Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 199 / Friday, October 13, 2000 / Notices 60905

Enforcement, Group II, Office IV, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230;

telephone (202) 482–5253.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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,

unless otherwise indicated, all citations

to the Department’s regulations are to 19

CFR Part 351 (1999).

Background

On June 8, 2000, the Department

published in the Federal Register (65

FR 36407) the Preliminary Results of

this review. We invited parties to

comment on our Preliminary Results.

We did not receive any comments.

In the Preliminary Results, we found

the dumping margin for Atlas to be 4.41

percent. We have now completed the

administrative review in accordance

with section 751 of the Act and

continue to find the rate of 4.41 percent.

Scope of the Review

The products covered by this review

include shipments of OCTG from

Canada. This includes American

Petroleum Institute (‘‘API’’)

specification OCTG and all other pipe

with the following characteristics except

entries which the Department

determined through its end-use

certification procedure were not used in

OCTG applications: Length of at least 16

feet; outside diameter of standard sizes

published in the API or proprietary

specifications for OCTG with tolerances

of plus 1⁄8 inch for diameters less than

or equal to 85⁄8 inches and plus 1⁄4 inch

for diameters greater than 85⁄8 inches,

minimum wall thickness as identified

for a given outer diameter as published

in the API or proprietary specifications

for OCTG; a minimum of 40,000 PSI

yield strength and a minimum 60,000

PSI tensile strength; and if with seams,

must be electric resistance welded.

Furthermore, imports covered by this

review include OCTG with nonstandard size wall thickness greater than

the minimum identified for a given

outer diameter as published in the API

or proprietary specifications for OCTG,

with surface scabs or slivers, irregularly

cut ends, ID or OD weld flash, or open

seams; OCTG may be bent, flattened or

oval, and may lack certification because

the pipe has not been mechanically

tested or has failed those tests. This

merchandise is currently classifiable

under the Harmonized Tariff Schedules

(HTS) item numbers 7304.20, 7305.20,

and 7306.20. The HTS item numbers are

provided for convenience and U.S.

Customs purposes. The written

description remains dispositive.

Analysis of Comments Received

We did not receive any interested

party comments on our Preliminary

Results. Therefore, there is no Issues

and Decision Memorandum for the final

results of review.

Final Results of Review

We have determined that no changes

to our analysis are warranted for

purposes of these final results. As a

result of this review, we determine that

a 4.41 percent dumping margin exists

for Atlas for the period December 1,

1998, through May 31, 1999.

Assessment

The Department shall determine, and

the Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. We have calculated an importerspecific duty assessment rate based on

the ratio of the total amount of

antidumping duties calculated for the

importer-specific sales to the total

entered value of the same sales. The rate

will be assessed uniformly on all entries

by that particular importer made during

the POR. The Department will issue

appraisement instructions directly to

the Customs Service.

Cash Deposit Requirements

The following deposit requirements

will be effective upon completion of the

final results of this administrative

review for all shipments of OCTG from

Canada entered, or withdrawn from

warehouse, for consumption on or after

the publication date of the final results

of this new shipper review, as provided

by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The

cash deposit rate for Atlas will be the

rate shown above; (2) for previously

reviewed or investigated companies not

listed above, the cash deposit rate will

continue to be the company-specific rate

published for the most recent period; (3)

if the exporter is not a firm covered in

this review, in a prior review, or the

original 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

or exporters will continue to be 16.65

percent. This rate is the ‘‘All-Others’’

rate established in the less-than-fairvalue investigation. These deposit

requirements shall remain in effect until

publication of the final results of

administrative review for a subsequent

review period.

Notification

This notice serves as a final reminder

to importers of their responsibility

under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 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 doubled antidumping

duties.

This notice also serves as a 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. 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.

We are issuing and publishing this

determination and notice in accordance

with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the

Act.

Dated: October 5, 2000.

Troy H. Cribb,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–26384 Filed 10–12–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–469–807]

Notice of Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review: Stainless Steel Wire Rod From

Spain

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of the preliminary results

of antidumping duty administrative

review.

SUMMARY: In response to a request by

Roldan S.A. (‘‘Roldan’’), the sole

respondent in this review, the

Department of Commerce (‘‘the

Department’’) is conducting an

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on stainless

steel wire rod (‘‘SSWR’’) from Spain.

60906 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 199 / Friday, October 13, 2000 / Notices

The review covers sales for the period

March 5, 1998 through August 31, 1999

(the ‘‘period of review’’ or ‘‘POR’’).

The Department has preliminarily

determined that Roldan did not sell

subject merchandise at less than normal

value (‘‘NV’’). If these preliminary

results are adopted in the final results

of this administrative review, the

Department will instruct the Customs

Service to liquidate entries of subject

merchandise from Roldan without

regard to antidumping duties.

The Department invites interested

parties to comment on the preliminary

results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 13, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Howard Smith or Timothy Finn, AD/

CVD Enforcement, Office 4, Group II,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone

(202) 482–5193, and 482–0065,

respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

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. In addition, unless

otherwise indicated, all citations to the

Department’s regulations are to the

regulations codified at 19 CFR Part 351

(1999).

Case History

On September 15, 1998, the

Department published the antidumping

duty order on SSWR from Spain (see

Notice of Amended Final Determination

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and

Antidumping Duty Order: Stainless

Steel Wire Rod From Spain, 63 FR

49330). On September 9, 1999, the

Department published a notice of

opportunity to request an administrative

review of this antidumping duty order

(see Antidumping or Countervailing

Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended

Investigation; Opportunity to Request

Administrative Review, 64 FR 48980).

On September 30, 1999, in accordance

with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), the

respondent, Roldan, requested that the

Department conduct an administrative

review of its sales and entries of subject

merchandise into the United States

during the POR. The Department

initiated a review of Roldan’s sales on

October 28, 1999 (see Initiation of

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty

Administrative Reviews and Requests

for Revocation in Part, 64 FR 60161

(November 4, 1999)).

The Department issued its

antidumping duty questionnaire to

Roldan on November 19, 1999 and

received Roldan’s response thereto on

January 18, 2000. In addition, the

Department issued supplemental

questionnaires to Roldan during March

and May, 2000 and received Roldan’s

responses thereto during April, May,

and June, 2000.

Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the

Act, the Department may extend the

deadline for completion of an

administrative review if it determines

that it is not practicable to complete the

review within the statutory time limit of

245 days. On May 8, 2000, the

Department extended the time limits for

the preliminary results until September

29, 2000 in accordance with the Act (see

Stainless Steel Wire Rod From Spain:

Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 65 FR 26582).

During June and July, 2000, the

Department conducted verifications of

Roldan and its affiliates, Acerinox, S.A.

(‘‘Acerinox’’) and Acerinox, U.S.A.

(‘‘Acerinox-USA’’)

The Department is conducting this

administrative review in accordance

with section 751 of the Act.

Scope of the Review

For purposes of this review, SSWR

comprises products that are hot-rolled

or hot-rolled annealed and/or pickled

and/or descaled rounds, squares,

octagons, hexagons or other shapes, in

coils, that may also be coated with a

lubricant containing copper, lime, or

oxalate. SSWR is 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

manufactured only by hot-rolling or hotrolling, annealing, and/or pickling and/

or descaling, are normally sold in coiled

form, and are of solid cross-section. The

majority of SSWR sold in the United

States is round in cross-sectional shape,

annealed and pickled, and later coldfinished into stainless steel wire or

small-diameter bar.

The most common size for such

products is 5.5 millimeters or 0.217

inches in diameter, which represents

the smallest size that normally is

produced on a rolling mill and is the

size that most wire-drawing machines

are set up to draw. The range of SSWR

sizes normally sold in the United States

is between 0.20 inches and 1.312 inches

in diameter. Two stainless steel grades,

SF20T and K–M35FL, are excluded

from the scope of the review. The

chemical makeup for the excluded

grades is as follows:

SF20T

Carbon ...................... 0.05 max.

Manganese ............... 2.00 max.

Phosphorous ............. 0.05 max.

Sulfur ......................... 0.15 max.

Silicon ........................ 1.00 max.

Chromium .................. 19.00/21.00.

Molybdenum .............. 1.50/2.50.

Lead .......................... added (0.10/0.30).

Tellurium ................... added (0.03 min).

K–M35FL

Carbon ...................... 0.015 max.

Silicon ........................ 0.70/1.00.

Manganese ............... 0.40 max.

Phosphorous ............. 0.04 max.

Sulfur ......................... 0.03 max.

Nickel ........................ 0.30 max.

Chromium .................. 12.50/14.00.

Lead .......................... 0.10/0.30.

Aluminum .................. 0.20/0.35.

The products under investigation are

currently classifiable under subheadings

7221.00.0005, 7221.00.0015,

7221.00.0030, 7221.00.0045, and

7221.00.0075 of the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).

Although the HTSUS subheadings are

provided for convenience and customs

purposes, the Department’s written

description of the scope of this review

is dispositive.

Period of Review

The POR is March 5, 1998 through

August 31, 1999.

Verification

As provided in section 782(i) of the

Act, the Department conducted

verifications of the information

provided by Roldan. The Department

used standard verification procedures

including: On-site inspection of the

manufacturers’ facilities, examination of

relevant sales, cost, and financial

records, and selection of relevant source

documentation as exhibits. Verification

findings are detailed in the sales and

cost verification memoranda dated

September 29, 2000, the public versions

of which are on file in the Central

Records Unit, Room B099 of the Main

Commerce building (CRU-Public File).

Fair Value Comparison

In order to determine whether Roldan

sold SSWR to the United States at less

than NV, the Department compared the

constructed export price (‘‘CEP’’) of

individual U.S. sales to the monthly

weighted-average NV of sales of the

foreign like product made in the

ordinary course of trade (see section

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 199 / Friday, October 13, 2000 / Notices 60907

1See Memorandum to The File from Howard

Smith and Timothy Finn regarding the Verification

of the Sales Response of Roldan, S.A. in the

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of

Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Spain dated

September 29, 2000 in the public of the CRU.

777A(d)(2) of the Act; see also section

773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act). The

methodology used to compare sales and

to calculate CEP and NV are described

in the ‘‘Comparison Methodology’’,

‘‘Constructed Export Price,’’ and

‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this notice.

Comparison Methodology

In accordance with section 771(16) of

the Act, the Department considered all

products within the scope of this review

that Roldan produced and sold in the

comparison market during the POR to

be foreign like products for purposes of

determining appropriate product

comparisons to SSWR sold in the

United States. The Department

determined that the home market is the

appropriate comparison market because

the aggregate quantity of Roldan’s home

market sales of foreign like product is

more than five percent of the aggregate

quantity of its U.S. sales of subject

merchandise (see section 773(a)(1)(C) of

the Act). The Department compared

U.S. sales to sales made in the home

market within the contemporaneous

window period, which extends from

three months prior to the U.S. sale until

two months after the sale. Where there

were no sales of identical merchandise

made in the home market in the

ordinary course of trade, the Department

compared U.S. sales to sales of the most

similar foreign like product made in the

ordinary course of trade. In making

product comparisons, the Department

selected identical and most similar

foreign like products based on the

physical characteristics reported by

Roldan in the following order of

importance: grade, diameter, further

processing, and coating.

Constructed Export Price

Roldan reported that it made sales in

the United States through three

channels of distribution. In U.S. channel

one, Roldan sold SSWR to customers in

the United States through its U.S.

affiliate, Acerinox-USA. Roldan

classified its U.S. channel one sales as

export price (‘‘EP’’) transactions and its

U.S. channel two and three sales as CEP

transactions. The Department has

preliminarily determined that Roldan’s

channel one sales should also be

classified as CEP transactions because

these sales occurred in the United

States. Section 772(b) of the Act defines

CEP transactions as those in which the

subject merchandise is first sold (or

agreed to be sold) in the United States

before or after the date of importation by

or for the account of the producer or

exporter of subject merchandise or by a

seller affiliated with the producer or

exporter. In determining whether sales

were made in the United States, the

Department examines the totality of the

circumstances surrounding the U.S.

sales process. Neither the magnitude of

the indirect selling expenses incurred

by the U.S. affiliate nor the fact that the

U.S. affiliate performs a particular type

of selling activity is, by itself, a

controlling factor in making a CEP

determination. The record in the instant

review characterizes the POR sales

process for U.S. channel one as follows:

(1) all communication required to

effectuate sales is between AcerinoxUSA and unaffiliated customers; (2)

Acerinox-USA negotiates the terms of

sales based on guidelines established by

Roldan and the terms of recent sales; 1

(3) once the terms of sale are agreed

upon by Acerinox-USA and the

customer, Acerinox-USA accepts the

customers’ orders and transmits the

orders through Acerinox (Roldan’s

parent corporation) to Roldan; (4)

Acerinox arranges for transportation of

the subject merchandise to the United

States; (5) Acerinox-USA arranges for

transportation of the subject

merchandise from the U.S. port to the

U.S. customer; (5) Acerinox invoices

customers in U.S. channel one in

Roldan’s name; and, (6) U.S. customers

remit payment to Acerinox-USA which

subsequently transfers the payments to

Roldan by wire.

Thus, the record shows that during

the POR, Acerinox-USA was involved in

every aspect of the sales process except

for arranging for shipment of SSWR to

the United States and invoicing U.S.

customers. Moreover, Acerinox-USA’s

involvement in the sales process was

extensive when compared to that of

Roldan or Acerinox. Because the

preponderance of selling functions

incurred to sell Roldan’s SSWR to U.S.

customers occurred in the United States,

the Department has preliminarily

determined that the sales through U.S.

channel one were made in the United

States, and, thus, are CEP transactions.

The Department calculated CEP in

accordance with section 772 of the Act.

Specifically, the Department calculated

CEP based on packed, delivered prices

to unaffiliated purchasers in the United

States. The Department made

deductions from the starting price,

where appropriate, for billing

adjustments and early payment

discounts. The Department also made

deductions, where appropriate, for

foreign inland freight and insurance,

foreign brokerage and handling,

international freight, U.S. brokerage and

Customs fees, U.S. Customs duty, U.S.

warehousing expenses, U.S. inland

freight, and other U.S. transportation

expenses pursuant to section

772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. In accordance

with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, the

Department deducted those selling

expenses associated with economic

activity occurring in the United States,

including credit expenses, indirect

selling expenses, and inventory carrying

costs. In addition, the Department

reduced the U.S. starting price by

further manufacturing costs as required

by section 772(d)(2) of the Act. Pursuant

to 19 CFR 351.402(e), the Department

also reduced the U.S. starting price by

the actual selling expenses incurred by

Roldan’s U.S. affiliate rather than the

commissions that Roldan paid the

affiliate. Finally, the Department made

an adjustment for profit in accordance

with section 772(d)(3) of the Act. Based

on verification findings, the Department

made the following adjustments to

Roldan’s U.S. sales related charges: (1)

corrected invoice-specific figures for

billing adjustments, U.S. duty,

brokerage and handling, and other U.S.

transportation costs; (2) recalculated

U.S. credit expense for channel two and

three sales based on actual payment and

shipment dates; (3) recalculated indirect

selling expenses incurred in the United

States; and (4) recalculated inventory

carrying cost incurred in the home

market for one control number.

Normal Value

As noted above in the ‘‘Comparison

Methodology’’ section of this notice, the

Department determined that the home

market is the appropriate comparison

market. Therefore, in accordance with

section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, the

Department based NV on the prices at

which Roldan first sold usual

commercial quantities of foreign like

product for consumption in the home

market in the ordinary course of trade.

In addition, to the extent practicable,

the Department based NV on sales of

foreign like product at the same level of

trade as that of the U.S. sales to which

they are being compared.

Disregarded Sales

The Department did not base NV on

sales to affiliated home market

customers that were not at arm’s length

because such sales are outside the

ordinary course of trade (see 19 CFR

351.102). The Department determined

that sales to affiliated home market

customers were not arm’s-length sales

where the weighted-average sales price

to the affiliated party was less than 99.5

60908 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 199 / Friday, October 13, 2000 / Notices

percent of the weighted-average sales

price to unaffiliated parties. See Usinor

Sacilor v. United States, 872 F. Supp.

1000, 1004 (CIT 1994).

Furthermore, in accordance with

section 773(b) of the Act, the

Department did not base NV on home

market sales made at prices below the

cost of production (‘‘COP’’) that failed

the cost test. The Department examined

whether Roldan sold SSWR in the home

market at prices below the COP because

in the investigation of SSWR from Spain

the Department disregarded home

market sales by Roldan which failed the

cost test. See section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of

the Act; see also Notice of Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Stainless Steel Wire Rod

From Spain, 63 FR 40391 (July 29,

1998). In order to determine whether

Roldan made home market sales at

prices below the COP, the Department

compared product-specific production

costs to the prices at which Roldan sold

the product in the home market, less

any applicable movement charges,

selling expenses, and packing costs.

The Department based the cost of

producing the foreign like product on

Roldan’s reported material and

fabrication costs, general and

administrative (‘‘G&A’’) expenses, and

financing expenses pursuant to section

773(b)(3) of the Act.

In determining whether below cost

sales should serve as a basis for NV, the

Department examined whether such

sales were made: (1) In substantial

quantities within an extended period of

time; and (2) at prices which permitted

the recovery of all costs within a

reasonable period of time (see section

773(b)(1) of the Act).

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of

the Act, where less than 20 percent of

a respondent’s sales of a given product

were made at prices less than the COP,

the Department does not disregard any

below-cost sales of that product in

determining NV because the below-cost

sales were not made in ‘‘substantial

quantities.’’ Where 20 percent or more

of a respondent’s sales of a given

product were at prices below the COP,

the Department determines that sales of

that model were made in ‘‘substantial

quantities’’ within an extended period

of time and that such sales were not

made at prices which would permit

recovery of all costs within a reasonable

period of time as defined in section

773(b)(2)(B), (C) and (D) of the Act.

Therefore, the Department disregards

such below-cost sales in determining

NV.

The Department found that more than

20 percent of Roldan’s home market

sales within an extended period of time

were made at prices less than the COP.

Further, the prices did not provide for

the recovery of costs within a reasonable

period of time. Therefore, in accordance

with section 773(b)(1) of the Act, the

Department disregarded those belowcost sales as outside the ordinary course

of trade and based NV on the remaining

above-cost sales.

For those U.S. sales of SSWR for

which there were no comparable home

market sales in the ordinary course of

trade within the contemporaneous

window, the Department compared CEP

to constructed value (‘‘CV’’), in

accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the

Act. In accordance with section 773(e)

of the Act, the Department calculated

CV based on the sum of Roldan’s cost

of materials, fabrication, selling general

and administrative (‘‘SG&A’’) expenses

(including an appropriate amount for

financing expenses), profit, and U.S.

packing costs. In accordance with

section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, the

Department based SG&A (including

financing expenses), and profit on the

amounts incurred and realized in

connection with the production and sale

of the foreign like product in the

ordinary course of trade for

consumption in the home market.

Level of Trade

In accordance with section

773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent

practicable, the Department determines

NV based on sales in the comparison

market at the same level of trade as the

U.S. sale. The NV level of trade is that

of the starting-price sales in the

comparison market or, when NV is

based on CV, that of the sales from

which the Department derives SG&A

expenses and profit. When U.S. price is

based on CEP transactions, the starting

price is the level of the constructed sale

from the exporter to the importer.

To determine whether NV sales are at

a different level of trade than CEP sales,

the Department examines stages in the

marketing process and selling functions

along the chain of distribution between

the producer and the unaffiliated

customer. If the comparison market

sales are at a different level of trade and

the difference affects price

comparability, as manifested by a

pattern of consistent price differences

between the sales on which NV is based

and comparison market sales at the level

of trade of the export transaction, the

Department makes a level-of-trade

adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of

the Act. Finally, for CEP sales, if the NV

level of trade is more remote from the

factory than the CEP level of trade, and

there is no basis for determining

whether any difference between the NV

and CEP levels of trade affects price

comparability, the Department adjusts

NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act

(the CEP offset provision). See Notice of

Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length

Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa,

62 FR 61731 (November 19, 1997).

The U.S. Court of International Trade

(‘‘CIT’’) has held that the Department’s

practice of determining levels of trade

for CEP transactions after CEP

deductions is an impermissible

interpretation of section 772(d) of the

Act. See Borden, Inc. v. United States,

4 F. Supp. 2d 1221, 1241–42 (CIT 1998)

(‘‘Borden’’). The Department believes,

however, that its practice is in full

compliance with the statute. On June 4,

1999, the CIT entered final judgement in

Borden on the level of trade issue. See

Borden Inc. v. United States, Court No.

96–08–01970, Slip Op. 99–50 (CIT June

4, 1999). The government has filed an

appeal of Borden which is pending

before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the

Federal Circuit. Consequently, the

Department has continued to follow its

normal practice of adjusting CEP under

section 772(d) of the Act prior to

starting a level of trade analysis, as

articulated by the Department’s

regulations at 19 CFR 351.412.

Based upon an analysis of the

information on the record, the

Department has determined that there is

a single level of trade in the home

market and a single level of trade in the

U.S. market which are dissimilar. See

the memorandum regarding the Level of

Trade Analysis in the 1998–1999

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review of Stainless Steel Wire Rod

From Spain—Preliminary Results dated

September 29, 2000 (‘‘LOT

Memorandum’’) in the public file of the

CRU. Because Roldan did not make

home market sales at the level of trade

of its CEP sales, the Department cannot

compare CEP sales to home market sales

(i.e., NV) at the same level of trade.

Moreover, because there is only one

level of trade in the home market, any

difference in the NV and CEP levels of

trade cannot be quantified. Furthermore,

the Department does not have

information which would allow it to

examine pricing patterns based on

Roldan’s sales of other products and

there are no other respondents or other

information on the record upon which

such an analysis could be based.

Therefore, a level of trade adjustment is

not possible.

Because all of Roldan’s U.S. sales are

CEP transactions and a level of trade

adjustment is not possible, the

Department examined whether to adjust

NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 199 / Friday, October 13, 2000 / Notices 60909

(the CEP offset provision). In order to

determine whether the NV is at a more

advanced level of trade than that of the

CEP transactions, the Department

compared the selling functions

performed for home market sales with

those performed for CEP transactions

after deducting the expenses identified

in section 772(d) of the Act which are

associated with selling activities

occurring in the United States. After

making these deductions, the

Department found that fewer selling

functions were performed for CEP sales

than for home market sales. Thus, the

Department has found that Roldan’s

sales in the home market are at a more

advanced stage of marketing and

distribution (i.e., more remote from the

factory) than the level of trade of CEP

sales and, therefore, has applied the CEP

offset to NV. See the LOT

Memorandum.

Calculation of Normal Value

The Department calculated monthly

weighted-average NVs based on the

starting prices of home market sales to

unaffiliated customers and the starting

prices of arm’s-length home market

sales to affiliated customers. The

Department based NV on the starting

price reduced, where appropriate, by

billing adjustments and inland freight

and insurance (less freight revenue). In

addition, in calculating NV the

Department adjusted the starting price

by credit expenses in accordance with

section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. As

noted above, the Department applied

the CEP offset to NV. The CEP offset

reduced NV by the amount of home

market indirect selling expenses,

including inventory carrying costs and

other indirect selling expenses, up to

the amount of indirect selling expenses

incurred on U.S. sales. Finally, in

calculating NV the Department

subtracted home market packing costs

from the starting price and added U.S.

packing costs. Based on verification

findings, the Department made the

following adjustments to Roldan’s home

market sales related charges: (1)

Corrected the foreign inland freight

expense reported for one sales

observation; (2) recalculated home

market credit expense for one sales

observation using the correct payment

date; and (3) corrected the inventory

carrying cost for four control numbers.

Currency Conversion

Pursuant to section 773A(a) of the

Act, the Department made currency

conversions into U.S. dollars based on

the exchange rates in effect on the dates

of the U.S. sales as certified by the

Federal Reserve Bank.

Preliminary Results of the Review

As a result of this review, the

Department preliminarily determines

that the following weighted-average

dumping margin exists:

Manufacturer/

Exporter Period MarginPercent

Roldan, S.A. .... 3/5/1998–8/31/

1999.

0.38

In accordance with 19 CFR

351.224(b), within five days of the date

of publication of this notice, the

Department will disclose to the parties

in this proceeding the calculations

performed in determining the above

dumping margin. An interested party

may request a hearing within 30 days of

publication of these preliminary results.

See 19 CFR 351.310(c)(1999). Any

hearing, if requested, will be held 44

days after the date of publication of this

notice, or the first working day

thereafter. Interested parties may submit

case briefs and/or written comments no

later than 30 days after the date of

publication of the preliminary results of

this review. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals

to written comments, limited to issues

raised in such briefs or comments, may

be filed no later than 37 days after the

date of publication of this notice.

Further, the Department requests that

parties submitting written comments

provide the Department with a diskette

containing the public version of those

comments. The Department will issue

the final results of this administrative

review, which will include the results of

its analysis of issues raised in interested

party comments, within 120 days of

publication of the preliminary results.

Upon completion of this

administrative review, the Department

shall determine, and the Customs

Service shall assess, antidumping duties

on all appropriate entries. The

Department will issue appraisement

instructions directly to the U.S. Customs

Service to assess antidumping duties on

appropriate entries by applying the

assessment rate to the entered value of

the merchandise. The Department will

calculate the duty assessment rate based

upon the ratio of the total amount of

antidumping duties calculated for the

examined sales to the total entered

value of the examined sales. The rate

will be assessed uniformly on all entries

made during the POR. Where

appropriate, in order to calculate the

entered value, the Department will

subtract international movement

expenses and U.S. duty from the gross

sales value.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective upon

completion of the final results of this

administrative review for all shipments

of SSWR from Spain entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after the publication

date of the final results of this

administrative review, as provided by

section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash

deposit rate for Roldan will be the rate

established in the final results of this

administrative review except if the rate

is de minimis, then no cash deposit will

be required; (2) for merchandise

exported by manufacturers or exporters

not covered in this review but covered

in the original less-than-fair-value

(‘‘LTFV’’) investigation or a previous

review, the cash deposit rate will

continue to be the company-specific rate

published for the most recent period; (3)

if the exporter is not a firm covered in

this 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) if neither the

exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm

covered in this or any previous review,

the cash deposit rate will be 4.73

percent, the ‘‘all-others’’ rate established

in the LTFV investigation.

These deposit requirements, when

imposed, shall remain in effect until

publication of the final results of

administrative review for a subsequent

review period.

This notice also serves as a

preliminary reminder to importers of

their responsibility under 19 CFR

351.402(f) 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 sections

751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Dated: September 29, 2000.

Troy H. Cribb,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–26383 Filed 10–12–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P