Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 1997 / Notices 969

deposit rate will be 3.85 percent, the all

others rate established in the LTFV

investigation. Samsung Electronics Co.,

Ltd. (Samsung), formerly a respondent

in this administrative review, was

excluded from the antidumping duty

order on DRAMs from Korea on

February 8, 1996. See Final Court

Decision and Partial Amended Final

Determination: Dynamic Random

Access Memory Semiconductors of One

Megabit and Above From the Republic

of Korea, 61 FR 4765 (February 8, 1996).

These deposit requirements shall

remain in effect until publication of the

final results of the next administrative

review.

This notice serves as the final

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 notice also serves as a reminder

to parties subject to administrative

protective order (APO) of their

responsibility concerning the

disposition of proprietary information

disclosed under APO in accordance

with 19 CFR 353.34(d). Timely written

notification or conversion to judicial

protective order is hereby requested.

Failure to comply with the regulations

and the terms of the APO is a

sanctionable violation.

This administrative review and notice

are in accordance with section 751(a)(1)

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

and 19 CFR 353.22.

Dated: December 24, 1996.

Jeffrey P. Bialos,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–295 Filed 1–6–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

A–122–047

Elemental Sulphur From Canada:

Preliminary Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review.

SUMMARY: In response to requests by

respondents, the Department of

Commerce (the Department) is

conducting an administrative review of

the antidumping finding on elemental

sulphur from Canada. The review covers

the period December 1, 1994 through

November 30, 1995.

As a result of the review, we have

preliminarily determined that sales have

been made below normal value (NV). If

these preliminary results are adopted in

our final results of administrative

review, we will instruct U.S. Customs to

assess antidumping duties equal to the

difference between United States price

(USP) and NV.

Interested parties are invited to

comment on these preliminary results.

Parties who submit arguments in this

segment of the proceeding are requested

to submit with each argument (1) a

statement of the issue and (2) a brief

summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 7, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick

Johnson or Jean Kemp, Office of

Antidumping and 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) 482–3793.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute refer 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

current regulations, as amended by the

interim regulations published in the

Federal Register on May 11, 1995 (60

FR 25130).

Background

On December 17, 1973, the

Department of the Treasury published

in the Federal Register (38 FR 34655)

the antidumping finding on elemental

sulphur from Canada. On December 4,

1995, the Department published in the

Federal Register a notice of opportunity

to request an administrative review of

this antidumping finding for the period

December 1, 1994 through November

30, 1995 (60 FR 62070).

On January 11, 1996, Mobil Oil

Canada, Ltd. (Mobil) requested an

administrative review of its sales. On

January 22, 1996, Husky Oil Ltd.

(Husky) requested an administrative

review of its sales. The review was

initiated on February 1, 1996 (61 FR

3670–71).

The Department is conducting this

review in accordance with section 751

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended

(the Act).

Scope of the Review

Imports covered by these reviews are

shipments of elemental sulphur from

Canada. This merchandise is classifiable

under Harmonized Tariff Schedule

(HTS) subheadings 2503.10.00,

2503.90.00, and 2802.00.00. Although

the HTS subheadings are provided for

convenience and for U.S. Customs

purposes, the written description of the

scope of this finding remains

dispositive.

The period of review (‘‘POR’’) is

December 1, 1994 through November

30, 1995, and covers two companies.

Verification

As provided in section 782(i) of the

Act, we verified information provided

by Mobil, using standard verification

procedures, including on-site inspection

of the manufacturer’s facilities,

examination of relevant sales and

financial records, and selection of

original documentation containing

relevant information. Our verification

results are outlined in the public

versions of the verification reports.

Mobil

Facts Available

On May 31, 1996, petitioners alleged

that Mobil made home market sales of

subject merchandise below cost of

production (‘‘COP’’). On June 28, 1996,

we concluded that petitioners’

allegation provided the Department

with ‘‘reasonable grounds to believe or

suspect’’ that Mobil made below cost

sales in the home market within the

meaning of section 773(2)(A)(i) of the

Act. Therefore, we initiated a COP

investigation of Mobil’s sales, and

directed Mobil to respond to Section D

of the Department’s February 8, 1996

questionnaire.

Mobil has maintained throughout this

review that because sulphur is a ‘‘waste

product’’, it does not track sulphur

production and handling costs. In its

August 5, 1996 cost response, Mobil

estimated its cost of manufacture

(‘‘COM’’) based on an engineering

estimate of sulphur loading costs at one

plant, representing 5% of Mobil’s

sulphur production. However, Mobil

could not prove that this estimate bore

any relation to Mobil’s actual costs as

recorded in Mobil’s cost accounting

system. Moreover, the estimate only

applied to 5% of Mobil’s production of
970 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 1997 / Notices

subject merchandise. Therefore, in

response to the Department’s September

3, 1996 request for supplemental

information, Mobil submitted a

response on September 25, 1996 based

on an entirely different methodology, in

which total plant costs (including

production of gas, oil, and sulphur)

were reported and then allocated to the

production of subject merchandise.

In accordance with section 782(i) of

the Act, during the week October 21–25,

1996, the Department conducted

verification of Mobil’s cost responses.

At verification, Mobil revealed for the

first time that two of its 22 plants

maintained sulphur cost centers,

including one whose sulphur cost

center was active during the POR. The

Department verification team then

found that sulphur cost centers in fact

were maintained during the POR for five

of Mobil’s plants, accounting for over

50% of Mobil’s sulphur production

during the POR. In response to the

verification team’s inquiry, Mobil stated

while it was preparing its responses, it

had not sought to ascertain whether the

producing plants maintained sulphur

cost centers. Moreover, the verification

team found that the allocation

methodology employed by Mobil in its

September 25, 1996 response was based

on a barrel of oil equivalent (‘‘BOE’’), a

unit of measurement not used in the

normal course of business by Mobil to

allocate costs and not relevant to

sulphur because sulphur is not burned.

Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides

that if an interested party or other

person—(A) withholds information that

has been requested by the Department,

(B) fails to provide such information by

the deadlines for submission of the

information or in the form and manner

requested, (C) significantly impedes a

proceeding, or (D) provides such

information but the information cannot

be verified as provided in section 782(i),

the Department shall, subject to section

782(d), use the facts otherwise available

in reaching the applicable

determination.

Section 782(d) provides that if the

Department ‘‘determines that a response

to a request for information . . . does

not comply with the request, {the

Department} shall promptly inform the

person submitting the response of the

nature of the deficiency and shall, to the

extent practicable, provide the person

with an opportunity to remedy or

explain the deficiency in light of the

time limits established for completion of

investigations or reviews under this

title.’’ In accordance with that section,

the Department provided Mobil ample

opportunity to correct the defects in its

submitted cost response. As indicated

above, the deficiency in Mobil’s original

cost response methodology was brought

to Mobil’s attention in a supplemental

questionnaire. See Supplemental Cost

Questionnaire Concerning the 1994–

1995 Administrative Review of the

Antidumping Finding on Elemental

Sulphur from Canada, Question 6,

September 3, 1996 (‘‘Please report costs

for all facilities in which Mobil has an

interest and which produce sulphur,

and included costs from each facility in

your calculations of the cost of

production and constructed value. . . .

Although you need not provide cost

information with respect to any facility

accounting for less than five percent of

Mobil’s total production volume, not

sales volume, you must account for at

least 90 percent of Mobil’s total

production volume in reporting Mobil’s

costs’’ {emphasis in original}). In

response to the Department’s

supplemental questionnaire, Mobil

developed another methodology, yet

continued to claim that it was unable to

report costs in the form and manner

requested by the Department. Only at

verification did the Department discover

that Mobil maintained cost centers

specific to sulphur in its accounting

records for the majority of its reported

POR production.

Mobil’s failure to provide the

Department with the requested cost

information constitutes a withholding of

information within the meaning of

section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act. We must

therefore consider whether the

submitted cost data is usable under

section 782(e) of the Act.

Section 782(e) provides that the

Department shall not decline to

consider information that is submitted

by an interested party and is necessary

to the determination but does not meet

all the applicable requirements

established by the Department if: (1) the

information is submitted by the

deadline established for its submission;

(2) the information can be verified; (3)

the information is not so incomplete

that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for

reaching the applicable determination;

(4) the interested party has

demonstrated that it acted to the best of

its ability in providing the information

and meeting the requirements

established by the Department with

respect to the information; and (5) the

information can be used without undue

difficulties.

When examined in light of the

requirements of section 782(e), the facts

of the case indicate that Mobil’s cost

data is so fundamentally flawed as to

render it unusable. Because the

discovery of sulphur cost centers

occurred only at verification (and

therefore, would have remained

undiscovered were it not for the

Department’s decision to verify Mobil’s

response), this information was not

provided to the Department by the

deadlines established for its

submissions, as required by subsection

(e)(1).

Additionally, as a consequence of the

discovery at verification of these

sulphur cost centers, the Department

was unable to verify this information, as

required by subsection (e)(2). It is a

central tenet of Departmental practice

that verification is not intended to be an

opportunity for submitting new factual

information. Further, the Department

also stated in its verification outline that

new information will be accepted at

verification only when (1) the need for

that information was not evident

previously, (2) the information makes

minor corrections to information

already on the record, or (3) the

information corroborates, supports, or

clarifies information already on the

record. See Letter to Mobil Oil Canada:

Sales and Cost Verification:

Administrative Review of the

Antidumping Duty Order on Elemental

Sulphur from Canada, page 2 (October

11, 1996). The discovery of sulphur cost

centers meets none of these

qualifications. As such, the Department

could not verify this information during

its verification of Mobil.

We also find the information which

Mobil supplied in its responses to be so

incomplete that it cannot serve as a

reliable basis for reaching the applicable

determination, as required by

subsection (e)(3). First, we have

determined that the use of facts

available for Mobil’s cost data renders

its sales data unusable. Because of the

flawed nature of the cost data, home

market sales cannot be tested to

determine whether they were made at

prices above production cost. Insofar as

the Department only makes price-toprice comparisons (normal value to

export price) using those home market

sales that are made above cost, the

flawed nature of the cost data makes

these comparisons impossible.

In the absence of home market sales

data, (i.e., when the home market is

viable but there are no comparison sales

for a particular U.S. sale), the

Department would normally resort to

the use of constructed value as normal

value. However, the constructed value

information reported by Mobil is based

on the discredited cost data. Therefore,

the use of facts available for cost of

production data precludes the use of the

submitted constructed value

information.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 1997 / Notices 971

The Department’s prior practice has

been to reject a respondent’s submitted

information in toto when flawed and

unreliable cost data renders any priceto-price comparison impossible. See

Notice of Final Determination of Sales

at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Pasta

from Italy, 61 FR 30326, 30329 (June 14,

1996); Notice of Final Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain

Pasta from Turkey, 61 FR 30309, 30311

(June 14, 1996). The rationale for this

policy is contained in Notice of Final

Determination of Sales at Less than Fair

Value: Grain Oriented Electrical Steel

From Italy, 59 FR 33952, 33594 (July 1,

1994), where the respondent failed the

cost verification. The Department

explained that the rejection of a

respondent’s questionnaire response in

toto is appropriate and consistent with

past practice in instances where a

respondent failed to provide verifiable

COP information:

‘‘[I]f the Department were to accept verified

sales information when a respondent’s cost

information (a substantial part of the

response) does not verify, respondents would

be in a position to manipulate margin

calculations by permitting the Department to

verify only that information which the

respondent wishes the Department to use in

its margin calculation.’’

This situation applies to Mobil, which

provided sales information in proper

form, but did not provide cost data

which could be verified. Although

Electrical Steel from Italy was a case

involving best information available

(BIA) under the pre-URAA statute, it is

evidence of the Department’s practice of

regarding verified sales information as

unusable when the corresponding cost

data is so flawed that price-to-price

comparisons are rendered impossible.

The Department has reiterated this

position in its Notice of Preliminary

Results of Antidumping Administrative

Review: Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel

Plate from Sweden, 61 FR 51898, 51900

(October 4, 1996), a case under the postURAA statute.

In addition, we find that Mobil has

not demonstrated that it acted to the

best of its ability in providing the

information and meeting the

requirements established by the

Department in this review. As noted in

the verification report, Mobil did not

ask any of its plants whether they

maintained sulphur-specific cost centers

when preparing its responses. See Cost

Verification of Mobil Oil Canada, Ltd.

(‘‘Mobil’’): Administrative Review of

Elemental Sulphur From Canada,

November 18, 1996, pp. 7–8. Thus, we

find that section 782(e)(4) of the Act

provides a further basis for declining to

consider Mobil’s information.

Accordingly, we find that there is no

reasonable basis for determining normal

value for Mobil in this review. As a

result, we could not use Mobil’s U.S.

sales data in determining an

antidumping margin, in accordance

with section 782. The Department has

no choice, therefore, but to resort to a

total facts available methodology.

Section 776(b) provides that adverse

inferences may be used in selecting

from the fact otherwise available if the

Department finds that an interested

party has failed to cooperate by not

acting to the best of its ability to comply

with requests for information. See also

SAA at 870.

We have determined that Mobil did

not act to the best of its ability to

comply with our requests for

information. As discussed above, Mobil

did not even ask the producing plants

whether they maintained sulphur cost

centers. Accordingly, as authorized by

section 776(b) of the Act, we have

applied an adverse inference in

selecting Mobil’s margin.

Section 776(b) authorizes the

Department to use as adverse facts

available information derived from the

petition, the final determination, a

previous administrative review, or any

other information placed on the record.

The SAA provides that ‘‘[i]n employing

adverse inferences, one factor the

[Department] will consider is the extent

to which a party may benefit from its

own lack of cooperation.’’ SAA at 870.

Section 776(c) of the Act provides that

the Department shall, to the extent

practicable, corroborate ‘‘secondary

information’’ by reviewing independent

sources reasonably at its disposal. The

SAA, at 870, makes it clear that

‘‘secondary information’’ includes

information from the petition in the

less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation

and information from a previous section

751 review of the subject merchandise.

The SAA also provides that

‘‘corroborate’’ means simply that the

Department will satisfy itself that the

secondary information to be used has

probative value. Id.

For our total adverse FA margin, we

chose to apply the highest calculated

margin from any prior administrative

review which the Department is able to

corroborate, 7.17%. This rate was

calculated in the 1991–92

administrative review of this

proceeding, the most recently

concluded portion of this proceeding.

As the Department noted in Tapered

Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof,

Finished and Unfinished, from Japan,

and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four

Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and

Components Thereof, from Japan;

Preliminary Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Reviews and

Partial Termination of Administrative

Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 (November

6, 1996), to corroborate secondary

information, the Department will, to the

extent practicable, examine the

reliability and relevance of the

information used. However, unlike

other types of information, such as

input costs or selling expenses, there are

no independent sources for calculated

dumping margins. The only source for

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.

The Department notes that the above

rate, in addition to being calculated, was

also used as ‘‘second-tier’’ (cooperative)

BIA in the 1991–92 administrative

review. Because we have determined

that Mobil has not acted to the best of

its ability to comply with our requests

for information, we also considered the

application of 28.9%, which was the

‘‘first tier’’ BIA rate for nine companies

(not including Mobil) in the 1991/1992

review of this finding. However, we

could not corroborate this rate based on

the Department’s official records of this

proceeding. If this rate is corroborated

subsequent to these preliminary results,

we will consider its application as total

adverse facts available for Mobil for the

purposes of the final results of review.

Finally, we will also consider final

rates calculated in the 1992/93 and the

1993/94 administrative reviews in

determining total adverse facts available

for Mobil for the purposes of the final

results of this review.

Husky

Fair Value Comparisons

To determine whether sales of subject

merchandise to the United States were

made at less than fair value, we

compared the EP to the NV, as described

in the ‘‘Export Price’’ and ‘‘Normal

Value’’ sections of this notice. In

accordance with section 777A(d)(2), we

calculated monthly weighted-average

prices for NV and compared these to

individual U.S. transactions.

Export Price

For calculation of the price to the

United States, we used EP, in

accordance with section 772(a) of the

Act, because Husky’s subject

merchandise was sold to the first

unaffiliated purchaser in the United

States prior to importation and use of
972 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 1997 / Notices

CEP methodology was not otherwise

warranted. We calculated export price

based on f.o.b. plant or delivered prices

to unrelated customers. We made

adjustments, where applicable, for

brokerage and handling, foreign inland

freight, and tank car expenses, in

accordance with section 772(c) of the

Act.

Normal Value

We found that Husky’s quantity of

sales in its home market of the foreign

like product exceeded five percent of its

sales to the United States. Therefore, we

have determined that Husky’s home

market sales are viable for purposes of

comparison with sales of the subject

merchandise to the United States,

pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(C)(ii) of

the Act. Moreover, there is no evidence

on the record indicating a particular

market situation in the exporting

country that would not permit a proper

comparison of home market and U.S.

prices. See section 773(a)(1)(C)(iii).

Thus, we based NV on the prices at

which the foreign like products were

first sold for consumption in the home

market, in the usual commercial

quantities, in the ordinary course of

trade, and at the same level of trade as

the EP sales.

We based NV on home market prices

to unaffiliated purchasers (Husky made

no sales to affiliated parties). Home

market prices were based on ex-factory

or delivered prices. We made

adjustments, where applicable, for

movement expenses in accordance with

sections 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. We also

made adjustments for differences in

circumstances of sale (‘‘COS’’) in

accordance with 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the

Act and 19 CFR 353.56 by deducting

home market direct selling expenses

and adding U.S. direct selling expenses.

These amounts included imputed credit

expenses in the home market and

imputed credit expenses in the U.S.

market.

On May 31, 1996, petitioners alleged

that Husky made home market sales of

foreign like product below cost of

production (‘‘COP’’). On June 28, 1996,

we concluded that petitioners’

allegation provided the Department

with ‘‘reasonable grounds to believe or

suspect’’ that Husky made below cost

sales in the home market within the

meaning of section 773(2)(A)(i) of the

Act. Therefore, we initiated a COP

investigation of Husky’s sales.

In accordance with section 773(b)(3)

of the Act, we calculated the COP based

on the sum of the costs of materials and

fabrication employed in producing the

foreign like product plus selling, general

and administrative (SG&A) expenses

and all costs and expenses incidental to

placing the foreign like product in

condition for shipment. In our COP

analysis, we used home market sales

and COP information provided by

Husky in its questionnaire response.

After calculating COP, we tested

whether home market sales of the

foreign like product were made at prices

below COP and, if so, whether they

were made within an extended period of

time in substantial quantities and at

prices which did not permit recovery of

all costs within a reasonable period of

time. See section 773(b)(1). Because

each individual price was compared

against the POR-long weighted average

COP, any sales that were below cost

were also not at prices which permitted

cost recovery within a reasonable period

of time. We compared the COP for

liquid sulphur to the reported home

market prices less any applicable

movement charges.

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the

Act, we concluded that Husky’s below

cost sales were made in substantial

quantities because the volume of these

sales represented more than 20 percent

of the volume of sales under

consideration for the determination of

normal value. We also concluded that

these below-cost sales were made

within an extended period of time (i.e.,

within the period of review) within the

meaning of section 773. See SAA at 832.

In accordance with section

773(b)(2)(D), we concluded that Husky’s

below-cost sales were not at prices

which permit recovery of all costs

within a reasonable period of time

because the prices for the below-cost

sales were below the weighted average

per unit cost of production for the

period of review.

Based on these tests, we disregarded

below-cost sales with respect to Husky.

Preliminary Results of the Review

As a result of our review, we

preliminarily determine that the

following margins exist for the period

December 1, 1994 through November

30, 1995:

Manufacturer/Exporter Time period Margin

(percent)

Husky Oil Ltd. ................................................................................................................................................... 12/1/94–11/30/95 1 0.33

Mobil Oil Canada, Ltd. ..................................................................................................................................... 12/1/94–11/30/95 7.17

1This is a de minimis rate.

2As described above, this total adverse facts available rate is subject to change for the final results of review.

Parties to this proceeding may request

disclosure within 5 days of the date of

publication of this notice. Any

interested party may request a hearing

within 10 days of the date of publication

of this notice. Any hearing, if requested,

will be held 44 days after the date of

publication or the first business day

thereafter. Case briefs and/or other

written comments from interested

parties may be submitted not later than

30 days after the date of publication.

Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written

comments, limited to issues raised in

those comments, 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 its analysis of issues raised in

any written comments or at a hearing,

not later than 120 days after the date of

publication of this notice.

Upon issuance of the final results of

review, the Department shall determine,

and the U.S. Customs Service shall

assess, antidumping duties on all

appropriate entries. The following

deposit requirements will be effective

for all shipments of the subject

merchandise entered, or withdrawn

from warehouse, for consumption on or

after the publication date of the final

results of these administrative reviews,

as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the

Act: (1) the cash deposit rates for the

reviewed companies will be those rates

established in the final results of these

reviews (except that no deposit will be

required for firms with zero or de

minimis margins, i.e., margins less than

0.5 percent); (2) for previously reviewed

or investigated companies not listed

above, 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 prior review, or the

original less-than-fair-value (‘‘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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 1997 / Notices 973

rate for all other manufacturers or

exporters will continue to be the ‘‘all

others’’ rate made effective by the final

results of the 1991–1992 administrative

review of this order (see Elemental

Sulphur from Canada: Final Results of

Administrative Review, 61 FR 8239,

8252 (March 4, 1996)). As noted in those

final results, the Department determined

this rate to be 5.56 percent. These

deposit requirements, when imposed,

shall remain in effect until publication

of the final results of the next

administrative reviews.

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)(5).

Dated: December 30, 1996.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–296 Filed 1–6–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[A–588–839]

Suspension of Antidumping Duty

Investigation: Sodium Azide From

Japan

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

(the Department) has suspended the

antidumping duty investigation

involving sodium azide from Japan. The

basis for this action is an agreement

between the Department and producers/

exporters accounting for substantially

all imports of sodium azide from Japan

wherein each signatory producer/

exporter has agreed either to revise its

prices to eliminate completely sales of

this merchandise to the United States at

less than fair value or to cease exports

of this merchandise to the United States.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 7, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William H. Crow II or Michelle A.

Frederick, Office of AD/CVD

Enforcement II, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th &

Constitution Avenue N.W., Washington,

D.C. 20230; telephone (202) 482–0116 or

(202) 482–4162, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On February 5, 1996, the Department

initiated an antidumping investigation

under section 732 of the Tariff Act of

1930, (the Act), as amended, to

determine whether imports of sodium

azide from Japan are being or are likely

to be sold in the United States at less

than fair value (61 FR 4959 (February 9,

1996)). On March 8, 1996, the United

States International Trade Commission

(ITC) notified the Department of its

affirmative preliminary injury

determination (see ITC Investigation No.

731–TA–740). On August 9, 1996, the

Department preliminarily determined

that sodium azide is being, or is likely

to be, sold in the United States at less

than fair value (LTFV), as provided in

section 733 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended by the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act (61 FR 42585, (August

16, 1996)).

The Commerce Department and the

Japanese producers of sodium azide

initialed a proposed agreement

suspending this investigation on

November 13, 1996. On that date, we

invited interested parties to provide

written comments on the agreement. On

December 20, 1996, American Azide

Corporation, the petitioner, filed

comments with the Department.

The Department and the signatory

producers/exporters of sodium azide

from Japan signed the final suspension

agreement on December 26, 1996.

Scope of Investigation

The product covered by this

investigation is sodium azide (NaN3)

regardless of use, and whether or not

combined with silicon oxide (SiO2) or

any other inert flow assisting agent. The

merchandise under investigation is

currently classifiable under item

2850.00.50.00 of the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).

Although the HTSUS subheading is

provided for convenience and customs

purposes, our written description of the

scope of this investigation is dispositive.

Interested Party Comments

Having analyzed all comments filed

by interested parties, we conclude that

the Agreement meets the requirements

of the statute. The petitioner raised the

following concerns:

First, the petitioner emphasized that

the agreement, in its opinion, was in the

public interest, and stated its reasons for

this conclusion. Second, the petitioner

requested that the Department revise the

language in the proposed agreement to

identify product types by physical

characteristics and not by end use, in

order to preclude possible future

circumvention of the agreement. Third,

the petitioner asked the Department to

ensure that the language of the

agreement reflect the statutory

definition of profit for constructed

value, whereby the Department would

base profit ‘‘only on amounts realized in

connection with sales in the ordinary

course of trade.’’

As to the first point, the Department

agrees that this agreement is in the

public interest, as outlined in the

December 26, 1996, memorandum from

David Mueller, Director of the Office of

Policy, to Robert S. LaRussa, Acting

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration (‘‘Public Interest

Memorandum’’). With respect to the

second point, the Department has

modified the product type language in

the final agreement using physical

characteristics to define such types.

Third, the Department has added

citations to the statute in the agreement

in order to define profit for constructed

value.

Suspension of Investigation

The Department consulted with the

parties to the proceeding and has

considered the comments submitted

with respect to the proposed suspension

agreement. In accordance with section

734(b) of the Act, we have determined

that the agreement will either eliminate

exports of this merchandise to the

United States or eliminate completely

sales of this merchandise to the United

States at less than fair value, that the

agreement is in the public interest, and

that the agreement can be monitored

effectively. See December 26, 1996,

Public Interest Memorandum. We find,

therefore, that the criteria for

suspension of an investigation pursuant

to section 734(b) of the Act have been

met. The terms and conditions of this

agreement, signed December 26, 1996,

are set forth in Annex 1 to this notice.

Pursuant to section 734(f)(2)(A) of the

Act, effective January 7, 1997, the

suspension of liquidation of all entries

of sodium azide from Japan entered or

withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption, as directed in our notice

of ‘‘Preliminary Determination of Sales

at Less Than Fair Value and

Postponement of the Final

Determination: Sodium Azide from

Japan’’ is hereby terminated. Any cash

deposits on entries of sodium azide

from Japan pursuant to that suspension

of liquidation shall be refunded and any

bonds shall be released.