64802 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 1997 / Notices

Commerce, Washington, D.C. 20230, no

later than the close of business of the

tenth calendar day following the

publication of this notice.

(The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

official program number and title of the

program under which these petitions are

submitted is 11.313, Trade Adjustment

Assistance)

Dated: November 24, 1997.

Anthony J. Meyer,

Coordinator, Trade Adjustment and

Technical Assistance.

[FR Doc. 97–32156 Filed 12–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–24–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–301–602]

Certain Fresh Cut Flowers From

Colombia; Amended Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of amended final results

of antidumping duty administrative

review.

SUMMARY: On October 14, 1997, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) published the final results

and partial rescission of the ninth

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on certain fresh

cut flowers from Colombia (62 FR

53287). Based on the correction of

ministerial errors made in those final

results with respect to two

manufacturer/exporters, and the

subsequent changes in duty absorption

amounts and the rate for non-selected

respondents, we are publishing this

amendment to the final results in

accordance with 19 CFR 353.28(c).

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 9, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Cynthia Thirumalai or Zak Smith, Office

1, Group 1, 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) 482–4087 and (202) 482–1279,

respectively.

APPLICABLE STATUTE AND REGULATIONS:

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations

to the statute are references to the

provisions effective January 1, 1995, the

effective date of the amendments made

to the Act by the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act (URAA). In addition,

unless otherwise indicated, all citations

to the Department’s regulations are to

those codified at 19 CFR Part 353 (April

1997).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On October 14, 1997, we published a

notice of Final Results and Partial

Rescission of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review (Final Results).

We received timely allegations of

ministerial errors made in the final

results by Hosa Ltda (Hosa) and Maxima

Farms Group (Maxima) on October 22 &

23, 1997, respectively.

Scope of Review

Imports covered by these reviews are

shipments of certain fresh cut flowers

from Colombia (standard carnations,

miniature (spray) carnations, standard

chrysanthemums and pompon

chrysanthemums). These products are

currently classifiable under item

numbers 0603.10.30.00, 0603.10.70.10,

0603.10.70.20, and 0603.10.70.30 of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS). The

HTS item numbers are provided for

convenience and Customs purposes.

The written description of the scope of

this order remains dispositive.

Alleged Ministerial Errors

Hosa

Issue 1: Calculation of CEP Profit

In our final results, HOSA claims that

the Department erred by failing to

include indirect selling expenses

incurred in Colombia in calculating

constructed export price (CEP) profit.

DOC Position: We agree with HOSA

that we failed to include indirect selling

expenses incurred in Colombia in

calculating CEP profit. We intended to

include indirect selling expenses and

have made this correction for the

amended final results. We note that this

omission was unique to HOSA.

Issue 2: Returned Flowers

HOSA alleges that the Department

erred in its calculation of costs

associated with returned flowers. HOSA

claims that the Department should have

used cost of production (COP) rather

than constructed value (CV), because CV

includes an amount for profit.

DOC Position: The question of

whether to use CV or COP is a

methodological issue. Our use of CV in

this calculation was intentional.

Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR

353.28(d), we do not consider this to be

a ministerial error (see, 19 CFR

353.28(d) (1996)).

Issue 3: Calculation of Indirect Selling

Expenses

While reviewing the above

allegations, we discovered an additional

ministerial error. When generating the

multiplier used in the calculation of

indirect selling expenses for CV we did

not use the correct number of

minicarnations sold in all markets. We

have corrected this error.

Maxima

Issue 1: Calculation of Number of Stems

of Export-Quality Standard Carnations

Sold

Maxima alleges that we failed to

increase the number of export-quality

stems of standard carnations sold to

reflect information obtained at

verification regarding home market

sales.

DOC Position: We agree with Maxima

that the number of stems of exportquality standard carnations sold should

be increased by the number of stems

sold in the home market. We intended

to increase the number pursuant to

information gathered at verification and

have corrected this error in these

amended final results.

Issue 2: Input of Monthly Number of

Stems of Minicarnations Transshipped

to Third Country

Maxima claims that the final digits of

the monthly volumes of minicarnations

transshipped through the United States

were omitted.

DOC Position: We agree with Maxima

and have made this correction in these

amended final results.

Duty Absorption

As a result of correcting these

ministerial errors, the amount of U.S.

sales through affiliated importers has

also changed:

Name of company

Percentage

of U.S. affiliated importer sales

with margins

Hosa .......................................... 15.83

Maxima ..................................... 31.61

Amended Final Results of Review

As a result of these amended final

results, we determine the following

percentage weighted-average margins to

exist for Hosa and Maxima (both

selected respondents) for the period of

review (March 1, 1995 through February

29, 1996):

Percent

Hosa Group .............................. 2.01
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,