Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 1997 / Notices 64803

Percent

Horticultura de la Sabana

S.A.

Hosa Ltda.

Innovacion Andina S.A.

Minispray S.A.

ProHosa Ltda.

Maxima Farms Group ............... 3.02

Agricola los Arboles S.A.

Colombian D.C. Flowers

Polo Flowers

Rainbow Flowers

Maxima Farms Inc.

Based on the above, the new rate for

those companies not selected as

respondents is 2.25 percent.

These amended final results of

administrative review and notice are in

accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the

Act.

Dated: December 2, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–32211 Filed 12–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–412–810]

Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth

Carbon Steel Products From the

United Kingdom; Preliminary Results

of Antidumping Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review; Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and

Bismuth Carbon Steel Products from the

United Kingdom.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

(the Department) is conducting an

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on certain hotrolled lead and bismuth carbon steel

products from the United Kingdom in

response to requests by respondents,

British Steel Engineering Steels Limited

(BSES) and Glynwed Metal Processing

Ltd. (Glynwed), and petitioner, Inland

Steel Bar Company. This review covers

the period March 1, 1996 through

February 28, 1997.

We have preliminarily determined

that sales have been made below normal

value (NV). Interested parties are invited

to comment on these preliminary

results. Parties who submit comments

are requested to submit with each

comment (1) a statement of the issue

and (2) a brief summary of the comment.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 9, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: G.

Leon McNeill, Gideon Katz 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) 482–4733.

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. In

addition, unless otherwise stated, all

citations to the Department’s regulations

are references to the regulations as

codified at 19 CFR Part 353 (1996).

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION:

Background

The Department published in the

Federal Register the antidumping duty

order on certain hot-rolled lead and

bismuth carbon steel products from the

United Kingdom on March 22, 1993 (58

FR 15324). On March 7, 1997 we

published in the Federal Register (62

FR 10521) a notice of opportunity to

request an administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on certain hotrolled lead and bismuth carbon steel

products from the United Kingdom

covering the period March 1, 1996

through February 28, 1997.

In accordance with 19 CFR

353.22(a)(1), BSES and Glywed

requested that we conduct an

administrative review of their sales, and

the petitioner, Inland Steel Bar

Company, requested that we conduct an

administrative review of BSES’s sales.

We published a notice of initiation of

this antidumping duty administrative

review on April 24, 1997 (62 FR 19988).

The Department is conducting this

administrative review in accordance

with section 751 of the Act.

Scope of the Review

The products covered by this review

are hot-rolled bars and rods of nonalloy

or other alloy steel, whether or not

descaled, containing by weight 0.03

percent or more of lead or 0.05 percent

or more of bismuth, in coils or cut

lengths, and in numerous shapes and

sizes. Excluded from the scope of this

review are other alloy steels (as defined

by the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of

the United States (HTSUS) Chapter 72,

note 1(f)), except steels classified as

other alloy steels by reason of

containing by weight 0.4 percent or

more of lead, or 0.1 percent or more of

bismuth, tellurium, or selenium. Also

excluded are semi-finished steels and

flat-rolled products. Most of the

products covered in this review are

provided for under subheadings

7213.20.00 and 7214.30.00.00 of the

HTSUS. Small quantities of these

products may also enter the United

States under the following HTSUS

subheadings: 7213.31.30.00, 60.00;

7213.39.00.30, 00.60, 00.90;

7214.40.00.10, 00.30, 00.50;

7214.50.00.10, 00.30, 00.50;

7214.60.00.10, 00.30, 00.50; and

7228.30.80.00. HTSUS subheadings are

provided for convenience and Customs

purposes. The written description of the

scope of this order remains dispositive.

This review covers two

manufacturers/exporters, BSES and

Glynwed, and the period March 1, 1996

through February 28, 1997.

Verification

As provided in section 782(1) of the

Act, we verified information provided

by BSES using standard verification

procedures, including on-site inspection

of the manufacturer’s facilities, the

examination of relevant sales and

financial records, and selection of

original documentation containing

relevant information. Our verification

results are outlined in public versions of

the verification reports.

United States Price

We based United States price on

export price (EP), as defined in section

772(a) of the Act, because the

merchandise was sold directly by the

exporter to unaffiliated U.S. purchasers

prior to the date of importation and

constructed export price was not

indicated by other facts of record.

BSES

The Department calculated EP for

BSES based on packed, delivered prices

to customers in the United States. We

made deductions, where applicable, for

foreign inland freight, FOB charges in

the United Kingdom, ocean freight,

marine insurance, U.S. Customs duties,

brokerage and handling charges,

merchandising processing fees, and U.S.

inland freight charges, in accordance

with 19 CFR 353.41(d). We also made an

adjustment for invoice corrections

(billing adjustments) made after

shipment.

BSES’s sales in the United Kingdom

and the United States were made in

quantities of less than 25 metric tons

and 25 metric tons or more. As in all

prior segments of the proceeding, where

possible we matched U.S. sales to U.K.

sales within the same quantity group: 25

tons or more, or less than 25 tons. (See,
64804 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 1997 / Notices

e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value; Certain Hot-Rolled

Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel

Products from the United Kingdom, 58

FR 6207, January 27, 1993; and Final

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review; Certain HotRolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel

Products from the United Kingdom, 62

FR 18744, April 17, 1997.

Glynwed

The Department calculated EP for

Glynwed based on packed, delivered

prices to customers in the United States.

We made deductions, where applicable,

for international freight (including

foreign inland freight, U.S. inland

freight, ocean freight, and vessel loading

and handling charges), marine

insurance, U.S. Customs duties,

brokerage and handling charges, in

accordance with 19 CFR 353.41(d). We

also made an adjustment for invoice

corrections (billing adjustments) made

after shipment.

Normal Value

In order to determine whether there

was a sufficient volume of sales in the

home market to serve as a viable basis

for calculating NV, the Department

compared each company’s volume of

home market sales of the foreign like

product to its volume of U.S. sales of the

subject merchandise, in accordance

with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act.

Because each company’s aggregate

volume of home market sales of the

foreign like product was greater than

five percent of its aggregate volume of

U.S. sales of the subject merchandise,

we determined that the home market

provides a viable basis for calculating

NV.

Many of BSES’s and Glynwed’s home

market sales were made to affiliated

original equipment manufacturers

(OEMs). It is the Department’s practice,

in situations where home market sales

are made to affiliated parties, to

determine whether sales to affiliated

parties might be appropriate to use as

the basis of NV by comparing prices of

those sales to prices of sales to

unaffiliated parties, on a model-bymodel basis. See Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Reviews, Partial Termination of

Administrative Reviews, and Revocation

in Part of Antidumping Duty Orders;

Antifriction Bearings (Other Than

Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts

Thereof from France, et al. 60 FR 10900,

February 28, 1995. (See Preliminary

Results, 59 FR 9463, February 28, 1994,

for discussion.) Because both BSES and

Glynwed made home market sales to

affiliated OEMs during the period of

review (POR), we tested these OEM

sales to ensure that, on average, the

affiliated-party sales were made at arm’s

length. To conduct this test, for each

company, we compared the gross unit

prices of sales to affiliated and

unaffiliated customers net of all

movement charges, direct selling

expenses, invoice corrections, rebates,

and packing. As a result of our arm’slength test, we disregarded each

company’s sales to the affiliated OEM

customers in the home market where

the prices charged to these affiliated

customers were less than 99.5 percent of

the prices charged to unaffiliated

customers. See Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review; Certain Welded Carbon Steel

Pipes and Tubes from Thailand, 62 FR

53817, October 16, 1997. We did not

require respondents to provide

downstream sales by the affiliated OEM

customers because these customers

further manufactured the subject

merchandise into merchandise not

covered by the order. Both BSES and

Glynwed also sold through affiliated

resellers to unaffiliated customers and

reported these unaffiliated-customer

transactions. We used these unaffiliated

transactions in our determination of NV.

Leaded Rod Sales

BSES did not report its home market

sales of leaded rod produced by

Scunthorpe Rod Mill (SRM) and

Templeborough Rod Mill (TRM),

affiliated parties of BSES, claiming that

such merchandise would not match to

its sales of leaded bar to the United

States. (Neither BSES nor its affiliates

sold leaded rod to the United States

during the POR.) BSES provided a list

of all SRM’s and TRM’s leaded rod

products, including their product

characteristics and product

identification control numbers. In

addition, BSES provided a sales file that

identified every leaded rod product that

SRM and TRM produced or sold during

the POR. Upon examination of this

information, we preliminarily determine

that the leaded rod produced by SRM

and TRM was neither identical to nor

most similar to BSES’s sales of leaded

bar to the United States during the POR.

Residuals

BSES’s product identification number

(CONNUM) contains a residual code as

one of the physical characteristics in the

model matching criteria. Residuals

result from impurities in the scrap used

for the production of leaded bar.

Petitioner claims that, with the

inclusion of the residual code, the

model match is too narrowly defined,

thereby significantly reducing the

number of matches possible between

U.S. and home market sales. During

verification, we found that customers

specify the residual level on purchase

orders as part of the description of

chemical composition. Therefore, we

preliminarily determine that residuals

are an essential part of the product, and

have continued to use residuals, as we

have done in prior reviews, as a

physical product characteristic for

purpose of model matching. See, e.g.,

Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review; Certain HotRolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel

Products from the United Kingdom, 62

FR 18744, April 17, 1997.

Dimensional Ranges

Petitioner argues that respondent

should have reported dimensional

ranges rather than specific dimensions,

claiming that small differences in

dimensions will have no effect on cost

or commercial value.

The Department found at verification

that customers request certain specific

dimensions for the home market

products and the U.S. products, and

BSES produces to those exact

dimensional specifications. In addition,

we have no information on the record

indicating what, if any, dimensional

ranges might be more appropriate than

specific dimensions for matching

purposes. Therefore, the Department is

continuing to use specific dimension as

one of the physical characteristics for

matching purposes for these preliminary

results.

Home Market Rebates

During the POR, BSES offered rebates

to its customers in the home market.

Petitioner argues that the Department

should require BSES to tie rebates to

individual transactions and calculate

each individual rebate over only those

sales benefitting from the rebate rather

than over all sales made by the

purchaser. During verification, we

found that BSES has reported rebates

that were specific to individual

transactions. Therefore, for these

preliminary results, the Department has

adjusted home market prices for rebates

as reported.

General and Administrative Expenses

Petitioner contends that BSES’s

reported general and administrative

(G&A) expenses appear to be low.

During verification, we examined

G&A expenses and found that all such

expenses were reported in total.

Cost of Production Analysis

Pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act,

for this POR, we initiated an
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 1997 / Notices 64805

investigation of sales at less than cost of

production (COP) of BSES. We did this

because in the administrative review of

BSES for the most recent period (as of

the time our decision to initiate a COP

investigation was made) we disregarded

from our calculations BSES’s home

market sales found to be below the COP.

See Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review; Certain HotRolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel

Products from the United Kingdom, 62

FR 18744, April 17, 1997. Therefore, in

accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii)

of the Act, the Department had

reasonable grounds to believe or suspect

that sales at less than the cost of

production may have occurred during

this review period.

Glynwed was not covered in a prior

review or the original investigation of

sales at less than fair value (LTFV), and

the Department did not receive a sales

below cost allegation for Glynwed.

Therefore, the COP analysis is only

applicable to BSES.

Before making any NV comparisons

for BSES, we conducted the COP

analysis described below.

A. Calculation of COP

We calculated the COP based on the

sum of BSES’s cost of materials and

fabrication employed in producing the

foreign like product, plus amounts for

home market selling, general, and

administrative expenses (SG&A) and

packing costs in accordance with

section 773(b)(3) of the Act. We relied

on the home market sales and COP

information provided by BSES in its

questionnaire responses. As we

deducted selling expenses from home

market prices, we also deducted selling

expenses from calculated COPs.

B. Test of Home Market Prices

After calculating COP, we tested

whether home market sales of lead and

bismuth steel were made at prices below

COP within an extended period of time

in substantial quantities, and whether

such prices permitted recovery of all

costs within a reasonable period of time.

We compared the model-specific COP to

the reported home market prices less

any applicable movement charges,

rebates, and direct and indirect selling

expenses.

C. Results of COP Test

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C),

where less than 20 percent of

respondent’s sales of a specific model

were at prices less than COP, we did not

disregard any below-cost sales of that

product because we determined that the

below-cost sales were not made in

‘‘substantial quantities.’’ Where 20

percent or more of a respondent’s sales

of a specific model during the POR were

at prices less than the COP, we

disregarded the below-cost sales

because we determined that the belowcost sales were made within an

extended period of time in ‘‘substantial

quantities’’ in accordance with sections

773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act, and

because, based on our comparisons of

prices to weighted-average COPs for the

POR, we determined that the below-cost

sales of the product were at prices

which would not permit recovery of all

costs within a reasonable period of time,

as defined in section 773(b)(2)(D) of the

Act. Based on this test, we disregarded

certain below-cost sales made by BSES.

Price-to-Price Comparisons

Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2), we

compared the EPs of individual

transactions to the monthly weightedaverage price of sales of the foreign like

product where there were sales at prices

above COP, as discussed above. We

based NV on packed, delivered prices to

unaffiliated purchasers in the home

market, and to affiliated purchasers in

the home market to the extent that

prices were at arm’s-length. We made

adjustments, where applicable, in

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

Act. Where applicable, we made

adjustments to home market price for

invoice corrections, rebates, and inland

freight. We also made a circumstance-ofsale adjustment for differences in credit

insurance and product liability

insurance expenses pursuant to section

773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. Because

home market credit insurance expenses

and product liability insurance

expenses are incurred on a sale-by-sale

basis and directly related to sales, we

have treated these expenses as direct

selling expenses in both the home

market and the U.S. market.

Accordingly, we made the

circumstance-of-sale adjustments by

adding the amounts of U.S. credit

insurance and product liability

insurance for each U.S. sale to the NV,

and subtracting the home market

amounts from NV. We also added U.S.

commissions for each U.S. sale to the

NV. In order to adjust for differences in

packing between the two markets, we

increased home market price by U.S.

packing costs and reduced it by home

market packing costs. Prices were

reported net of value added taxes (VAT)

and, therefore, no deduction for VAT

was necessary. We made adjustments,

where appropriate, for physical

differences in merchandise, in

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

of the Act.

Constructed Value

We only used constructed value with

respect to BSES. In accordance with

section 773(e) of the Act, we calculated

CV based on the sum of BSES’s cost of

materials and fabrication employed in

producing the subject merchandise,

SG&A and profit incurred and realized

in connection with production and sale

of the foreign like product, and U.S.

packing costs. We used the costs of

materials, fabrication, and general and

administrative expenses as reported in

the CV portion of BSES’s questionnaire

response. We used the U.S. packing

costs as reported in the U.S. sales

portion of BSES’s questionnaire

response. In accordance with section

773(e)(2)(A), we based SG&A and profit

on the amounts incurred and realized by

BSES in connection with the production

and sale of the foreign like product in

the ordinary course of trade, for

consumption in the foreign country. We

based selling expenses and profit on the

information reported in the home

market sales portion of BSES’s

questionnaire response. For selling

expenses, we used the average per-unit

home market selling expenses of home

market sales of the foreign like product,

exclusive of sales disregarded under the

cost test, weighted by the total quantity

sold for these sales. For actual profit, we

first calculated the difference between

the home market sales value and home

market COP, for all home market sales

of the foreign like product in the

ordinary course of trade, and divided

the sum of these differences by the total

home market COP for these sales. We

then multiplied this percentage by the

COP for each U.S. model to derive an

actual profit.

Commission Offset

Because there are commissions on

U.S. sales and not on home market sales

for both BSES and Glynwed, we made

an adjustment for indirect selling

expenses in the home market to offset

the U.S. commissions, in accordance

with 19 CFR 353.56(b)(1).

We based the commission offset

amount on the amount of the home

market indirect selling expenses. We

limited the home market indirect selling

expense deduction by the amount of the

commissions incurred on sales to the

United States.

Preliminary Results of the Review

As a result of our comparison of EP

and NV, we preliminarily determine

that the following weighted-average

dumping margins exist:
64806 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 1997 / Notices

Manufacturer/exporter Period Margin

(percent)

British Steel Engineering Steels Limited (BSES) (formerly United Engineering Steels Limited) .......................... 3/1/96–2/28/97 11.90

Glynwed Metal Processing Ltd. (Glynwed) ............................................................................................................ 3/1/96–2/28/97 7.69

Parties to the proceeding may request

disclosure within 5 business days of the

date of publication of this notice. Any

interested party may request a hearing

within 10 days of publication. Pursuant

to 19 CFR 353.38, 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. The Department

will publish a notice of final results of

this administrative review, which will

include the results of its analysis of

issues raised in any such comments, not

later than 120 days after the date of

publication of this notice.

The Department shall determine, and

the Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. Individual differences between

EP and NV may vary from the

percentages stated above. Upon

completion of this review, the

Department will issue appraisement

instructions directly to the Customs

Service.

Furthermore, the following deposit

rates will be effective upon publication

of the final results of this administrative

review for all shipments of certain hotrolled lead and bismuth carbon steel

products from the United Kingdom

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after the

publication date, as provided for by

section 751(a)(2)(c) of the Act: (1) the

cash deposit rate for the reviewed

company will be the rate established in

the final results of this review; (2) for

merchandise exported by manufacturers

or exporters not covered in this review

but covered in the original LTFV

investigation or a previous review, the

cash deposit 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 or a previous

review, or the original 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) for all other

producers and/or exporters of this

merchandise, the cash deposit rate shall

be 25.82 percent, the ‘‘all others’’ rate

established in the LTFV investigation

(58 FR 6207, January 27, 1993).

These deposit rates, when imposed,

shall remain in effect until publication

of the final results of the next

administrative review.

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)) and 19

CFR 353.22.

Dated: December 1, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–32213 Filed 12–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C–559–001]

Preliminary Results of Countervailing

Duty Administrative Review: Certain

Refrigeration Compressors From the

Republic of Singapore

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 9, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert Bolling or Rick Johnson, Office of

Antidumping/Countervailing Duty

Enforcement, Group III, Office IX,

Import Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, Room 1874, 14th Street

and Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone

(202) 482–3434, or 482–0165,

respectively.

SUMMARY: In response to requests by the

Government of the Republic of

Singapore (GOS), Matsushita

Refrigeration Industries (Singapore) Pte.

Ltd. (MARIS), Asia Matsushita Electric

(Singapore) Pte. Ltd. (AMS), and the

petitioner, Tecumseh Products

Company (Tecumseh), the Department

of Commerce (the Department) is

conducting an administrative review of

the agreement suspending the

countervailing duty investigation on

certain refrigeration compressors from

the Republic of Singapore. This review

covers the GOS, MARIS, and AMS.

AMS was the sole exporter of the

subject merchandise to the United

States during the period April 1, 1995,

through March 31, 1996, the period of

review (POR). We preliminarily

determine that the signatories have

complied with the terms of the

suspension agreement during the POR.

Interested parties are invited to

comment on these preliminary results.

Parties who submit arguments in this

proceeding are requested to submit with

their argument (1) a statement of the

issue and (2) a brief summary of the

argument.

Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute and to the

Department’s regulations are in

reference to the provisions as they

existed on or after January 1, 1995, the

effective date of the amendments made

to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Tariff Act)

in accordance with the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act (URAA).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On November 18, 1996, the GOS,

MARIS, and AMS, requested an

administrative review of the agreement

suspending the countervailing duty

investigation on certain refrigeration

compressors from the Republic of

Singapore (Certain Refrigeration

Compressors from the Republic of

Singapore: Suspension of

Countervailing Duty Investigation,

(‘‘Refrigeration Compressors’’) 48 FR

51167, 51170 (November 7, 1983)). On

November 19, 1996, petitioner also

requested an administrative review of

the agreement suspending the

countervailing duty investigation on

certain refrigeration compressors from

the Republic of Singapore. We initiated

the review on December 16, 1996

(Initiation of Antidumping and

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Reviews, 61 FR 66017, (December 16,

1996)). The Department is now