60684 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 218 / Wednesday, November 12, 1997 / Notices

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

(the Department) is extending the time

limit of the final results of the

antidumping duty administrative review

of Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from

Finland. This review covers the period

August 1, 1995 through July 31, 1996.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 12, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Linda Ludwig, Office of AD/CVD

Enforcement, Group III, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230;

telephone (202) 482–3833.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Due to

unforeseen circumstances facing the

Department at this time, it is not

practicable to complete this review

within the original time limit. The

Department is extending the time limit

for completion of the final results until

December 15, 1997, in accordance with

Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Trade and

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the

Uruguay Round Agreements Act of 1994

(19 U.S.C. 1675 (a)(30(A)). See

memorandum to Robert S. La Russa

from Joseph A. Spetrini regarding the

extension of case deadline, dated

November 3, 1997.

Dated: November 4, 1997.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Deputy Assistant Secretary Enforcement

Group III.

[FR Doc. 97–29768 Filed 11–10–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–570–803]

Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or

Unfinished, With or Without Handles,

From the People’s Republic of China;

Preliminary Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Reviews

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of

antidumping duty administrative

reviews.

SUMMARY: In response to requests by the

petitioner and five exporters of the

subject merchandise, the Department of

Commerce is conducting administrative

reviews of the antidumping orders on

heavy forged hand tools, finished or

unfinished, with or without handles,

from the People’s Republic of China.

These reviews cover five exporters of

the subject merchandise, Tianjin

Machinery Import & Export Corporation,

Fujian Machinery & Equipment Import

& Export Corporation, Shandong

Machinery Import & Export Corporation,

Liaoning Machinery Import & Export

Corporation, and Shandong Huarong

General Group Corporation. The period

of review is February 1, 1996 through

January 31, 1997.

We have preliminarily determined

that sales have been made below normal

value. If these preliminary results are

adopted in our final results, we will

instruct the U.S. Customs Service to

assess antidumping duties on

appropriate entries. 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 12, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Matthew Blaskovich or James Terpstra,

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) 482–5831/3965.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise stated, 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 references

to the provisions codified at 19 CFR Part

353 (April 1997). Although the

Department of Commerce’s new

regulations, codified at 19 CFR part 351

(62 FR 27296, May 19, 1997), do not

govern these proceedings, citations to

those regulations are provided, where

appropriate, to explain current

Departmental practice.

Background

On February 19, 1991, the Department

of Commerce (Department) published in

the Federal Register (56 FR 6622) the

antidumping duty orders on heavy

forged hand tools, finished or

unfinished, with or without handles

(certain heavy forged hand tools or

HFHTs) from the People’s Republic of

China (PRC). On February 3, 1997, the

Department published in the Federal

Register (62 FR 4978) a notice of

opportunity to request administrative

reviews of these antidumping duty

orders. In accordance with 19 CFR

353.22(a), on February 21 and 25, 1997,

three exporters of the subject

merchandise, Tianjin Machinery Import

& Export Corporation (TMC), Fujian

Machinery & Equipment Import &

Export Corporation (FMEC), and

Shandong Machinery Import & Export

Corporation (SMC), requested that the

Department conduct administrative

reviews of their exports of axes/adzes;

bars/wedges; hammers/sledges; and

picks/mattocks. On February 26, 1997,

another exporter, Liaoning Machinery

Import & Export Corporation (LMC),

requested that the Department conduct

an administrative review of its exports

of bars and wedges. Also on February

26, 1997, Olympia Industrial, Inc., a

U.S. importer of the subject

merchandise, requested administrative

reviews of Shandong Huarong General

Group Corporation’s (Shandong

Huarong) exports of bars/wedges and

FMEC’s exports of axes/adzes; bars/

wedges; hammers/sledges; and picks/

mattocks. On February 28, 1997, the

petitioner, WVS Corporation, formerly

known as Woodings-Verona Tool

Works, Inc., requested administrative

reviews of SMC’s and FMEC’s exports of

axes/adzes; bars/wedges; hammers/

sledges; and picks/mattocks and TMC’s

exports of axes/adzes and hammers/

sledges.

We published the notice of initiation

of these reviews on March 18, 1997 (62

FR 12793). In its May 16, 1997 response

to Section A of the Department’s

questionnaire, TMC withdrew its

request for a review of bars/wedges and

picks/mattocks because it did not export

these products during the period of

review. Because TMC withdrew its

request within the time limit provided

by the Department’s regulations at 19

CFR section 353.22(a)(5), the

Department is terminating its review of

bars/wedges and picks/mattocks with

respect to TMC. The Department is

conducting these administrative reviews

in accordance with section 751 of the

Act.

Scope of Reviews

Imports covered by these reviews are

shipments of HFHTs from the PRC

comprising the following classes or

kinds of merchandise: (1) Hammers and

sledges with heads over 1.5 kg (3.33

pounds) (hammers/sledges); (2) bars

over 18 inches in length, track tools and

wedges (bars/wedges); (3) picks/

mattocks; and (4) axes/adzes.

HFHTs include heads for drilling,

hammers, sledges, axes, mauls, picks,

and mattocks, which may or may not be

painted, which may or may not be

finished, or which may or may not be

imported with handles; assorted bar
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 218 / Wednesday, November 12, 1997 / Notices 60685

products and track tools including

wrecking bars, digging bars and

tampers; and steel wood splitting

wedges. HFHTs are manufactured

through a hot forge operation in which

steel is sheared to required length,

heated to forging temperature, and

formed to final shape on forging

equipment using dies specific to the

desired product shape and size.

Depending on the product, finishing

operations may include shot-blasting,

grinding, polishing and painting, and

the insertion of handles for handled

products. HFHTs are currently

classifiable under the following

Harmonized Tariff System (HTS)

subheadings: 8205.20.60, 8205.59.30,

8201.30.00, and 8201.40.60. Specifically

excluded are hammers and sledges with

heads 1.5 kg (3.33 pounds) in weight

and under, hoes and rakes, and bars 18

inches in length and under.

Although the HTS subheadings are

provided for convenience and customs

purposes, our written description of the

scope of these orders is dispositive.

Duty Absorption

On April 17, 1997, WVS Corporation

requested that the Department conduct

a duty absorption inquiry in order to

determine whether antidumping duties

had been absorbed by a foreign producer

or exporter subject to the order. This

request was made pursuant to the March

18, 1997, notice of initiation of

administrative review (62 FR 12793).

However, the Department’s invitation

for such requests only applies to certain

administrative reviews of orders that

were in effect before January 1995.

Section 751(a)(4) provides for the

Department, if requested, to determine,

during an administrative review

initiated two years or four years after

publication of the order, whether

antidumping duties have been absorbed

by a foreign producer or exporter subject

to the order if the subject merchandise

is sold in the United States through an

importer who is affiliated with such

foreign producer or exporter. Section

751(a)(4) was added to the Act by the

URAA. The Department’s interim

regulations did not address this

provision of the Act.

For transition orders as defined in

section 751(c)(6)(C) of the Tariff Act,

i.e., orders in effect as of January 1,

1995, section 351.213(j)(2) of the

Department’s new antidumping

regulations provides that the

Department will make a duty-absorption

determination, if requested, for any

administrative review initiated in 1996

or 1998. Although these antidumping

regulations do not apply to this review,

they do represent the Department’s

interpretation of section 751(a)(4) of the

Act. This approach ensures that

interested parties will have the

opportunity to request a duty-absorption

determination prior to the time for

sunset review of the order under section

751(c) on entries for which the second

and fourth years following an order

have already passed. Because the

antidumping duty order in HFHTs from

the PRC has been in effect since 1991,

this is a ‘‘transition order’’ in

accordance with section 751 (c)(b)(C) of

the Tariff Act. Since this administrative

review was not initiated in 1996 or

1998, the Department will not make a

duty absorption determination.

Verification

Because Shandong Huarong and LMC

had not been previously reviewed we

verified these companies’ questionnaire

responses as provided in Section 782 (i)

of the Act. From August 25 through

September 6, 1997, we conducted the

verifications using standard verification

procedures, including on-site inspection

of the manufacturers’ facilities, the

examination of relevant accounting,

sales, and other financial records, and

selection of original documentation

containing relevant information. Our

verification results are outlined in the

public version of the verification reports

which are on file in the Central Records

Unit (CRU) in room B–099 of the Main

Commerce Building.

Facts Available

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

that if an interested party: (1) Withholds

information that has been requested by

the Department; (2) fails to provide such

information in a timely manner or in the

form or manner requested; (3)

significantly impedes a determination

under the antidumping statute; or (4)

provides such information but the

information cannot be verified, the

Department shall, subject to Section

782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise

available in reaching the applicable

determination. The quantities the

respondents reported for factors of

production were ‘‘caps’’ or standards

based on the producer’s experience. At

verification, LMC’s supplier was unable

to provide any documentation that

substantiated the accuracy of the ‘‘caps’’

reported for labor and paint. Because

the reported information could not be

verified, we must use facts otherwise

available to determine the amount of

labor and paint used to produce the

subject merchandise.

Section 776(b) of the Act provides

that adverse inferences may be used

with respect to a party that has failed to

cooperate by not acting to the best of its

ability to comply with requests for

information. See also Statement of

Administrative Action (SAA)

accompanying the URAA, at 870. We

determined that LMC did not act to the

best of its ability because it failed to

provide any information that could be

used to support the reasonableness of

the reported labor usage and paint

consumption. Therefore, as adverse

facts available, we have assigned labor

usage and paint consumption figures to

each model of subject merchandise

equal to the greatest figures reported for

each factor for any of the models of

subject merchandise manufactured by

LMC’s producer. For further discussion

regarding the use of facts available, see

Decision Memorandum to Richard W.

Moreland, Acting Deputy Assistant

Secretary, Group II, dated October 31,

1997, ‘‘Use of Facts Available: 1996/

1997 Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review of Certain Heavy Forged Hand

Tools From the People’s Republic of

China,’’ which is on file in the CRU.

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 in 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-economy

(NME) countries are entitled to separate,

company-specific margins when they

can demonstrate an absence of

government control, both in law (de

jure) and in fact (de facto), with respect

to exports. Evidence supporting, though

not requiring, a finding of de jure

absence of government control 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

with respect to exports is based on four

criteria: (1) Whether export prices are

set by or subject to the approval of a

government authority; (2) whether each

exporter retains the proceeds from its

sales and makes independent decisions

regarding the disposition of profits and

financing of losses; (3) whether each

exporter has autonomy in making
60686 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 218 / Wednesday, November 12, 1997 / Notices

decisions regarding the selection of

management; and, (4) whether each

exporter has the authority to negotiate

and sign contracts. See Silicon Carbide,

59 FR at 22587.

In the final results of the 1995–1996

reviews of HFHTs, the Department

granted separate rates to FMEC, SMC

and TMC. See Heavy Forged Hand Tools

From the People’s Republic of China;

Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Reviews (62 FR 11813,

March 13, 1997). In the instant reviews,

these companies submitted complete

responses to the separate rates section of

the Department’s questionnaire. Because

the evidence submitted in the instant

reviews is consistent with the

Department’s findings in the 1995–1996

reviews, we preliminarily determine

that these three companies continue to

be entitled to separate rates.

Shandong Huarong and LMC, which

we had not previously reviewed,

provided the Department with separate

rates information that we examined at

verification. After analyzing the record

evidence using the criteria identified in

Sparklers and Silicon Carbide, we have

preliminarily found an absence of

government control, both in law and in

fact, with respect to both Shandong

Huarong’s and LMC’s export activities.

Accordingly, for this review, we have

assigned separate rates to Shandong

Huarong and LMC. For further

discussion of this finding, see Decision

Memorandum to Holly A. Kuga Senior

Director Office IV, Enforcement, Group

II, dated October 31, 1997, ‘‘Assignment

of a separate rate for Shandong Huarong

General Group Corporation and

Liaoning Machinery Import & Export

Corporation in the 1996/1997

administrative review of certain heavy

forged hand tools from the People’s

Republic of China,’’ which is on file in

the CRU.

Export Price

The Department calculated an export

price (EP) on sales to the United States

in accordance with section 772(a) of the

Act and because use of constructed

export price was not otherwise

warranted. We made deductions from

the selling price to unaffiliated parties,

where appropriate, for ocean freight,

marine insurance, foreign brokerage and

handling, and foreign inland freight.

Each of these services was either

provided by a non-market economy

vendor or paid for using a non-market

economy currency. Thus, we based the

deduction for these movement charges

on surrogate values (see the discussion

regarding companies located in NME

countries and the Department’s

surrogate country selection in the

Normal Value section of this notice).

We valued ocean freight using the

October 1996 and July and August 1995

rates that were obtained and used in the

1995–1996 administrative review of

HFHTs from the PRC (62 FR 11813,

March 13, 1997) and the Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair

Value: Brake Drums and Brake Rotors

From the People’s Republic of China

(Brake Drums and Brake Rotors) (62 FR

9160, February 28, 1997), respectively.

We valued marine insurance using the

average rate in effect during the period

November 1991 through April 1992.

This rate was reported in public

information placed on the record in the

Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value: Sulfur Dyes, Including

Sulfur Vat Dyes From India (58 FR

11835, March 1, 1993), and recently

used in Brake Drums and Brake Rotors.

For foreign brokerage and handling,

we used the average of the rates

reported in the public version of a

document submitted in the antidumping

duty investigation of Stainless Steel Bar

From India (59 FR 66915, December 28,

1994). These rates, which were in effect

between October 1993 and January

1994, were recently used in the Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair

Value: Persulfates From the People’s

Republic of China (62 FR 27222, May

19, 1997).

The sources used to value foreign

inland freight are identified below in

the Normal Value section of this notice.

To account for price changes between

the time period that the freight,

brokerage, and insurance rates were in

effect and the period of review (POR),

we inflated or deflated the rates using

the wholesale price indices (WPI) for

India as published in the International

Monetary Fund’s (IMF) publication,

International Financial Statistics. For

further discussion of the surrogate

values used in these reviews see the File

Memorandum From the Team dated

October 31, 1997, ‘‘Surrogate Values

used for the Preliminary Results of the

Sixth Administrative Reviews of Certain

Heavy Forged Hand Tools From the

People’s Republic of China,’’ (Surrogate

Value Memorandum) which is on file in

the CRU.

Normal Value

For companies located in NME

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

provides that the Department shall

determine normal value (NV) using a

factors of production methodology if (1)

the subject 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, in accordance with

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.

Since none of the parties to these

proceedings contested such treatment in

these reviews, we calculated NV in

accordance with section 773(c) of the

Act and section 353.52 of the

Department’s regulations.

In accordance with section 773(c)(3)

of the Act, the factors of production

utilized in producing HFHTs include,

but are not limited to—(A) hours of

labor required, (B) quantities of raw

materials employed, (C) amounts of

energy and other utilities consumed,

and (D) representative capital cost,

including depreciation. In accordance

with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, the

Department valued the factors of

production to the extent possible, using

the prices or cost of factors of

production in a market economy that

is—(A) at a level of economic

development comparable to the PRC,

and (B) a significant producer of

comparable merchandise. We

determined that India is comparable to

the PRC in terms of per capita gross

national product, the growth rate in per

capita income, and the national

distribution of labor. Furthermore, India

is a significant producer of comparable

merchandise. For a further discussion of

the Department’s selection of India as

the surrogate country, see Memorandum

From Jeff May, Director, Office of

Policy, to Holly Kuga, Director, Office 4,

AD/CVD Enforcement Group II, dated

June 24, 1997, ‘‘Certain Heavy Forged

Hand Tools (‘‘Hand Tools’’) from the

PRC: Nonmarket Economy Status and

Surrogate Country Selection’’ which is

on file in the CRU.

In accordance with section 773(c)(1)

of the Act, for purposes of calculating

NV, we valued PRC factors of

production based on data for the POR.

Surrogate values that were in effect

during periods other than the POR were

inflated or deflated, as appropriate, to

account for price changes between the

effective period and the POR. We

calculated the inflation or deflation

adjustments for all factor values, except

labor, using the wholesale price indices

for India that were reported in the IMF’s

publication, International Financial

Statistics. We calculated the inflation or

deflation adjustment for labor using the

consumer price indices (CPI) for India

that were reported in the IMF’s

International Financial Statistics. We

valued PRC factors of production as

follows:
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 218 / Wednesday, November 12, 1997 / Notices 60687

• We valued direct material used to

produce HFHTs (i.e., steel scrap, paint,

paint thinner (dilution), and anti-rust

oil) and the steel scrap generated from

the production of HFHT’s, using the

rupee per metric ton, per kilogram, or

per cubic meter value of India imports

between February 1996 and August

1996. We used imports into India

between April 1995 and March 1996 to

value steel bars used to produce HFHTs

because the Harmonized Tariff Schedule

(HTS) subheading that we selected for

the steel surrogate value, HTS 7214.50,

does not appear in the Indian import

statistics for April 1996 through August

1996. Although petitioner claimed that

HTS subheading 7214.50 was changed

to subheading 7214.99 for import

statistics for 1996, we did not use

statistics from the subheading suggested

by petitioner because it was not clear

that this change was implemented by

India in its import statistics. For further

discussion regarding the HTS category

used to value steel, see Decision

Memorandum to Holly A. Kuga, Senior

Director, Enforcement Group II, dated

October 31, 1997, ‘‘Issues Concerning

Surrogate Values for Steel, Labor Rates

and Trucking: 1996/1997 Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review of Certain

Heavy Forged Hand Tools From the

People’s Republic of China,’’ which is

on file in the CRU. We used import

statistics in our valuations that were

published in the Monthly Statistics of

the Foreign Trade of India, Volume II—

Imports (Indian Import Statistics).

• We valued labor using the October

1995 Indian labor rates reported in the

International Labour Office’s Statistics

on Occupational Wages and Hours of

Work and on Food Prices, October

Inquiry, 1994 and 1995.

• We derived ratios for factory

overhead, selling, general and

administrative (SG&A) expenses, and

profit using information reported for

1992–1993 in the Reserve Bank of India

Bulletin. From this information, we

were able to calculate factory overhead

as a percentage of direct material, labor,

and energy expenses; SG&A as a

percentage of the total cost of

manufacturing; and profit as a

percentage of the sum of the total cost

of manufacturing and SG&A.

• We valued packing materials,

including cartons, pallets, anti-rust

paper, anti-damp paper, plastic straps,

plastic bags, iron buttons and knots, and

iron wire, using the rupee per metric

ton, per kilogram, or per cubic meter

value of imports into India between

February 1996 and August 1996.

Because iron straps were not imported

into India between February 1996 and

August 1996, we based the value of iron

straps on imports between April 1995

and March 1996. The import values

were published in the publication,

Indian Import Statistics.

• We valued coal using the price of

steam coal in 1996 as reported in the

International Energy Agency’s

publication Energy Prices and Taxes, 1st

Quarter 1997.

• We valued electricity, using the

simple average of the March 1, 1995

Indian regional electricity prices for

large industries as reported in the

India’s Energy Sector, September 1996,

published by the Centre for Monitoring

Indian Economy Pvt. Ltd.

• We used the following sources to

value truck and rail freight services

incurred to transport direct materials,

packing materials, and coal from the

suppliers of the inputs to the factories

producing HFHTs:

Truck Freight—If a respondent used

its own trucks to transport material or

subject merchandise, we valued freight

services using the average cost of

operating a truck which we calculated

from information published in the

Times of India on April 24, 1994. If a

respondent did not use its own trucks

or the respondent did not state that it

used its own trucks, we valued freight

services using the rates reported in an

August 1993 cable from the U.S.

Embassy in India to the Department. See

Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value: Certain Helical Spring

Lock Washers from the People’s

Republic of China (58 FR 48833,

September 20, 1993).

Rail Freight—We valued rail freight

services using the April 1, 1995 rates

published by the Indian Railway

Conference Association. These rates

were recently used in Brake Drums and

Brake Rotors. For further discussion of

the surrogate values used in these

reviews, see the Surrogate Value

Memorandum which is on file in the

CRU.

Preliminary Results of the Reviews

As a result of our reviews, we

preliminarily determine that the

following margins exist for the period

February 1, 1996 through January 31,

1997:

Manufacturer/exporter Time period Margin

(percent)

Shandong Huarong General Group Corporation: Bars/Wedges ......................................................................... 2/1/96–1/31/97 25.28

Liaoning Machinery Import & Export Corporation: Bars/Wedges ........................................................................ 2/1/96–1/31/97 8.97

Fujian Machinery & Equipment Import & Export Corporation:

Axes/Adzes ................................................................................................................................................... 2/1/96–1/31/97 10.43

Hammers/Sledges ......................................................................................................................................... 2/1/96–1/31/97 17.03

Shandong Machinery Import & Export Corporation:

Bars/Wedges ................................................................................................................................................. 2/1/96–1/31/97 52.29

Hammers/Sledges ......................................................................................................................................... 2/1/96–1/31/97 32.60

Picks/Mattocks .............................................................................................................................................. 2/1/96–1/31/97 53.43

Tianjin Machinery Import & Export Corporation:

Axes/Adzes ................................................................................................................................................... 2/1/96–1/31/97 7.28

Hammers/Sledges ......................................................................................................................................... 2/1/96–1/31/97 44.30

Parties to the proceedings 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 publication. 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. 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.

Parties who submit argument in these

proceedings are requested to submit

with the argument (1) a statement of the

issue and (2) a brief summary of the

argument. The Department will publish

a notice of final results of these

administrative reviews, which will

include the results of its analysis of

issues raised in any such comments.

Assessment Rates

The Department shall determine, and

the Customs Service shall assess,
60688 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 218 / Wednesday, November 12, 1997 / Notices

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. Individual differences between

EP and NV may vary from the

percentages stated above. We have

calculated importer-specific duty

assessment rates for each class or kind

of HFHTs by dividing the total dumping

margins (calculated as the difference

between NV and EP) for each importer/

customer by the total number of units

sold to that importer/customer. We will

direct Customs to assess the resulting

per-unit dollar amount against each unit

of merchandise in each of the

importer’s/customer’s entries under the

relevant order during the review period.

Cash Deposit Requirements

The following deposit requirements

will be effective upon publication of the

final results of these administrative

reviews for all shipments of HFHTs

from the PRC 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)

The cash deposit rates for the reviewed

companies named above which have

separate rates (Shandong Huarong,

LMC, TMC, FMEC, and SMC) will be

the rates for those firms established in

the final results of these administrative

reviews for the classes or kinds listed

above; (2) for all other PRC exporters,

the cash deposit rates will be the PRCwide rates established in the final

results of the previous administrative

reviews; and (3) the cash deposit rates

for non-PRC exporters of subject

merchandise from the PRC will be the

rates applicable to the PRC supplier of

that exporter. The PRC-wide rates are:

21.93 percent for axes/adzes; 66.32

percent for bars/wedges; 44.41 percent

for hammers/sledges; and 108.2 percent

for picks/mattocks. These deposit

requirements, when imposed, shall

remain in effect until publication of the

final results of the next administrative

reviews.

Notification of Interested Parties

This notice serves as a preliminary

reminder to importers of their

responsibility under section 353.26 of

the Department’s regulations 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.

These administrative reviews and

notice are in accordance with section

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

1675(a)(1)) and section 353.22 of the

Department’s regulations.

Dated: October 31, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–29763 Filed 11–10–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–428–820]

Small Diameter Circular Seamless

Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line

and Pressure Pipe From Germany;

Notice of Rescission of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of rescission of

antidumping duty administrative

review.

SUMMARY: On September 25, 1997, the

Department of Commerce (‘‘the

Department’’) published in the Federal

Register (62 FR 50292) a notice

announcing the initiation of an

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on Small

Diameter Circular Seamless Carbon and

Alloy Steel Standard, Line and Pressure

Pipe from Germany, covering the period

August 1, 1996 through July 31, 1997.

The review has now been rescinded as

a result of the withdrawal of the request

for administrative review by the

interested party that requested the

review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 12, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nancy Decker, Group III, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20230,

telephone: (202) 482–0196.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On August 29, 1997, the Department

received a request from the respondent

in this case, Mannesmannrohren-Werke

AG (‘‘MRW’’) and Mannesmann Pipe &

Steel Corporation (‘‘MPS’’) (collectively

‘‘Mannesmann’’), to conduct an

administrative review of Mannesmann,

pursuant to section 19 CFR 351.213(b)

of the Department’s regulations. The

period of review is August 1, 1996

through July 31, 1997. On September 25,

1997, the Department published in the

Federal Register (62 FR 50292) a notice

announcing the initiation of an

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on Small

Diameter Circular Seamless Carbon and

Alloy Steel Standard, Line and Pressure

Pipe from Germany, covering the period

August 1, 1996 through July 31, 1997.

Rescission of Review

On October 7, 1997, we received a

timely request for withdrawal of the

request for administrative review from

Mannesmann. Because there were no

other requests for administrative review

from any other interested party, in

accordance with section 351.213 (d) (1)

of the Department’s regulations, we

have rescinded this administrative

review.

This notice is published in

accordance with section 751 of the

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19

U.S.C. 1675) and 19 CFR 351.213 (d) (4).

Dated: October 29, 1997.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Enforcement

Group III.

[FR Doc. 97–29766 Filed 1–10–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–588–068]

Steel Wire Strand for Prestressed

Concrete From Japan; Notice of Final

Court Decision and Amended Final

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Reviews

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final court decision

and amended final results of

antidumping duty administrative

reviews.

SUMMARY: On April 22, 1997, the Court

of International Trade (the Court)

affirmed the Department of Commerce’s

(the Department) second remand

determination arising out of the

administrative reviews of the

antidumping finding on steel wire

strand for prestressed concrete (‘‘PC

Strand’’) from Japan. See Mitsui & Co.,

Ltd. v. United States, Slip Op. 97–49

(CIT April 22, 1997). As there is now a

final and conclusive court decision in

this action, we are amending the final

results of review in this matter and will

instruct the U.S. Customs Service to

liquidate Mitsui’s entries covered by

these amended final results at the rates

assigned to each of Mitsui’s suppliers

for the periods April 1, 1978 through