68256 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 31, 1997 / Notices

Korea. Pursuant to that application, the

Department initiated an anticircumvention inquiry on January 19,

1996 (61 FR 1339, January 19, 1996). On

December 19, 1997, petitioner submitted

a letter requesting that the Department

terminate the anticircumvention

inquiry. Accordingly, we are

terminating the inquiry.

Dated: December 19, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–33980 Filed 12–30–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–580–008]

Color Television Receivers From

Korea; Preliminary Results of Changed

Circumstances Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of affirmative

preliminary determination of changed

circumstances antidumping duty

administrative review and intent to

revoke.

SUMMARY: In response to a request from

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.

(Samsung), the Department of

Commerce (the Department) is

conducting a changed circumstances

review of the antidumping duty order

on color television receivers (CTVs)

from the Republic of Korea (Korea) (49

FR 18336, April 30, 1984).

We have preliminarily determined

that it is appropriate to partially revoke

this AD order with respect to Samsung.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 31, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim

Terpstra or Holly Kuga, Antidumping

and Countervailing Duty Enforcement,

Group II, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202)

482–3965, or 482–4737, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute are references to

the provisions effective January 1, 1995,

the effective date of amendments made

to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act) by the

Uruguay Round Agreements Act

(URAA). In addition, unless otherwise

indicated, all references to the

Department’s regulations are to 19 CFR

Part 353 (1997).

Background

On April 30, 1984, the Department

published in the Federal Register (49

FR 18336) the antidumping duty order

on CTVs from the Republic of Korea (the

order). On July 20, 1995, the Department

received a request by Samsung for a

changed circumstances administrative

review to consider revocation of the

antidumping duty order, as it applies to

Samsung. In their request, Samsung

cited three reasons why the Department

should revoke the antidumping duty

order. First, the timing of certain court

decisions on previous administrative

reviews of this order prevented

Samsung from filing in a timely manner

for revocation under Section 751 (a) of

the Act. Second, Samsung was found

not to be dumping CTVs in the United

States during the last six years that

shipments from Korea had occurred.

Third, Samsung has not shipped CTVs

to the United States since early 1991.

Zenith Electronics Corporation, a

domestic interested party, and other

petitioners filed objections to Samsung’s

request on August 4, 1995 and August

11, 1995, respectively.

Pursuant to Samsung’s request, the

Department published an initiation of

changed circumstance review in the

Federal Register on June 24, 1996 (61

FR 32426). On December 6, 1996, the

Department issued the changed

circumstance questionnaire to Samsung,

who filed its response on February 24,

1997. Petitioners submitted their

comments on Samsung’s questionnaire

response on June 17, 1997.

Subsequently, both petitioners and

Samsung have submitted additional

comments.

On December 19, 1997, Petitioners

requested that the anticircumvention

inquiry on Korean CTVs be terminated.

Accordingly, on December 19, 1997, we

terminated that inquiry.

Scope of Review

Imports covered by this review

include Samsung CTVs, complete and

incomplete, from the Republic of Korea.

This merchandise is classifiable under

the 1996 Harmonized Tariff Schedule

(HTS) as item 8528.12.04, 8528.12.08,

8528.12.12, 8528.12.16, 8528.12.20,

8528.12.24, 8528.12.28, 8528.12.32,

8528.12.36, 8528.12.40, 8528.12.44,

8528.12.48, 8528.12.52, 8528.12.56,

8528.12.62, 8528.12.64, 8528.12.68,

8528.12.72, 8528.12.76, 8528.12.80,

8528.12.84, and 8528.12.88. The order

covers all CTVs regardless of HTS

classification. The HTS subheadings are

provided for convenience and for

customs purposes. The written

description of the scope of the order

remains dispositive.

Analysis

Based upon our analysis, we

preliminarily determine that changed

circumstances exist sufficient to warrant

partial revocation of the antidumping

duty order on CTVs with respect to

Samsung. Therefore, we intend to

partially revoke the order with respect

to Samsung. The Department may grant

a partial revocation of an antidumping

duty order under 19 CFR 353.25(b). To

do so it must find that producers or

resellers have sold the subject

merchandise at not less than foreign

market value for a period of not less

than three consecutive years and that it

is not likely that the producers or

resellers will in the future sell the

merchandise at not less than foreign

market value. 19 CFR 353.25(a)(2)(i) and

(ii). Further, the producers or resellers

must agree in writing to immediate

reinstatement in the order if the

Department concludes that the producer

or reseller, subsequent to revocation,

sold the merchandise at less than

foreign market value. 19 CFR

353.25(a)(2)(iii).

In the present case, Samsung has met

the eligibility requirement of three

consecutive years of de minimis

margins, and the Department has found

that it is not likely that Samsung will

sell the merchandise at not less than

foreign market value in the future.

Samsung sold subject merchandise at

not less than foreign market value for a

period of six consecutive years.

Samsung has also argued that because

it has not shipped CTVs from Korea to

the United States, it is not likely that

dumping will resume. We do not

consider this argument relevant because

the Department explicitly excluded the

lack of shipments as a basis for

revocation. See Antidumping Duties,

Final Rule, 54 FR 12742; March 28,

1989.

Nonetheless, if Samsung were to

resume shipping CTVs from Korea, we

do not find it likely that such imports

would be sold in the United States at

prices less than foreign market value.

Samsung has established a significant

history of selling Korean CTVs in the

United States at prices that are not less

than foreign market value. Absent

evidence that conditions in the United

States or Korean CTV markets have

changed, or that Samsung’s pricing

methods have changed after its six years

of de minimis margins, the Department

preliminarily finds that Samsung is not

likely to resume dumping of CTVs in
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 31, 1997 / Notices 68257

the United States. Accordingly, we find

that the antidumping duty order as to

Samsung is no longer necessary and

preliminarily determine to revoke the

order in part as to Samsung, provided

Samsung agrees in writing to immediate

reinstatement in the order in the event

it sells the merchandise at less than

normal value subsequent to revocation.

The Unions have argued that

Samsung is likely to resume dumping

based on Samsung’s price and cost data.

They contend that price comparison

data submitted by Samsung indicate

that Samsung would sell CTVs at less

than normal value if the company

resumed shipments of CTVs from Korea.

Further, the Unions contend that

Samsung will likely resume shipments

from Korea for newly developed

technologies which its operations in

Mexico cannot produce.

As stated above, the likelihood of

Samsung resuming shipments is not

relevant to our finding here. Instead, we

must address the issue of whether

dumping would be likely to occur if

shipments were to resume. Petitioners

claim that Samsung’s prices in Korea are

likely to be significantly higher than

prices Samsung is charging on

shipments of CTVs from Mexico sold in

the United States. Petitioners’

arguments are premised on their

allegation that Samsung’s shipments

from Mexico are circumventing the

order on CTVs from Korea. However, on

December 19, 1997, petitioners

requested that the Department terminate

the anti-circumvention inquiry, and the

Department has not address the issue of

potential circumvention.

Thus, petitioners have not addressed

the issue of potential price differentials

between Samsung’s sales in the Korean

and U.S. markets if Samsung were to

resume sales from Korea. With respect

to the Unions’ argument that products

resulting from newly developed or

developing technologies are likely to be

dumped, we do not find persuasive

evidence of record that shows that such

products are likely to be dumped.

Public Comment

Interested parties are invited to

submit comments on these preliminary

results. In light of the termination of the

Anticircumvention Inquiry, interested

parties are encouraged to submit

comments on the likelihood of

resumption issue in particular. Case

briefs and/or written comments from

interested parties may be submitted no

later than 30 days after the date of

publication/notification of this notice.

Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to

comments, limited to issues raised in

those briefs or comments, may be filed

no later than 37 days after publication/

notification of this notice. Any hearing,

if requested, will be held 44 days after

publication/notification of this notice.

Affirmative Preliminary Determination

of Changed Circumstances

Based on our analysis discussed

above, we preliminarily find that it is

appropriate to partially revoke the AD

order with respect to Samsung. This

preliminary affirmative changed

circumstances determination is in

accordance with section 751(b) of the

Act and 19 C.F.R. 353.22(f).

Dated: December 19, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–33981 Filed 12–30–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–475–818]

Certain Pasta From Italy; Correction of

Notice of Court Decision

AGENCY: International Trade

Administration, Import Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: On December 15, 1997, the

Department published a Notice in the

Federal Register (62 FR 65673)

concerning a decision of the United

States Court of International Trade (CIT)

in the case of De Cecco et al. v. United

States et al. (Slip Op. 97–143, October

23, 1997). The notice indicated that

absent an appeal of this decision, or, if

the decision were to be appealed, upon

a ‘‘conclusive’’ court decision affirming

the CIT’s judgment, the Department

would implement the CIT’s

determination with respect to entries of

merchandise produced or imported by

firms enumerated in the notice. Barilla

Alimentari S.p.A., a party to the

litigation, should have been listed as a

producer in the notice, but was not. The

corrected notice appears below.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 3, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Edward Easton or John Brinkmann, at

(202) 482–1777 or (202) 482–5288,

respectively, Office of AD/CVD

Enforcement II, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

14th Street and Constitution Avenue,

NW, Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On June 14, 1996, the Department

published its final determination of

sales at less than fair value in the

antidumping duty investigation of

certain pasta from Italy. On July 24,

1996, the Department published an

amended final determination.

Subsequently, De Cecco, et al., filed

lawsuits with the Court challenging the

extension of provisional measures

described above. On October 2, 1997,

the CIT issued its opinion granting

plaintiffs’ and plaintiff-intervenors’

motions. In its opinion, the CIT found

that the Department had improperly

extended the provisional measures

period, as there had not been a proper

request from exporters to extend this

period. On October 23, 1997, the CIT

directed the Department to issue

instructions to implement its decision.

In its decision in Timken Co. v.

United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir.

1990)(‘‘Timken’’), the United States

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

held that, pursuant to 19 U.S.C.

1516a(e), the Department must publish

a notice of a court decision that is not

‘‘in harmony’’ with a Department

determination, and must suspend

liquidation of entries pending a

‘‘conclusive’’ court decision. The

decision of the CIT in De Cecco

constitutes a decision not in harmony

with the Department’s final

determination. This notice fulfills the

publication requirements of Timken.

Absent an appeal, or if appealed,

upon a ‘‘conclusive’’ court decision

affirming the CIT’s judgment, the

Department will direct the U.S. Customs

Service to: (1) Lift the suspension of

liquidation, release any bonds or other

security posted, and refund any and all

cash deposits paid as estimated

antidumping duties on any and all

entries of the subject merchandise were

produced by the following producers—

F.lli De Cecco di Filippo Fara San

Martino S.p.A.,

Rummo S.p.A. Molina e Pastificio,

La Molisana Industrie Alimentari

S.p.A.,

Pastificio Fratelli Pagani S.p.A.,

Barilla Alimentari S.p.A, and

Industria Alimentari Colavita S.p.A.—

or imported by the following

importers—

Agrusa, Inc.,

Bel Canto Fancy Foods, Ltd.,

Cento Fine Foods, Inc. (Alanric Food

Distributors),

George De Lallo Co., Inc.,

Domil, Inc.,

Ferrara Food Co., Inc.,