Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 4, 2000 / Notices 283

1See Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware From Mexico:

Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 64 FR 1592 (January 11,

1999), Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware From Mexico:

Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 64 FR 26934 (May 18, 1999), and Porcelainon-Steel Cookware From Mexico: Amended Final

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 64 FR 29262 (June 1, 1999).

include, to the extent practicable, some

indication of the magnitude of the

absorption.

Based on our analysis of the

weighted-average dumping margins

determined in the investigation and

subsequent reviews and the volume of

imports of the subject merchandise for

the period before and the period after

the issuance of the order, we

preliminarily determined that we would

normally determine that the margins

calculated in the original investigation

best reflect the behavior of producers/

exporters without the discipline of the

order (64 FR 46651). However, we noted

that consistent with the Sunset Policy

Bulletin, we were adjusting the most

recent margin to account for duty

absorption findings and, because the

adjusted margins for Cinsa and ENASA

are higher than the rates from the

original investigation, we would report

the adjusted rates as the margins likely

to prevail were the order revoked. Id.

In light of the comments received, we

have reconsidered our preliminary

determination with respect to the

magnitude of the margin likely to

prevail should the order be revoked.

While we agree with CHP that duty

reimbursement and duty absorption are

separate problems with separate

remedies, we also agree with the

respondents that, in this case, our stated

policy of adjusting the margin to take

into account the findings on duty

absorption may result in an

overestimation of the margin likely to

prevail were the order revoked.

Specifically, having determined duty

reimbursement, for the purpose of

calculating the export price and the

constructed export price in the eleventh

review, the Department deducted from

the starting price the amount of

antidumping duties reimbursed to CIC

by Cinsa and ENASA.1 This deduction

for reimbursed duties had the effect of

increasing the weighted-average margins

found during the administrative review.

The Department also found that both

Cinsa and ENASA made all of their

sales of the subject merchandise to the

United States through an importer that

is affiliated within the meaning of

section 751(a)(4) of the Act. Because we

determined that there was a dumping

margin on 68.03 percent of Cinsa’s U.S.

sales during the period of review and on

98.52 percent of ENASA’s sales during

the period of review, we found that

antidumping duties had been absorbed

by the respondents on those percent of

sales, respectively. Id. As noted above,

although we agree that reimbursement

and absorption may occur with respect

to the same sales, because of the effect

of consideration of reimbursement on

the margin, we do not agree that the

entire margin is absorbed such that we

should double the margins calculated

inclusive of reimbursement. We agree

with CHP that it is not appropriate to

recalculate margins from the eleventh

administrative review in order to

eliminate the effect of reimbursement.

Rather, we believe that the calculation

in the eleventh administrative review

for reimbursement effectively

approximates the calculation we would

make to account for duty absorption.

Therefore, consistent with the Sunset

Policy Bulletin, for purposes of

determining the magnitude of the

margin likely to prevail, we considered

the margins from the original

investigation (i.e., the margins we

would otherwise report to the

Commission) and the margins from the

eleventh review. As provided in section

II.B.3.b, where we have found duty

absorption, we normally will report to

the Commission the higher of the

margin that the Department otherwise

would have reported to the Commission

or the most recent margin for that

company adjusted to account for

findings on duty absorption. Because

the margins as calculated in the

eleventh review are higher than those

from the original investigation, we are

reporting those as the magnitude of the

margin likely to prevail were the order

revoked.

Final Results of 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 for the reasons set forth in the

Preliminary Results. Additionally, as

discussed in the Preliminary Results

and above, we find that during the

administrative review covering the

period December 1, 1986 through

November 20, 1997, antidumping duties

were absorbed by Cinsa on 68.03

percent of its U.S. sales of subject

merchandise and by ENASA on 98.52

percent of its U.S. sales of subject

merchandise. Furthermore, for the

reasons set forth in the Preliminary

Results and as discussed above, we find

that the magnitude of the margins likely

to prevail if the order were revoked are

as follows: 25.42 percent for Cinsa,

65.28 percent for ENASA, and 29.52

percent for ‘‘all others.’’

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 section

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

Dated: December 28, 1999.

Holly Kuga,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–98 Filed 1–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–570–832]

Pure Magnesium From the People’s

Republic of China: Recission of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Rescission of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review

SUMMARY: On June 30, 1999, the

Department of Commerce published in

the Federal Register a notice

announcing the initiation of an

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on pure

magnesium from the People’s Republic

of China for one producer/exporter of

pure magnesium from People’s Republic

of China, Taiyuan East-United

Magnesium Company Ltd., covering the

period May 1, 1998, through April 30,

1999. The Department of Commerce

received a request for withdrawal of this

review from Rossborough

Manufacturing Company, a U.S.

importer of subject merchandise, who

requested the review. In accordance

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

Department of Commerce is now

terminating this review because the

importer has withdrawn its request for

review and no other interested parties

have requested a review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 4, 2000.

284 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 4, 2000 / Notices

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David J. Goldberger Office 2, AD/CVD

Enforcement Group I, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th and Constitution

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

telephone: (202) 482–4136.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended, are to the provisions effective

January 1, 1995, the effective date of the

amendments made to the Tariff Act by

the Uruguay Round Agreements Act

(URAA). In addition, unless otherwise

indicated, all citations to the

Department of Commerce’s (the

Department’s) regulations are to 19 CFR

Part 351 (1998).

Background

The Department published in the

Federal Register on May 19, 1999, a

‘‘Notice of Opportunity to Request

Administrative Review’’ of the

antidumping duty order on pure

magnesium from the People’s Republic

of China (‘‘PRC’’). On May 28, 1999,

Rossborough Manufacturing Company

L.P. (‘‘Rossborough’’), a U.S. importer,

requested that the Department conduct

an administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on pure

magnesium from the PRC produced/

exported by Taiyuan East-United

Magnesium Company Ltd. for the period

May 1, 1998, through April 30, 1999.

On June 30, 1999, the Department

initiated an administrative review (64

FR 35124). On August 5, 1999, the

Department sent a questionnaire to the

PRC Department of Treaty and Law,

Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic

Cooperation to be transmitted to

Taiyuan East-United Magnesium

Company Ltd. On December 22, 1999,

Rossborough withdrew its request for a

review.

Section 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1) of the

Department’s regulations provides that

the Secretary may permit a party that

requests a review to withdraw the

request within 90 days after the date of

publication of the notice of initiation of

the requested review. The regulation

also states that the Secretary may extend

this time limit if the Secretary decides

that it is reasonable to do so. In this

case, although the importer has

withdrawn its request for a review more

than 90 days from the date of initiation,

because the Department has not yet

devoted considerable time and

resources to this proceeding, the

Department has determined that it is

reasonable to extend the time limit for

Rossborough’s withdrawal of its request

for a review. Moreover, no other

interested party requested a review and

we have received no comments

regarding Rossborough’s withdrawal of

its request for a review. Therefore, we

are terminating this review of the

antidumping duty order on pure

magnesium from the PRC. This notice is

published in accordance with section

751 of the Act and section 19 CFR

351.213(d)(1) of the Department’s

regulations.

Dated: December 23, 1999.

Richard W. Moreland,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–27 Filed 1–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

Application for Duty-Free Entry of

Scientific Instrument

Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the

Educational, Scientific and Cultural

Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub.

L. 89–651; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part

301), we invite comments on the

question of an instrument of equivalent

scientific value, for the purposes for

which the instrument shown below is

intended to be used, is being

manufactured in the United States.

Comments must comply with 15 CFR

301.5(a)(3) and (4) of the regulations and

be filed within 20 days with the

Statutory Import Programs Staff, U.S.

Department of Commerce, Washington,

D.C. 20230. Application may be

examined between 8:30 A.M. and 5:00

P.M. in Room 4211, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

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

Docket Number: 99–033. Applicant:

Ames Laboratory, U.S. Department of

Energy, 211 TASF, Iowa State

University, Ames, IA 50011–3020.

Instrument: UHV Surface Analysis

System, Model Multiprobe S.

Manufacturer: Omicron Vakuum Physik

GmbH, Germany. Intended Use: The

instrument is intended to be used for

the characterization and fundamental

surface structural studies of a class of

intermetallic materials known as

quasicrystals. The objectives of the

research will include the following: (1)

To determine the near-atomic level

structure of the clean surfaces of a

variety of quasicrystalline materials as a

function of surface preparation, (2) To

ascertain if any of the surface

preparation methods affect single phase

samples to such a degree that they

become multiphase, (3) To determine

metal film growth characteristics when

deposited on quasicrystalline substrates

and (4) To determine the effect of

typical environmental gases on surface

structure. Application accepted by

Commissioner of Customs: December

14, 1999.

Frank W. Creel,

Director, Statutory Import Programs Staff.

[FR Doc. 00–99 Filed 1–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C–201–505]

Final Results of Full Sunset Review

and Revocation of Countervailing Duty

Order: Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking

Ware From Mexico

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Final Results of Full

Sunset Review and Revocation of

Countervailing Duty Order: Porcelainon-Steel Cooking Ware from Mexico.

SUMMARY: On August 26, 1999, the

Department of Commerce (‘‘the

Department’’) published a notice of

preliminary results of the full sunset

review of the countervailing duty order

on porcelain-on-steel cooking ware from

Mexico (64 FR 46651) pursuant to

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

as amended (‘‘the Act’’). We provided

interested parties an opportunity to

comment on our preliminary results. We

did not receive comments from any

interested party. As a result of this

review, the Department finds that

revocation of the countervailing duty

order would not be likely to lead to

continuation or recurrence of

countervailable subsidy. Therefore, we

are revoking this countervailing duty

order effective January 1, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Martha V. Douthit 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) 482–6397 or (202) 482–

1560, respectively.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 1, 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