Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 217 / Monday, November 10, 1997 / Notices 60471

accordance with 19 CFR 351.222. We

will also instruct Customs to pay

interest on such refunds in accordance

with section 778 of the Act. The current

requirement for a cash deposit of

estimated antidumping duties on

corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat

products, with the dimensions indicated

above, will continue unless and until

we publish a final determination to

revoke in part.

Public Comment

Interested parties are invited to

comment on these preliminary results.

Parties who submit argument in this

proceeding are requested to submit with

the argument (1) a statement of the

issue, and (2) a brief summary of the

argument. Parties to the proceedings

may request disclosure within 5 days of

the date of publication of this notice and

any interested party may request a

hearing within 10 days of publication.

Any hearing, if requested, will be held

no later than 28 days after the date of

publication of this notice, or the first

workday thereafter. Case briefs may be

submitted by interested parties not later

than 14 days after the date of

publication of this notice. Rebuttal

briefs and rebuttals to written

comments, limited to the issues raised

in those comments, may be filed not

later than 21 days after the date of

publication of this notice. All written

comments shall be submitted in

accordance with 19 CFR 351.303 and

shall be served on all interested parties

on the Department’s service list in

accordance with 19 CFR 351.303.

Persons interested in attending the

hearing should contact the Department

for the date and time of the hearing. The

Department will publish the final

results of this changed circumstances

review, including the results of its

analysis of issues raised in any written

comments. This notice is in accordance

with sections 751(b)(1) of the Act and 19

CFR 351.216 and 351.222.

Dated: November 3, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–29631 Filed 11–7–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–588–810]

Mechanical Transfer Presses From

Japan: Extension of Time Limits for

Preliminary Results of Antidumping

Administrative Review, and Partial

Recission of Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of extension of time

limits for preliminary results of

antidumping administrative review and

partial recission of administrative

review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 10, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Elisabeth Urfer or Maureen Flannery,

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) 482–0780 or (202) 482–

3020, respectively.

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 Round Agreements Act.

Recission

The Department of Commerce

received a request from petitioners to

conduct an administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on mechanical

transfer presses from Japan. On March

18, 1997 (62 FR 12793), the Department

initiated this administrative review

covering the period March 1, 1996

through February 28, 1997.

On June 16, 1997, the petitioners

withdrew their request for an

administrative review with respect to

Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries,

Ltd. (IHI). Petitioners’ request was made

within ninety days of publication of the

notice of initiation, in accordance with

Section 353.22(a)(5) of the Department’s

regulations. IHI also requested that the

Department terminate the

administrative review on June 23, 1997.

Because petitioner made a timely

request, and because we have not

devoted considerable time and

resources to IHI, rescinding this review

with respect to IHI would not prejudice

any party in this proceeding. In

accordance with Section 353.22(a)(5) of

the Department’s regulations, we

rescind this review with respect to IHI.

(See Memorandum To Edward Yang

From Maureen Flannery dated August

11, 1997, ‘‘Request for Termination of

Review, in Part, in the 1996–1997

Administrative Review of the

Antidumping Duty Order on

Mechanical Transfer Presses from

Japan.’’)

Extension of Time Limits for

Preliminary Results

Because of the complexity of certain

issues in this case, it is not practicable

to complete this review within the time

limits mandated by section 751(a)(3)(A)

of the Act. See Memorandum from

Joseph A. Spetrini to Robert S. LaRussa,

Extension of Time Limit for the

Administrative Review of Mechanical

Transfer Presses from Japan, dated

October 23, 1997. Therefore, in

accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of

the Act, the Department is extending the

time limits for the preliminary results to

February 28, 1998.

Dated: October 31, 1997.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for AD/CVD

Enforcement III.

[FR Doc. 97–29632 Filed 11–7–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–201–504]

Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware From

Mexico; Notice of Court Decision

AGENCY: International Trade

Administration/Import Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of court decision.

SUMMARY: On September 16, 1997, the

United States Court of International

Trade affirmed the Department of

Commerce’s redetermination on remand

regarding its determination to rely on

the transfer price of enamel frit

submitted by Cinsa, S.A. de C.V. for

purposes of constructed value for the

administrative review covering the

period December 1, 1989 through

November 30, 1990. This notice is

published because this Court

determination was not in harmony with

the Department of Commerce’s original

determination in this review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 10, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lorenza Olivas or Kelly Parkhill, Office

of CVD/AD Enforcement VI,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th &

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington,

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–2786.
60472 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 217 / Monday, November 10, 1997 / Notices

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On August 16, 1993, the Department

of Commerce (the Department)

published in the Federal Register (58

FR 43,327) the final results of its fourth

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on porcelainon-steel cooking ware from Mexico.

That review covered the period

December 1, 1989 through November

30, 1990. Cinsa, the respondent in this

review, subsequently appealed the

Department’s determination before the

United States Court of International

Trade (CIT) on four issues. The CIT

issued a remand with respect to one

issue only and directed the Department

to determine whether the transfer price

for enamel frit provided to the

Department in that review constituted

an arm’s-length transaction as

prescribed by the statue and previous

practice. Cinsa, S.A. de C.V. v. United

States (Cinsa I) Slip. Op. 97–41 (April

4, 1997). Although the Court agreed

with the Department that the burden

was on the respondent to ‘‘establish that

the transfer price for the purchase of

raw material from the related party

reflects an arm’s-length price,’’ it found

that Cinsa fulfilled its burden by

supplying the Department with the

requested explanation of how it

determined the transfer price to be

representative of a fair market price and

of how it determined that transfer prices

were above the cost of production. Id.,

at 12. The Court found that Cinsa

effectively shifted the burden to the

Department by providing the requested

explanations for the discount in the

transfer price. Id., at 13.

The Department filed its

redetermination on July 2, 1997.

Although the Department respectfully

disagreed with the Court’s conclusion

that Cinsa fulfilled its burden of proving

the arm’s-length nature of the related

party transfer price, the Department

determined that, for purposes of the

remand, it should use Cinsa’s reported

transfer price for enamel frit from its

related supplier to calculate constructed

value because, in that review, the

Department did not request that Cinsa

provide any documentation in support

of its claim that the extent of differences

between the transfer prices for frit and

the prices at which frit was sold to

unrelated firms were fully accounted

for. Thus, the Department agreed that

Cinsa had done all that was asked of it

in that review. The CIT affirmed the

redetermination on September 16, 1997.

Cinsa, S.A. de C.V. v. United States

(Cinsa II), Slip Op. 97–131 (CIT

September 16, 1997).

In its decision in Timken Co. v.

United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir.

1990) (Timken), the United States Court

of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held

that, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1516a(e) the

Department must publish a notice of a

court decision which is not ‘‘in

harmony’’ with a Department

determination, and must suspend

liquidation of entries pending a

‘‘conclusive’’ decision. The CIT’s

opinion in Cinsa II, constitutes a

decision not in harmony with the

Department’s final results of

antidumping duty administrative

review. Publication of this notice fulfills

the Timken requirement. Accordingly,

the Department will continue to

suspend liquidation pending the

expiration of the period of appeal, or, if

appealed, until there is a ‘‘conclusive’’

court decision.

Dated: November 3, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–29626 Filed 11–7–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–588–028]

Notice of Final Results and Partial

Recission of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review: Roller Chain,

Other Than Bicycle, From Japan

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: On May 8, 1997, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) published the preliminary

results of its administrative review of

the antidumping duty order on roller

chain, other than bicycle, from Japan.

This review covers six manufacturers/

exporters of roller chain in Japan during

the period April 1, 1995, through March

31, 1996: Daido Kogyo Co., Ltd., Enuma

Chain Mfg. Co., Ltd., Izumi Chain

Manufacturing Co., Hitachi Metals

Techno Ltd., Pulton Chain Co., Ltd., and

R.K. Excel Co., Ltd.

We gave interested parties an

opportunity to comment on the

preliminary results. Based on our

analysis of the comments received, we

have changed our results from those

presented in our preliminary results, as

described below in the ‘‘Interested Party

Comments’’ section of this notice. The

final results are listed below in the

section ‘‘Final Results of Review.’’

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 10, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron

Trentham or Jack Dulberger, AD/CVD

Enforcement Group II, Office Four,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone:

(202) 482–4793 and (202) 482–5505,

respectively.

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 Round Agreements Act

(URAA). In addition, unless otherwise

indicated, all citations to the

Department’s regulations are to the

regulations codified at 19 CFR Part 353

(April 1, 1997).

Background

On May 8, 1997, the Department

published its preliminary results of

review, Notice of Preliminary Results

and Partial Rescission of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review: Roller

Chain, Other than Bicycle, from Japan,

62 FR 25165 (Preliminary Results), of

the antidumping duty order on roller

chain, other than bicycle, from Japan (38

FR 9926, April 12, 1973). Pursuant to

the Department’s request in its notice of

preliminary results, we received

comments on the product matching

characteristics used in the preliminary

results from (1) Daido Kogyo Co., Ltd.

(Daido Kogyo); (2) Enuma Chain Mfg.

Co., Ltd. (Enuma); (3) Izumi Chain

Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (Izumi); (4)

Hitachi Metals Techno Ltd. (Hitachi); (5)

Pulton Chain Co., Ltd. (Pulton); and (6)

R.K. Excel Co., Ltd. (RK) (collectively,

the respondents), and the petitioner on

May 22, 1997, and rebuttals to these

comments on May 29, 1997. As a result

of the preliminary results and pursuant

to the Department’s request, Enuma

submitted a revised section C

questionnaire response on June 12,

1997. The Department requested

additional information related to this

response on June 30, 1997 and on July

10, 1997, Enuma submitted a response

that addressed our additional questions.

On July 14, 1997, and July 21, 1997, we

received case and rebuttal briefs from

the respondents and the petitioner. At

the request of both petitioner and

respondents, we held a hearing on

August 1, 1997. The Department has

now completed this administrative

review in accordance with section

751(a) of the Act.