Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 2000 / Notices 5583

company, calculate a dumping margin

for each company, then weight-average

the two margins to obtain a single

dumping margin. Respondents make

this assertion because the two

companies: (1) Have separate

production facilities, (2) are located in

two different regions of Brazil, (3) are

separately run on a day-to-day basis, (4)

have different production costs, (5)

possess different machinery and

processes, and (6) maintain different

cost accounting systems. Thus, given

these differences it is unreasonable for

the Department to expect either

company to price its products above the

other company’s COP.

Further, respondents claim that the

first court decision approving the

Department’s collapsing policy makes

clear that it is limited to ‘‘calculating a

single dumping margin.’’ According to

respondents, the purpose for the policy

was to protect against price

manipulation. However, in the present

case, the Department has allegedly

extended the collapsing policy beyond

the intended purpose of the policy for

no reason.

Petitioners maintain that the

Department has properly calculated a

combined cost of manufacture and a

combined G&A rate for USIMINAS and

COSIPA. Petitioners contend that it is

the Department’s stated policy to treat

collapsed companies as divisions of the

same corporate entity, rather than as

affiliated parties, for cost reporting

purposes. See Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Reviews: Certain Cold-Rolled and

Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat

Products From Korea, 63 FR 13170,

13185 (March 18, 1998). Petitioners

counter respondent’s argument against

the use of a combined cost of

manufacture by stating that USIMINAS

is COSIPA’s parent company and that

the costs of the two companies are

combined in the preparation of

USIMINAS’ consolidated financial

statements. USIMINAS and COSIPA

also produce essentially the same

products and therefore the potential for

cost and price manipulation exists.

Department’s Position

We agree with the petitioners that it

is the Department’s standard practice to

weight-average the collapsed entity’s

separate costs into a single COP. Section

351.401(f) of the regulations provides

for special treatment of affiliated

producers where the potential for

manipulation of prices or production in

an effort to evade antidumping duties

imposed on the sale of subject

merchandise exists. In accordance with

this section of the regulations, we

collapse all sales prices and production

costs of the affiliated entities as if they

were a single company with different

production facilities. See, e.g., Final

Results and Partial Rescission of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review: Certain Pasta From Italy, 64 FR

6615, 6622 (February 10, 1999). See also

Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Reviews: Certain ColdRolled and Corrosion-Resistant Carbon

Steel Flat Products From Korea, 63 FR

13170, 13185 (March 18, 1998), wherein

the Department weight-averaged the

cost across all collapsed entities.

Accordingly, in the final determination

we calculated a combined cost of

manufacture and a combined G&A rate

for USIMINAS and COSIPA.

Suspension of Liquidation

Pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B) of the

Act, we are instructing Customs to

continue to suspend liquidation of all

entries of cold-rolled flat-rolled, carbonquality steel products from Brazil that

are entered, or withdrawn from

warehouse, for consumption on or after

August 12, 1999 (90 days prior to the

date of publication of the Preliminary

Determination in the Federal Register).

The Customs Service shall continue to

require a cash deposit or the posting of

a bond equal to the estimated amount by

which the normal value exceeds the

U.S. price shown below. The

suspension of liquidation instructions

will remain in effect until further notice.

The weighted-average dumping margins

are as follows:

Exporter manufacturer

Weightedaverage

margin

(percent)

CSN .......................................... 63.32

USIMINAS/COSIPA .................. 46.68

All Others .................................. 46.68

ITC Notification

In accordance with section 735(d) of

the Act, we have notified the

International Trade Commission (ITC) of

our determination. As our final

determination is affirmative, the ITC

will determine, within 45 days, whether

these imports are causing material

injury, or threat of material injury, to an

industry in the United States. If the ITC

determines that material injury, or

threat of injury does not exist, the

proceeding will be terminated and all

securities posted will be refunded or

canceled. If the ITC determines that

such injury does exist, the Department

will issue in antidumping order

directing Customs officials to assess

antidumping duties on all imports of the

subject merchandise entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse for

consumption on or after the effective

date of the suspension of liquidation.

This determination is issued and

published in accordance with sections

735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Dated: January 18, 2000.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–1850 Filed 2–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–570–852]

Notice of Antidumping Duty Order:

Creatine Monohydrate From the

People’s Republic of China

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 4, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Blanche Ziv, Rosa Jeong, or Ryan

Langan, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW,

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202)

482–4207, (202) 482–3853, and (202)

482–1279, respectively.

The Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended (‘‘the Act’’), 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,

all citations to the regulations of the

Department of Commerce (‘‘the

Department’’) are to 19 CFR part 351

(1998).

Scope of the Order

For purposes of this investigation, the

product covered is creatine

monohydrate, which is commonly

referred to as ‘‘creatine.’’ The chemical

name for creatine monohydrate is N-

(aminoiminomethyl)-N-methylglycine

monohydrate. The Chemical Abstracts

Service (‘‘CAS’’) registry number for this

product is 6020–87–7. Creatine

monohydrate in its pure form is a white,

tasteless, odorless powder, that is a

naturally occurring metabolite found in

muscle tissue. Creatine monohydrate is

provided for in subheading 2925.20.90

of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of

the United States (‘‘HTSUS’’). Although

5584 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 2000 / Notices

the HTSUS subheading and the CAS

registry number are provided for

convenience and customs purposes, the

written description of the merchandise

under investigation is dispositive.

Antidumping Duty Order

On January 28, 2000, in accordance

with section 735(d) of the Act, the U.S.

International Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’)

notified the Department that a U.S.

industry is ‘‘materially injured,’’ within

the meaning of section 735(b)(1)(A) of

the Act, by reason of less-than-fair-value

imports of creatine monohydrate from

the PRC. Therefore, the Department will

direct the United States Customs

Service to assess, upon further advice by

the Department, antidumping duties

equal to the amount by which the

normal value of the subject merchandise

exceeds the export price of the subject

merchandise for all relevant entries of

creatine monohydrate from the PRC,

except for subject merchandise

imported from Tianjin Tiancheng

Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (‘‘Tiancheng’’)

and Nantong Medicines and Health

Products Import and Export Co., Ltd.

(‘‘Nantong’’), which both received a zero

final margin. Antidumping duties will

be assessed on all unliquidated entries

of creatine monohydrate from the

People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’)

(except entries from Tiancheng and

Nantong) entered, or withdrawn from

warehouse, for consumption on or after

July 30, 1999, the date of publication of

the Department’s preliminary

determination in the Federal Register

(64 FR 41375). Furthermore, we will

instruct Customs to refund all cash

deposits, or bonds posted, for entries of

subject merchandise from Tiancheng

and Nantong.

The ITC further found that critical

circumstances do not exist with respect

to imports of the subject merchandise

from the PRC. As a result, the

Department will direct Customs officers

to refund any cash deposits made, or

bonds posted, pursuant to the

Department’s affirmative determination

of critical circumstances on

merchandise produced/exported by

Shanghai Freemen International Trading

Co., Ltd., Shanghai Greenmen

International Trading Co., Ltd. and by

any companies subject to the PRC-wide

rate which were entered on or after May

1, 1999 (which is 90 days prior to the

Department’s preliminary determination

publication date of July 30, 1999) and

before July 30, 1999.

On or after the date of publication of

this notice in the Federal Register,

Customs officers must require, at the

same time as importers would normally

deposit estimated duties, cash deposits

for the subject merchandise equal to the

weighted-average antidumping duty

margins as noted below:

Exporter/manufacturer

Weightedaverage

margin

percentage

Blue Science International

Trading (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. 58.10

Nantong Medicines and Health

Products Import and Export

Co., Ltd. ................................ 0.00

Shanghai Desano International

Trading Co., Ltd. ................... 24.84

Shanghai Freemen International Trading Co., Ltd.

and Shanghai Greenmen

International Trading Co.,

Ltd. ........................................ 44.43

Suzhou Sanjian Fine Chemical

Co., Ltd. ................................ 50.32

Tianjin Tiancheng Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. ................... 0.00

PRC-wide rate .......................... 153.70

This notice constitutes the

antidumping duty order with respect to

creatine monohydrate from the PRC,

pursuant to section 735(a) of the Act.

Interested parties may contact the

Central Records Unit, Room B–099 of

the Main Commerce Building for copies

of an updated list of antidumping duty

orders currently in effect.

This order is published in accordance

with sections 736(a) and 19 CFR

351.211.

Dated: January 31, 2000.

Holly A. Kuga,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–2582 Filed 2–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–403–801]

Final Results of Expedited Sunset

Review: Fresh and Chilled Atlantic

Salmon From Norway

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Final Results of

Expedited Sunset Review: Fresh and

Chilled Atlantic Salmon from Norway.

SUMMARY: On July 1, 1999, the

Department of Commerce (‘‘the

Department‘‘) initiated a sunset review

of the antidumping duty order on fresh

and chilled Atlantic salmon from

Norway (64 FR 35588) pursuant to

section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930,

as amended (‘‘the Act’’). On the basis of

a notice of intent to participate and

adequate substantive comments filed on

behalf of domestic interested parties,

and inadequate response (in this case,

no response) from respondent interested

parties, the Department determined to

conduct an expedited (120 day) review.

As a result of this review, the

Department finds that revocation of the

antidumping duty order would be likely

to lead to continuation or recurrence of

dumping at the levels indicated in the

Final Results of Review section of this

notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kathryn B. McCormick or Melissa G.

Skinner, Office of Policy for Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

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

telephone: (202) 482–1930 or (202) 482–

1560, respectively.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 4, 2000.

Statute and Regulations

This review was conducted pursuant

to sections 751(c) and 752 of the Act.

The Department’s procedures for the

conduct of sunset reviews are set forth

in Procedures for Conducting Five-year

(‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews of Antidumping and

Countervailing Duty Orders, 63 FR

13516 (March 20, 1998) (‘‘Sunset

Regulations’’), and in 19 CFR Part 351

(1999) in general. Guidance on

methodological or analytical issues

relevant to the Department’s conduct of

sunset reviews is set forth in the

Department’s Policy Bulletin 98:3—

Policies Regarding the Conduct of Fiveyear (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews of

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty

Orders; Policy Bulletin, 63 FR 18871

(April 16, 1998) (‘‘Sunset Policy

Bulletin’’).

Scope

The product covered by this order is

the species Atlantic salmon (Salmon

Salar) marketed as specified herein; the

order excludes all other species of

salmon: Danube salmon, Chinook (also

called ‘‘king’’ or ‘‘quinnat’’), Coho

(‘‘silver’’), Sockeye (‘‘redfish’’ or

‘‘blueback’’), Humpback (‘‘pink’’) and

Chum (‘‘dog’’). Atlantic salmon is a

whole or nearly-whole fish, typically

(but not necessarily) marketed gutted,

and cleaned, with the head on. The

subject merchandise is typically packed

in fresh-water ice (‘‘chilled’’). Excluded

from the subject merchandise are fillets,

steaks and other cuts of Atlantic salmon.

Also excluded are frozen, canned,

smoked or otherwise processed Atlantic

salmon. Atlantic salmon was classifiable

under item number 110.2045 of the