5612 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 25 / Thursday, February 6, 1997 / Notices

Because U.S. repacking costs are clearly

related to such activities, we have

deducted these expenses from the

starting price to calculate CEP for the

final results.

Comment 20

Petitioners claim that the Department

uniformly reduced Toyota’s home

market sales prices by reported inland

freight expenses, which is inappropriate

because Toyota’s reported home market

prices were exclusive of inland freight

for certain sales. Petitioners assert that

deducting these amounts resulted in an

understatement of NV for those sales for

which the price did not include

delivery.

Toyota responds that it reported, and

the Department verified, inland freight

amounts only where the prices were

inclusive of inland freight. Toyota

asserts that the Department’s

Preliminary Results accomplish exactly

what petitioners claim is proper.

Department’s Position

We agree with petitioners. Toyota

reported that its reported home market

gross unit price ‘‘includes inland freight

only where the sales term is c.&f.’’

(October 16, 1995 response at B–22) and

indicated that for a particular sale ‘‘the

sales term is FOB, that is, it does not

include charges for inland freight’’ (May

3, 1996 supplemental response at Supp.

29). We have ensured that our

calculations reflect the information

Toyota provided in its response

concerning this expense.

Final Results of Review

We determine that the following

weighted-average margins exist for the

period June 1, 1994, through May 31,

1995:

Manufacturer/exporter Margin

(percent)

Toyota ....................................... 50.34

Nissan ....................................... 1 7.36

Toyo .......................................... 1 4.48

1 No shipments or sales subject to this review. Rate is from the last relevant segment of

the proceeding in which the firm had shipments/sales.

The Department shall determine, and

the Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. We have calculated an exporter/

importer-specific assessment rate for

Toyota. For Toyota’s CEP sales we

divided the total dumping margins for

the reviewed sales by the total entered

value of those reviewed sales and the

entered value of leased trucks not

subject to review (see our response to

Toyota comment 10). We will direct

Customs to assess the resulting

percentage margin against the entered

Customs values for the subject

merchandise on each of Toyota’s entries

during the review period. While the

Department is aware that the entered

value of sales during the POR is not

necessarily equal to the entered value of

entries during the POR, use of entered

value of sales as the basis of the

assessment rate permits the Department

to collect a reasonable approximation of

the antidumping duties which would

have been determined if the Department

had reviewed those sales of

merchandise actually entered during the

POR.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective upon

publication of this notice of final results

of administrative review for all

shipments of forklift trucks entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after the date of

publication, as provided by section

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

rates for the reviewed companies will be

the rates shown above; (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 LTFV

investigation, but the manufacturer is,

the cash deposit rate will be the rate

established for the most recent period

for the manufacturer of the

merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit

rate for all other manufacturers or

exporters will be the ‘‘All Others’’ rate

of 39.45 percent made effective by the

final results of review in Certain

Internal-Combustion Industrial Forklift

Trucks From Japan; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 59 FR 1374,1384 (January 10,

1994).

These deposit requirements shall

remain in effect until publication of the

final results of the next administrative

review.

This notice also serves as a 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 the only

reminder to parties subject to

administrative protective orders (APO)

of their responsibility concerning the

return or destruction of proprietary

information disclosed under APO in

accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(d).

Failure to comply is a violation of the

APO.

This administrative review and this

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: January 29, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–2877 Filed 2–5–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[A–201–817]

Oil Country Tubular Goods From

Mexico: Notice of Panel Decision,

Amended Order and Final

Determination of Antidumping Duty

Investigation in Accordance With

Decision Upon Remand

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of panel decision and

amendment to final determination of

antidumping duty investigation in

accordance with decision upon remand.

SUMMARY: As a result of a remand from

a Binational Panel (the Panel), convened

pursuant to the North American Free

Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) is amending its final

determination in the antidumping duty

investigation of Oil Country Tubular

Goods from Mexico. The Department

has determined, in accordance with the

instruction of the Panel, the dumping

margin for entries of Oil Country

Tubular Goods from Mexico to be 21.70

percent.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 6, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jennifer Stagner, Office of AD/CVD

Enforcement II, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone

(202) 482–1673.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On June 28, 1995, the Department

published in the Federal Register (60

FR 33567) the final determination of

sales at less than fair value for Oil

Country Tubular Goods from Mexico

(OCTG from Mexico). On August 11,

1995, the Department published the

antidumping duty order on OCTG from

Mexico. 60 FR 41056.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 25 / Thursday, February 6, 1997 / Notices 5613

1For a complete discussion of the Department’s

reasoning for using 1994 data in calculating G&A

expenses, see Redetermination on Remand; Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Oil

Country Tubular Goods from Mexico (October 25,

1996).

1American Alloys Inc., American Silicon

Technologies, ELKEM Metals Company, Globe

Metallurgical Inc., and SKW Metals & Alloys Inc.

Subsequent to the antidumping duty

order, Tubos de Acero de Mexico, S.A.

(TAMSA), the sole respondent,

challenged the Department’s findings

and requested that the Panel review the

final determination. Thereafter, the

Panel remanded the Department’s final

determination with respect to two

issues. Specifically, the Panel directed

the Department to (1) substitute a

weighted-average factor for the adverse

factor used in the calculation of

nonstandard costs for certain products

and (2) provide a complete explanation

of its reasoning for its use of 1994 data

in calculating general and

administrative (G&A) expense. In the

Matter of: Oil Country Tubular Goods

from Mexico; Final Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value, USA–95–

1904–04 (July 31, 1996).

The Department recalculated the

nonstandard costs using a weightedaverage factor and provided an

explanation of our use of 1994 data in

calculating G&A expenses.1 The

Department submitted its remand

determination on October 25, 1996.

On December 2, 1996, the Panel

affirmed the remand determination of

the Department. In the Matter of: Oil

Country Tubular Goods from Mexico;

Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value, USA–95–1904–04

(July 31, 1996) (Final Panel Order). As

a result, the margin for TAMSA and all

other producers/exporters was reduced

from 23.79 percent to 21.70 percent.

Suspension of Liquidation

The Department will instruct the

Customs Service to collect cash deposits

of 21.70 percent on all shipments of the

subject merchandise entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after the publication

date of this amended final

determination.

This notice is published pursuant to

19 U.S.C. 1516a(g)(5)(B) (1996), section

735(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended (19 U.S.C. 1673d(d) (1996)),

and 19 CFR 353.20(a)(4) (1996).

Dated: January 31, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–3006 Filed 2–5–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[A–357–804]

Notice of Final Results of the 1992/93

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review: Silicon Metal From Argentina

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: In response to timely requests

from the respondents,

Electrometalurgica Andina S.A.I.C.

(Andina) and Silarsa S.A. (Silarsa), and

the petitioners,1 the Department of

Commerce has conducted an

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on silicon

metal from Argentina. The review

covers merchandise exported to the

United States by these two respondents

during the review period of September

1, 1992 through August 31, 1993.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 6, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michelle Frederick, Magd Zalok, or

Howard Smith, Office of AD/CVD

Enforcement II, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Ave., NW.,

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202)

482–0186, (202) 482–4162, or (202) 482–

3530, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Case History

On July 25, 1996, the Department of

Commerce (the Department) published

in the Federal Register the preliminary

results of this administrative review.

See Notice of Preliminary Results of the

1992/93 Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review: Silicon Metal

from Argentina, 61 FR 38711 (July 25,

1996) (Preliminary Results). On August

26, 1996, the Department received briefs

from Andina and the petitioners. On

September 3, 1996, the Department

received rebuttal briefs from Andina,

the petitioners, and Hunter Douglas, an

importer of the subject merchandise. On

September 10, 1996, the petitioners

withdrew their request for a hearing.

The Department held ex-parte meetings

with the petitioners’ counsel and

counsel for Hunter Douglas on

September 11 and 13, 1996, respectively

(see Ex-Parte Memoranda From the

Team to the File dated September 11

and 13, 1996). The Department has now

completed this administrative review in

accordance with section 751 of the

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute and to the

Department’s regulations are references

to the provisions as they existed on

December 31, 1994.

Scope of Review

The product covered by this review is

silicon metal. During the less-than-fairvalue (LTFV) investigation, silicon

metal was described as containing at

least 96.00 percent, but less than 99.99

percent, silicon by weight. In response

to a request by the petitioners for

clarification of the scope of the

antidumping duty order on silicon

metal from the People’s Republic of

China (PRC), the Department

determined that material with a higher

aluminum content containing between

89 and 96 percent silicon by weight is

the same class or kind of merchandise

as silicon metal described in the LTFV

investigation (see Final Scope Rulings—

Antidumping Duty Orders on Silicon

Metal From the People’s Republic of

China, Brazil, and Argentina (February

3, 1993)). Therefore, such material is

within the scope of the orders on silicon

metal from the PRC, Brazil, and

Argentina. Silicon metal is currently

provided for under subheadings

2804.69.10 and 2804.69.50 of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) and

is commonly referred to as a metal.

Semiconductor-grade silicon (silicon

metal containing by weight not less than

99.99 percent of silicon and provided

for in subheading 2804.61.00 of the

HTS) is not subject to this review. The

HTS subheadings are provided for

convenience and U.S. Customs purposes

only. Our written description of the

scope of the proceeding is dispositive.

Best Information Available

As explained in the preliminary

results, Silarsa failed to respond to the

Department’s questionnaire in this

review. Therefore, we have determined

that the use of best information

available (BIA) is appropriate for Silarsa

in accordance with section 776(c) of the

Act. For discussion of the Department’s

rationale for assigning a non-cooperative

respondent a dumping margin based on

BIA, see Preliminary Results. In this

review, we have assigned Silarsa, as

BIA, a margin of 24.62 percent, the rate

assigned to Silarsa in the Amendment to

Final Results of Antidumping

Administrative Review (1991/92):

Silicon Metal from Argentina, 59 FR

1617 (April 6, 1994), which is the

highest rate for any company from any

prior segment of the proceeding.