

the future by the respondents. The

petitioner and both respondents

submitted such data on January 15,

1997, with rebuttal comments filed on

January 27, 1997. In order to ensure

ample time to fully analyze these factual

submissions on a very complex issue, it

is not practicable to issue the

preliminary results within the original

deadline mandated by Section

751(a)(3)(A) of the Trade and Tariff Act

of 1930, as amended by the Uruguay

Round Agreements Act of 1994.

Accordingly, the Department is

extending the time limits for completion

of the preliminary results until no later

than June 2, 1997.

This extension is in accordance with

section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of

1930, as amended (19 U.S.C.

1675(a)(3)(A)).

Dated: January 31, 1997.

Jeffrey P. Bialos,

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for

Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–3007 Filed 2–5–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

International Trade Administration

[A–351–605]

Frozen Concentrated Orange Juice

From Brazil: Preliminary Results and

Termination in Part of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results

and termination in part of antidumping

duty administrative review.

SUMMARY: In response to a request by

Branco Peres Citrus, S.A. (Branco Peres)

and CTM Citrus, S.A. (CTM) (which has

since withdrawn its request, see below),

the Department of Commerce (the

Department) is conducting an

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on frozen

concentrated orange juice (FCOJ) from

Brazil. This review covers Branco Peres’

exports of the subject merchandise to

the United States. The period of review

(POR) is May 1, 1995 through April 30,

1996. This is the ninth period of review.

The review indicates that there is no

dumping margin for the above

producer/exporter during this POR.

Interested parties are invited to

comment on these preliminary results.

Parties who submit arguments in this

proceeding should also submit with the

argument: (1) A statement of the issue,

and (2) a brief summary of the

argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 6, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Fabian Rivelis, Office of AD/CVD

Enforcement Group II, Import

Administration—Room B099,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202)

482–3853.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The 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 Rounds 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 March 17, 1987, the Department

published in the Federal Register (52

FR 8324) the final affirmative

antidumping duty determination on

FCOJ from Brazil. We published an

antidumping duty order on May 5, 1987

(52 FR 16426).

On May 8, 1996, the Department

published the Notice of Opportunity to

Request an Administrative Review of

this order for the period May 1, 1995

through April 30, 1996 (61 FR 20791).

We received timely requests for review

from two producers/exporters of the

subject merchandise to the United

States: CTM and Branco Peres. In

addition, we received a timely request

from Branco Peres that the Department

revoke the antidumping duty order with

respect to Branco Peres. On June 25,

1996, the Department initiated the

review (61 FR 32771).

The Department issued the

antidumping duty questionnaire on June

23, 1996, and we received Branco Peres’

response to Sections A, B, and C on

August 7, 1996. Section A of the

questionnaire requests general

information concerning the company’s

corporate structure and business

practices, the merchandise under

investigation that it sells, and the sales

of that merchandise in all markets.

Sections B and C of the questionnaire

request home market or third country

sales listings and U.S. sales listings,

respectively. Also on August 7, 1996,

CTM withdrew its request for

administrative review. Accordingly, in

accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(a)(5),

we are terminating this review with

respect to CTM.

The Department issued a

supplemental questionnaire to Branco

Peres on September 19, 1996, and we

received a response on October 10,

1996. In December 1996, the

Department conducted a verification of

Branco Peres’ response for this POR. On

December 16, 1996, Branco Peres
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 25 / Thursday, February 6, 1997 / Notices 5589

submitted revised sales listings based on

verification findings.

The Department is conducting this

review in accordance with section

751(a) of the Act.

Scope of the Review

Imports covered by this review are

shipments of FCOJ from Brazil. This

merchandise is currently classifiable

under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of

the United States (HTSUS) subheading

2009.11.00. Although the HTSUS

subheading is provided for convenience

and Customs purposes, our written

description of the scope of this

proceeding is dispositive. The POR is

May 1, 1995 through April 30, 1996.

United States Price

We based United States Price on

export price (EP) in accordance with

section 772 of the Act because the

subject merchandise was sold to the first

unaffiliated purchaser prior to

importation into the United States and

constructed export price methodology

was not otherwise warranted. We

calculated EP based on f.o.b. prices to

unaffiliated purchasers in the United

States. Where appropriate, we made

deductions from the starting price for

inland freight expense, pre-sale

warehousing expense, inland insurance

expense, and brokerage and handling

expense, in accordance with section

772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.

Normal Value

In order to determine whether there

was a sufficient volume of sales of FCOJ

in the home market to serve as a viable

basis for calculating NV, we compared

the 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)(1)(C) of the Act. Because

the aggregate volume of home market

sales of the foreign like product was less

than five percent of the respective

aggregate volume of U.S. sales for the

subject merchandise, we determined

that the home market does not provide

a viable basis for calculating NV for

Branco Peres. We selected the

Netherlands as the appropriate third

country market for Branco Peres in

accordance with the criteria specified in

19 CFR 353.49(b).

We adjusted NV where appropriate to

restate price and quantity on the same

concentration basis as U.S. sales. We

calculated NV based on f.o.b. prices to

unaffiliated customers. We deducted,

where appropriate, foreign inland

freight expense, pre-sale warehousing

expense, inland insurance, and

brokerage and handling expenses, in

accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B) of

the Act. We made circumstance-of-sale

adjustments for differences in

commissions and credit expenses in

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

of the Act.

Fair Value Comparisons

To determine whether sales of FCOJ

by Branco Peres to the United States

were made at less than fair value, we

compared EP to NV, as described in the

‘‘United States Price’’ and ‘‘Normal

Value’’ sections of this notice. In

accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of

the Act, we calculated monthly

weighted-average prices for NV and

compared these to individual U.S.

transactions.

Preliminary Results of the Review

Pursuant to 19 CFR 353.25(a)(2)(i) and

19 CFR 353.25(c)(2)(iii), we find that

Branco Peres has not demonstrated that

it sold subject merchandise at not less

than NV for three consecutive periods of

review. We note, in this regard, that

respondent withdrew its request for

review for the previous review period,

60 FR 53163, (October 12, 1995).

Therefore, we are not publishing a

Notice of Intent to Revoke.

As a result of this review, we

preliminarily determine that the

following weighted-average dumping

margin exists for the POR:

Manufacturer/

exporter Period

Margin

percentage

Branco Peres .. 5/1/95–4/30/96 0.00

The Department shall determine, and

the Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. Individual differences between

United States price and NV may vary

from the percentage stated above. The

Department will issue appraisement

instructions directly to Customs. The

final results of this review shall be the

basis for the assessment of antidumping

duties on entries of merchandise

covered by the determination and for

future deposits of estimated duties.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective upon

completion of the final results of this

administrative review for all shipments

of FCOJ from Brazil entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after publication

date of the final results of this

administrative review, as provided by

section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash

deposit rate for Branco Peres, because

its weighted average margin was de

minimis, will be zero 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 the most recent 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 1.96 percent, the ‘‘allothers’’ rate established in the LTFV

investigation. These deposit

requirements, when imposed, shall

remain in effect until publication of the

final results of the next administrative

review.

Interested parties may request

disclosure within five days of the date

of publication of this notice, and may

request a hearing within 10 days of

publication. Any hearing, if requested,

will be held as early as convenient for

the parties but not later than 44 days

after the date of publication or the first

business day thereafter.

Case briefs or other written comments

from interested parties may be

submitted not later than 30 days after

the date of publication of this notice.

Rebuttal briefs and rebuttal comments,

limited to issues in the case briefs, may

be filed not later than 37 days after the

date of publication of this notice. The

Department will publish the final

results of this administrative review,

including the results of its analysis of

issues raised in any such written

comments, within 120 days after the

date of publication of this notice.

This notice serves as a preliminary

reminder to importers of their

responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26(b) 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 published in accordance with

section 751(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR

353.22.
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