Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 1997 / Notices 6171

The Department shall determine, and

the Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. Because the inability to link

sales with specific entries prevents

calculation of duties on an entry-byentry basis, we have calculated an

importer-specific ad valorem duty

assessment rate for the merchandise

based on the ratio of the total amount of

antidumping duties calculated for the

examined sales made during the POR to

the total customs value of the sales used

to calculate those duties. This rate will

be assessed uniformly on all entries of

that particular importer made during the

POR. (This is equivalent to dividing the

total amount of antidumping duties,

which are calculated by taking the

difference between NV and CEP, by the

total CEP value of the sales compared,

and adjusting the result by the average

difference between CEP and customs

value for all merchandise examined

during the POR.) The Department will

issue appraisement instructions directly

to the Customs Service.

Furthermore, the following cash

deposit requirements will be effective

upon publication of the final results of

this administrative review for all

shipments of the subject merchandise

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,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) For

MELCO the cash deposit rate will be the

rate established in the final results of

this review; (2) if the exporter is not a

firm covered in this review, a previous

review, or the original less-than-fair

value investigation (LTFV), but the

manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate

will be that which was established for

the most recent period for the

manufacturer of the merchandise; (3) for

non-Japanese exporters of subject

merchandise from Japan, the cash

deposit rate will be the rate applicable

to the Japanese supplier of that exporter;

(4) if neither the exporter nor the

manufacturer is a firm covered in this or

any previous reviews, the cash deposit

rate will be 27.93 percent, the ‘‘all

others’’ rate established in the LTFV

investigation, as explained below. These

deposit requirements, when imposed,

shall remain in effect until publication

of the final results of the next

administrative review.

On May 25, 1993, the Court of

International Trade (CIT) in Floral

Trade Council v United States, 822

F.Supp. 766 (CIT 1993), and FederalMogul Corporation and The Torrington

Company v. United States, 822 F.Supp.

782 (CIT) 1993), decided that once an

‘‘All Others’’ rate is established for a

company it can only be changed

through an administrative review. We

have determined that, in order to

implement these decisions, it is

appropriate to reinstate the ‘‘All Others’’

rate from the LTFV investigation (or that

rate as amended for correction of

clerical errors or as a result of litigation)

in proceedings governed by

antidumping duty orders. Therefore, we

are reinstating the ‘‘All Others’’ rate

made effective by the final

determination of sales at LTFV (see

Color Pictures Tubes, 52 FR 44171,

November 18, 1987).

This notice also serves as a

preliminary reminder to importers of

their responsibility under 19 C.F.R.

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)(1)) and 19

C.F.R. 353.22.

Dated: January 30, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–3361 Filed 2–10–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[A–533–808]

Certain Stainless Steel Wire Rod From

India; Preliminary Results of New

Shipper Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of

new shipper antidumping duty

administrative review; Certain stainless

steel wire rod from India.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

(the Department) is conducting a new

shipper administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on certain

stainless steel wire rods (SSWR) from

India in response to a request by one

manufacturer/exporter, Isibars Limited

(Isibars). This review covers sales of this

merchandise to the United States during

the period January 1, 1996 through June

30, 1996.

We have preliminarily determined

that sales have not been made below

normal value (NV). If these preliminary

results are adopted in our final results

of administrative review, we will

instruct the U.S. Customs Service to

liquidate subject entries without regard

to antidumping duties.

Interested parties are invited to

comment on these preliminary results.

Parties who submit argument are

requested to submit with the argument

(1) a statement of the issue and (2) a

brief summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February, 11, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Donald Little or Maureen Flannery,

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 indicated, 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 to the

current regulations, as amended by the

interim regulations published in the

Federal Register on May 11, 1995 (60

FR 25130).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On June 28, 1996, the Department

received a request from Isibars for a new

shipper review pursuant to section

751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and section

353.22(h) of the Department’s interim

regulations, which govern

determinations of antidumping duties

for new shippers. These provisions state

that, if the Department receives a

request for review from an exporter or

producer of the subject merchandise

stating that it did not export the

merchandise to the United States during

the period of investigation (POI) and

that such exporter and producer is not

affiliated with any exporter or producer

who exported the subject merchandise

during that period, the Department shall

conduct a new shipper review to

establish an individual weightedaverage dumping margin for such

exporter or producer, if the Department

has not previously established such a

margin for the exporter or producer. To

establish these facts, the exporter or

producer must include with its request,

with appropriate certification: (i) the

date on which the merchandise was first

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption, or, if it cannot certify

as to the date of first entry, the date on

which it first shipped the merchandise
6172 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 1997 / Notices

for export to the United States; (ii) a list

of the firms with which it is affiliated;

and (iii) a statement from such exporter

or producer, and from each affiliated

firm, that it did not, under its current or

a former name, export the merchandise

during the POI.

Isibars’ request was accompanied by

information and certification

establishing the names of Isibar’s

affiliated parties and statements that

Isibars and its affiliated parties did not,

under any name, export the subject

merchandise during the POI. Isibars

supplied the date of shipment in a letter

dated July 29, 1996.

On August 6, 1996, we published in

the Federal Register (60 FR 40819) a

notice of initiation of this new shipper

antidumping duty administrative review

of Isibars. The Department is now

conducting this review in accordance

with section 751 of the Act and section

353.22 of its interim regulations.

Scope of Review

The products covered by the order are

SSWR which are hot-rolled or hot-rolled

annealed and/or pickled rounds,

squares, octagons, hexagons or other

shapes, in coils. SSWR are made of alloy

steels containing, by weight, 1.2 percent

or less of carbon and 10.5 percent or

more of chromium, with or without

other elements. These products are only

manufactured by hot-rolling and are

normally sold in coiled form, and are of

solid cross section. The majority of

SSWR sold in the United States are

round in cross-section shape, annealed

and pickled. The most common size is

5.5 millimeters in diameter.

The SSWR subject to this review are

currently classifiable under subheadings

7221.00.0005, 7221.00.0015,

7221.00.0020, 7221.00.0030,

7221.00.0040, 7221.00.0045,

7221.00.0060, 7221.00.0075, and

7221.00.0080 of the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).

Although the HTSUS subheading is

provided for convenience and customs

purposes, the written description of the

scope of this order is dispositive.

This review covers one manufacturer/

exporter, Isibars, and the period January

1, 1996 through June 30, 1996.

Verification

As provided in section 776(b) of the

Act, we verified information provided

by the respondent by using standard

verification procedures, including onsite inspection of the respondent’s

facilities, the examination of relevant

sale and financial records, and selection

of original documentation containing

relevant information. Our verification

results are outlined in the public

version of the verification report.

United States Price

In calculating United States Price

(USP), we used export price (EP), in

accordance with section 772(a) of the

Act, because the subject merchandise

was sold directly to the first unaffiliated

purchaser in the United States prior to

importation into the United States and

constructed export price was not

otherwise indicated.

We calculated EP based on the price

from Isibars to an unaffiliated customer

prior to importation into the United

States. In accordance with section

772(c)(2) of the Act, we made

deductions for terminal handling

charges, foreign inland freight, ocean

freight, and marine insurance. No other

adjustments were claimed or allowed.

Normal Value

Because there were no sales of the

subject merchandise in the home market

during the period of review (POR), we

based NV on third country sales in

accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C)(i)

of the Act. In accordance with section

773(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act, we based NV

on sales of the foreign like product to

the Philippines because the prices were

representative, the aggregate quantity of

sales to the Philippines exceeded five

percent of the aggregate quantity of the

subject merchandise sold for export to

the United States, and we did not find

that the particular market situation

prevented a proper comparison with EP.

We based NV on the packed, C&F

price to unaffiliated purchasers in the

Philippines. We made deductions for

terminal handling charges, foreign

inland freight, and ocean freight. We

adjusted for differences in packing costs

between the two markets. We made

circumstance-of-sale adjustments for

differences in credit costs and bank

charges between the two markets. We

deducted third country commissions

and added U.S. indirect selling

expenses up to the amount of the third

country commission. Because Isibars

failed to report U.S. indirect selling

expenses, as facts available we based

U.S. indirect selling expenses on the

amount of the third country

commission.

Preliminary Results of the Review

As a result of our comparison of EP

and NV, we preliminarily determine

that the following weighted-average

dumping margin exists:

Manufacturer/

exporter Period Margin

Isibars .............. 1/1/96–6/30/96 0.00

Parties to the proceeding may request

disclosure within five 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 34

days after the publication of this notice,

or the first workday thereafter.

Interested parties may submit case briefs

within 20 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

27 days after the date of publication of

this notice. Parties who submit

argument are requested to submit with

the argument (1) a statement of the issue

and (2) a brief summary of the

argument. The Department will issue

the final results of this new shipper

administrative review, which will

include the results of its analysis of

issues raised in any such comments,

within 90 days of issuance of these

preliminary results.

Upon completion of this new shipper

review, the Department will issue

appraisement instructions directly to

the Customs Service. The results of this

review shall be the basis for the

assessment of antidumping duties on

entries of merchandise sold during the

POR and covered by the determination

and for future deposits of estimated

duties.

Furthermore, upon completion of this

review, the posting of a bond or security

in lieu of a cash deposit, pursuant to

section 751(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act and

section 353.22(h)(4) of the Department’s

interim regulations, will no longer be

permitted and, should the final results

yield a margin of dumping, a cash

deposit will be required for each entry

of the merchandise.

The following deposit requirement

will be effective upon publication of the

final results of this new shipper

antidumping duty administrative review

for all shipments of stainless steel wire

rod from India 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 rate for the reviewed

company will be the rate established in

the final results of this new shipper

review; (2) if the exporter is not a firm

covered in this new shipper review, but

was covered in a previous review or the

original less-than-fair-value (LTFV)

investigation, the cash deposit rate will

continue to be the company-specific rate

published for the most recent period; (3)
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 1997 / Notices 6173

if the exporter is not a firm covered in

this review, 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) the cash

deposit rate for all other manufacturers

and/or exporters of this merchandise,

shall be 48.80 percent, the ‘‘all others’’

rate established in the LTFV

investigation (58 FR 63335, December 1,

1993).

These requirements, 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 new shipper administrative

review and notice are in accordance

with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act (19

U.S.C. 1675(a)(2)(B)) and 19 CFR

353.22(h).

Dated: January 31, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–3357 Filed 2–10–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[A–570–601]

Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts

Thereof, Finished and Unfinished,

From the People’s Republic of China;

Final Results and Partial Termination

of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results and

partial termination of antidumping duty

administrative review on tapered roller

bearings and parts thereof, finished and

unfinished, from the People’s Republic

of China.

SUMMARY: On August 5, 1996, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) published the preliminary

results of its administrative review of

the antidumping duty order on tapered

roller bearings (TRBs) and parts thereof,

finished and unfinished, from the

People’s Republic of China (PRC). The

period of review (POR) is June 1, 1994,

through May 31, 1995.

Based on our analysis of comments

received, we have made changes to the

margin calculations, including

corrections of certain clerical errors.

Therefore, the final results differ from

the preliminary results. The final

weighted-average dumping margins are

listed below in the section entitled

‘‘Final Results of Review.’’

We have determined that sales have

been made below normal value (NV)

during the POR. Accordingly, we will

instruct the U.S. Customs Service to

assess antidumping duties based on the

difference between export price (EP) or

constructed export price (CEP) and NV.

We have terminated this review with

respect to Shanghai General Bearing

Company (Shanghai) based on our

revocation of the company from this

order in the final results of the 1993–94

review. See Tapered Roller Bearings

and Parts Thereof, Finished and

Unfinished, from the PRC (to be

published in Vol. 62 of the Federal

Register in February 1997) (TRBs VII).

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 11, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Charles Riggle, Andrea Chu, Kristie

Strecker, or Kris Campbell, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20230;

telephone (202) 482–4733.

APPLICABLE STATUTE AND REGULATIONS:

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations

to the statute and to the Department’s

regulations 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).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On August 5, 1996, we published in

the Federal Register the preliminary

results of administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on TRBs from

the PRC. See Tapered Roller Bearings

and Parts Thereof, Finished and

Unfinished, From the People’s Republic

of China; Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 61 FR 40610 (August 5, 1996)

(Preliminary Results). We gave

interested parties an opportunity to

comment on our preliminary results and

held a public hearing on September 25,

1996. The following parties submitted

comments: The Timken Company

(Petitioner); Guizhou Machinery Import

and Export Corporation (Guizhou

Machinery), Jilin Province Machinery

Import and Export Corporation (Jilin),

Liaoning MEC Group Company Limited

(Liaoning), Luoyang Bearing

Corporation (Luoyang), Shandong

Machinery and Equipment Import &

Export Group Corporation (Shandong),

Tianshui Hailin Bearing Factory

(Tianshui), China National Machinery

Import and Export Corporation (CMC),

China National Automotive Industry

Import & Export Guizhou Corporation

(Guizhou Automotive), Wanxiang Group

Corporation (Wanxiang), Xiangfan

Machinery Foreign Trade Corporation

Hubei China (Xiangfan), Zhejiang

Machinery Import & Export Corporation

(Zhejiang), and Wafangdian Bearing

Industry Corporation (Wafangdian)

(collectively referred to as Guizhou

Machinery et al.); Premier Bearing and

Equipment Company (Premier); Great

Wall Industry Corporation (Great Wall);

East Sea Bearing Company Limited/Peer

Bearing Company (East Sea); Transcom,

Incorporated (Transcom); and L&S

Bearing Company/LSB Industries (L&S).

We have conducted this

administrative review in accordance

with section 751(a)(1) of the Act and 19

CFR 353.22.

Scope of Reviews

Imports covered by these reviews are

shipments of TRBs and parts thereof,

finished and unfinished, from the PRC.

This merchandise is classifiable under

the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS)

item numbers 8482.20.00,

8482.91.00.60, 8482.99.30, 8483.20.40,

8483.20.80, 8483.30.80, 8483.90.20,

8483.90.30 and 8483.90.80. Although

the HTS item numbers are provided for

convenience and customs purposes, our

written description of the scope of this

proceeding is dispositive.

Facts Available

In accordance with section 776(a) of

the Act, we have determined that the

use of adverse Facts Available is

appropriate for certain firms, as

discussed in the Preliminary Results at

40613–14.

Analysis of Comments Received

1. Separate Rates

Comment 1

Petitioner states that the Department

incorrectly determined that all fourteen

PRC companies that participated in this

review are entitled to a separate rate.

Petitioner requests that the Department

review these firms as a single entity.

Petitioner claims that the

Department’s finding that a PRC list of

products subject to direct government

control does not name ‘‘TRBs’’ is