Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 2000 / Notices 5611

16The Department recently made a preliminary

determination to revoke the order, with respect to

Ta Chen, based on de minimis margins in the last

three reviews. See Certain Welded Stainless Steel

Pipe from Taiwan Certain Welded: Preliminary

Results of Antidumping Administrative Review, 64

FR 71728 (December 22, 1999). However, given that

Ta Chen waived participation in this sunset

proceeding and did not provide any information

indicating that a more recently calculated margin

would be more appropriate, the Department

determined that, consistent with the Sunset Policy

Bulletin, the margin calculated in the original

investigation is most likely to prevail if the order

were revoked.

demonstrating increased dumping

coupled with increased market share.

Our review of import statistics,

provided by the domestic interested

parties, covering pipes from Korea and

Taiwan demonstrated that the margins

calculated in the original investigations

are probative of the behavior of Korean

and Taiwanese manufacturers/exporters

if the orders were revoked as they are

the only margins which reflect their

actions absent the discipline of the

order. However, with respect to Ta

Chen, the Department disagrees with the

domestic interested parties. Absent

evidence that Ta Chen chose to increase

dumping in order to maintain or

increase market share, the margin

calculated in the original investigation

is the margin the Department will

provide to the Commission.16

Therefore, the Department will report

to the Commission the companyspecific and all others rates from the

original investigations as contained in

the Final Results of Reviews section of

this notice.

Final Results of Reviews

As a result of these reviews, the

Department finds that revocation of the

antidumping duty orders would likely

lead to continuation or recurrence of

dumping at the margins listed below:

KOREA

Manufacturer/exporter Margin

(percent)

Pusan Steel Pipe Co., Ltd (now

SeAH Steel Corp.)1 ............... 2.67

All manufacturers/producers/exporters ................................... 7.00

1SeAH is the corporate successor to Pusan,

and Pusan had acquired certain of Sammi’s

production assets. See Certain Welded Stainless Steel Pipe from Korea; Final Results of

Changed-Circumstances Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 63 FR 16979 (April 7,

1998).

TAIWAN

Manufacturer/exporter Margin

(percent)

Chang Tieh Industry Co., Ltd

(now Chang Mien)1.

excluded.

Jaung Yuann Enterprise Co.,

Ltd..

31.91.

Ta Chen Stainless Pipe Co., Ltd. 3.27.

Yeun Chyang Industrial Co., Ltd. 31.90.

All Others .................................... 19.84.

1For the purposes of antidumping duty law

the Department concluded that Chang Mein is

the successor firm to Chang Tieh, and, as

such is excluded from the order. See Certain

Welded Stainless Steel Pipe From Taiwan;

Final Results of Changed-Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR

34147 (June 23, 1998).

This notice serves as the only

reminder to parties subject to

administrative protective order (‘‘APO’’)

of their responsibility concerning the

disposition of proprietary information

disclosed under APO in accordance

with 19 CFR 351.305 of the

Department’s regulations. Timely

notification of return/destruction of

APO materials or conversion to judicial

protective order is hereby requested.

Failure to comply with the regulations

and the terms of an APO is a

sanctionable violation.

This five-year (‘‘sunset’’) review and

notice are in accordance with sections

751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Dated: January 28, 2000.

Holly A. Kuga,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–2585 Filed 2–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C–533–063]

Certain Iron-metal Castings From

India: Amended Final Results of

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Review Pursuant to Settlement

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of amendment to final

results of countervailing duty

administrative review.

SUMMARY: On January 18, 1991, the

Department of Commerce (‘‘the

Department’’) published in the Federal

Register its final results of

administrative review of the

countervailing duty order on certain

iron-metal castings from India for the

period 1986 (56 FR 1976). Pursuant to

a settlement agreement, the Department

has recalculated the countervailing duty

rates. The final countervailing duty rates

for this review period are listed below

in the Final Results of Review section of

this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 4, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert Copyak, Office 6, Group II,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW Washington,

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–2786.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

January 18, 1991, the Department

published the final results of its

administrative review of the

countervailing duty order on certain

iron-metal castings from India for the

period January 1, 1986 through

December 31, 1986. See Final Results of

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Review: Certain Iron-Metal Castings

from India, 56 FR 1976. Subsequently,

respondents challenged the final results

before the Court of International Trade

(CIT). The primary issue involved the

calculation of the program rates for the

subsidies provided under India’s

International Price Reimbursement

Scheme (IPRS). The IPRS is a program

through which the Government of India

(GOI) provided rebates to castings

exporters that purchased domesticallyproduced pig iron at prices set by the

GOI. According to the GOI, these rebates

were calculated to equal the differences

between the higher domestic prices

actually paid and the lower alternative

prices available from sources outside of

India.

As the IPRS was also the subject of

litigation for the review period 1985 in

Creswell v. United States, Consolidated

Court No. 91–01–00012 (Creswell),

litigation for the review period 1986 was

stayed pending finalization of Creswell.

After the CIT affirmed the Department’s

remand determination for the 1985

administrative review (see Creswell, slip

op. 98–139 (CIT Sept. 29, 1998)), the

Department published a notice of

amended final results in accordance

with that opinion. See Certain Ironmetal Castings from India: Amended

Final Results of Countervailing Duty

Administrative Review In Accordance

With Decision Upon Remand, 63 FR

67858 (December 9, 1998). In lieu of

pursuing further litigation with respect

to the administrative review of the

review period 1986, the parties have

entered into a settlement agreement.

The parties agreed to countervailing

duty rates that were calculated based on

the methodology approved by the CIT in

Creswell. On December 10, 1999, the

5612 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 2000 / Notices

CIT approved the settlement agreement

and dismissed the lawsuit. See Southern

Star, Inc., v. United States, Slip Op. 99–

130, Consol. Ct. No. 91–01–00060 (CIT

December 10, 1999).

Final Results of Review

Pursuant to the settlement agreement,

we recalculated the company-specific

and all-other subsidy rates for the

period January 1, 1986, through

December 31, 1986. The amended final

countervailing duty rates are:

Manufacturer/exporter

Revised

rates (percent)

Crescent Foundry Co. Pvt. Ltd. .. 9.07

Kejriwal Iron & Steel Works ....... 23.75

Govind Steel ............................... 128.60

Uma Iron & Steel Co./Commex

Corp. ....................................... 30.24

All Others .................................... 16.66

The Department will instruct the U.S.

Customs Service (Customs) to assess

countervailing duties on all appropriate

entries. The Department will issue

liquidation instructions directly to

Customs. The above rates will not affect

the cash deposit requirements currently

in effect.

This amendment to the final results of

countervailing duty administrative

review notice is in accordance with

section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act, as

amended (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)), 19 CFR

351.213, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).

Dated: January 24, 2000.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–2578 Filed 2–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C–533–063]

Certain Iron-Metal Castings From

India: Amended Final Results of

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Review Pursuant to Settlement

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of amendment to final

results of countervailing duty

administrative review.

SUMMARY: On August 22, 1991, the

Department of Commerce (‘‘the

Department’’) published in the Federal

Register its final results of

administrative review of the

countervailing duty order on certain

iron-metal castings from India for the

period 1987 (56 FR 41658). Pursuant to

a settlement agreement, the Department

has recalculated the countervailing duty

rates. The final countervailing duty rates

for this review period are listed below

in the Final Results of Review section of

this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 4, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert Copyak, Office 6, Group II,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW Washington,

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–2786.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August

22, 1991, the Department published the

final results of its administrative review

of the countervailing duty order on

certain iron-metal castings from India

for the period January 1, 1987 through

December 31, 1987. See Final Results of

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Review: Certain Iron-Metal Castings

from India, 56 FR 41658. Subsequently,

respondents challenged the final results

before the Court of International Trade

(CIT). The primary issue involved the

calculation of the program rates for the

subsidies provided under India’s

International Price Reimbursement

Scheme (IPRS). The IPRS is a program

through which the Government of India

(GOI) provided rebates to castings

exporters that purchased domesticallyproduced pig iron at prices set by the

GOI. According to the GOI, these rebates

were calculated to equal the differences

between the higher domestic prices

actually paid and the lower alternative

prices available from sources outside of

India.

As the IPRS was also the subject of

litigation for the review period 1985 in

Creswell v. United States, Consolidated

Court No. 91–01–00012 (Creswell),

litigation for the review period 1987 was

stayed pending finalization of Creswell.

After the CIT affirmed the Department’s

remand determination for the 1985

administrative review (see Creswell, slip

op. 98–139 (CIT Sept. 29, 1998)), the

Department published a notice of

amended final results in accordance

with that opinion. See Certain Ironmetal Castings from India: Amended

Final Results of Countervailing Duty

Administrative Review In Accordance

With Decision Upon Remand, 63 FR

67858 (December 9, 1998). In lieu of

pursuing further litigation with respect

to the administrative review of the

review period 1987, the parties have

entered into a settlement agreement.

The parties agreed to countervailing

duty rates that were calculated based on

the methodology approved by the CIT in

Creswell. On December 10, 1999, the

CIT approved the settlement agreement

and dismissed the lawsuit. See Super

Castings, v. United States, Slip Op. 99–

131, Consol. Ct. No. 91–09–00659 (CIT

December 10, 1999).

Final Results of Review

Pursuant to the settlement agreement,

we recalculated the company-specific

and all-other subsidy rates for the

period January 1, 1987, through

December 31, 1987. The amended final

countervailing duty rates are:

Manufacturer/exporter Revised

rates (%)

Crescent Foundry Co. Pvt. Ltd. .. 8.25

Kejriwal Iron & Steel Works ....... 7.18

RSI India Pvt. Ltd. ...................... 9.42

Uma Iron & Steel Co. ................. 7.56

Super Castings (India) ................ 37.96

Select Steel ................................ 37.17

Commex ..................................... 24.39

All Others .................................... 18.62

The Department will instruct the U.S.

Customs Service (Customs) to assess

countervailing duties on all appropriate

entries. The Department will issue

liquidation instructions directly to

Customs. The above rates will not affect

the cash deposit requirements currently

in effect.

This amendment to the final results of

countervailing duty administrative

review notice is in accordance with

section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act, as

amended (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)), 19 CFR

351.213, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).

Dated: January 24, 2000.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–2579 Filed 2–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

Export Trade Certificate of Review

ACTION: Notice of issuance of an

amended export trade certificate of

review, application No. 90–7A007.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

has issued an amended Export Trade

Certificate of Review to The United

States Surimi Commission (‘‘USSC’’) on

January 28, 2000. Notice of issuance of

the original Certificate was published in

the Federal Register on August 30, 1990

(55 FR 35445).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Morton Schnabel, Director, Office of

Export Trading Company Affairs,