Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2000 / Notices 6147

Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts

Thereof from France, Germany, Italy,

Japan, Romania, Sweden, and the

United Kingdom; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Reviews, 64 FR 35590, 35625 (July 1,

1999). In this case, those conditions

have been met.

In accordance with 19 CFR

351.301(c)(2), the Department may

request that a respondent submit factual

information at any time during a

proceeding. Because the Department

requested that Rubberflex submit the

documentation in question, it is not

untimely within the meaning of 19 CFR

351.301.

We find that the documentation

provided by Rubberflex provides clear

evidence that the sales at issue had been

reported in error. Contrary to the

petitioner’s assertions, the Department

does not require respondents to

demonstrate that factual errors in their

data are apparent in the record of a

proceeding. The effect of such a

requirement would be to preclude

respondents, as is the case here, from

notifying the Department of any clerical

errors found in their data. See NTN

Bearing Corp. v. U.S., 74 F.3d 1204,

1207–08 (1995). Consequently, because

Rubberflex provided sufficient proof

that the sales in question were not home

market transactions, we have

disregarded them for purposes of the

final results.

Comment 4: Calculation of U.S. Indirect

Selling Expenses

The petitioner argues that Rubberflex

understated the indirect selling

expenses of its U.S. subsidiary, Flexfil,

because it allocated a certain portion of

these expenses to Canadian sales which

were not invoiced by Flexfil. The

petitioner contends that, if Flexfil had

had significant involvement in the sales,

they would have appeared on Flexfil’s

books. Furthermore, the petitioner

asserts that such ‘‘off the books’’

allocations are inherently unverifiable

and arbitrary. According to the

petitioner, the Department should

reallocate these expenses using only the

sales made by the subsidiary and

recorded in the subsidiary’s books.

DOC Position

In its supplemental questionnaire

response, Rubberflex demonstrated that

Flexfil was actively involved in making

sales to Canada. (See pages 15 and 16,

as well as Exhibit 32, of the September

7, 1999, submission.) Not only did

Flexfil routinely accept orders from

Canadian customers on behalf of

Rubberflex, but it also corresponded

with them regarding the status of these

orders and it handled various problems

which arose during the sales process.

Thus, because the indirect selling

expenses incurred by Flexfil related, in

part, to sales to Canada, we find that it

is appropriate to allocate a portion of

these expenses to Canadian sales. We

note that this treatment of Flexfil’s

indirect selling expenses is in

accordance with our treatment of such

expenses in prior segments of this

proceeding. See, e.g., Thread Fifth

Review, 64 FR at 12976, where the

Department verified Flexfil’s role in

making Canadian sales. Accordingly, we

have accepted Flexfil’s indirect selling

expense allocation for purposes of the

final results.

Final Results of Review

As a result of comments received we

have revised our analysis and determine

that the following margins exist for the

period October 1, 1997, through

September 30, 1998:

Manufacturer/Exporter Percent

margin

Filati Lastex Sdn. Bhd .................. 0.45

Heveafil Sdn. Bhd./ ....................... ................

Filmax Sdn. Bhd ........................... 0.17

Rubberflex Sdn. Bhd .................... 1.10

Rubfil Sdn. Bhd ............................ 52.89

The Department shall determine, and

the Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. We have calculated importerspecific assessment rates based on the

ratio of the total amount of antidumping

duties calculated for the examined sales

to the total entered value of those sales.

These rates will be assessed uniformly

on all entries of that particular importer

made during the POR. The Department

will issue appraisement instructions

directly to the Customs Service.

Further, the following deposit

requirements will be effective for all

shipments of extruded rubber thread

from Malaysia entered, or withdrawn

from warehouse, for consumption on or

after the publication date of the final

results of this administrative review, as

provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the

Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for the

reviewed companies will be the rates for

those firms as stated above (except for

Filati and Heveafil the cash deposit

rates will be zero because their margins

are de minimis); (2) for previously

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, or the 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

or exporters will continue to be 15.16

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 the

next administrative review.

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 double antidumping

duties.

This notice also 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(a)(3). 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 administrative review and notice

are in accordance with section 751(a)(1)

of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)), section

777(i) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1677f(i)),

and 19 CFR 351.210(c).

Dated: January 31, 2000.

Holly A. Kuga,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–2845 Filed 2–7–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–475–703, A–588–707]

Continuation of Antidumping Duty

Orders: Granular

Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin From

Italy and Japan

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Continuation of

Antidumping Orders: Granular

Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from Italy

and Japan.

SUMMARY: On December 3, 1999, the

Department of Commerce (‘‘the

6148 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2000 / Notices

1See Final Results of Expedited Sunset Reviews:

Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from Italy

and Japan, 64 FR 67865 (December 3, 1999).

2See Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from

Italy and Japan, 64 FR 72362 (December 27, 1999),

and USITC Publication 3260 (December 1999),

Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from Italy

and Japan: Investigations Nos. 731–TA–385–386

(Review).

Department’’), pursuant to sections

751(c) and 752 of the Tariff Act of 1930,

as amended (‘‘the Act’’), determined

that revocation of the antidumping duty

orders on granular

polytetrafluoroethylene resin (‘‘PTFE’’)

from Italy and Japan would likely lead

to continuation or recurrence of

dumping (64 FR 67865 (December 3,

1999)). On December 27, 1999, the

International Trade Commission (‘‘the

Commission’’), pursuant to section

751(c) of the Act, determined that

revocation of the antidumping duty

orders on PTFE from Italy and Japan

would be likely to lead to continuation

or recurrence of material injury to an

industry in the United States within a

reasonably foreseeable time (64 FR

72362 (December 27, 1999)). Therefore,

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4), the

Department is publishing this notice of

the continuation of the antidumping

duty orders on PTFE from Italy and

Japan.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 3, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Darla D. Brown or Melissa G. Skinner,

Office of Policy for Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

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

telephone: (202) 482–3207 or (202) 482–

1560, respectively.

Background

On May 3, 1999, the Department

initiated, and the Commission

instituted, sunset reviews (64 FR 23596

and 64 FR 23677, respectively) of the

antidumping duty orders on PTFE from

Italy and Japan pursuant to section

751(c) of the Act. As a result of these

reviews, the Department found that

revocation of the antidumping duty

orders would likely lead to continuation

or recurrence of dumping and notified

the Commission of the magnitude of the

margin likely to prevail were the orders

revoked. 1

On December 27, 1999, the

Commission determined, pursuant to

section 751(c) of the Act, that revocation

of the antidumping duty orders on PTFE

from Italy and Japan would likely lead

to continuation or recurrence of material

injury to an industry in the United

States within a reasonably foreseeable

time. 2

Scope

The merchandise subject to these

antidumping duty orders is PTFE from

Italy and Japan. The subject

merchandise is defined as granular

PTFE resin, filled or unfilled. The order

explicitly excludes PTFE dispersions in

water and PTFE fine powders. Such

merchandise is currently classifiable

under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule

(HTS) item number 3904.61.00. This

HTS item number is provided for

convenience and customs purposes

only. The written description remains

dispositive.

There has been one scope ruling with

respect to the order on PTFE from Japan

in which reprocessed PTFE powder was

determined to be outside the scope of

the order (57 FR 57420; December 4,

1992). The Department issued a

circumvention determination in which

it determined that PTFE wet raw

polymer exported from Italy to the

United States falls within the scope of

the order on PTFE from Italy (58 FR

26100; April 30, 1993).

Determination

As a result of the determinations by

the Department and the Commission

that revocation of these antidumping

duty orders would likely lead to

continuation or recurrence of dumping

and material injury to an industry in the

United States, pursuant to section

751(d)(2) of the Act, the Department

hereby orders the continuation of the

antidumping duty orders on PTFE from

Italy and Japan. The Department will

instruct the U.S. Customs Service to

continue to collect antidumping duty

deposits at the rate in effect at the time

of entry for all imports of subject

merchandise.

Normally, the effective date of

continuation of a finding, order, or

suspension agreement will be the date

of publication in the Federal Register of

the Notice of Continuation. As provided

in 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4), the Department

will issue its determination to continue

a finding, order, or suspended

investigation not later than seven days

after the date of publication in the

Federal Register of the Commission’s

determination concluding the sunset

review and immediately thereafter will

publish its notice of continuation in the

Federal Register. In these instant cases,

however, the Department’s publication

of the Notice of Continuation was

delayed. The Department has explicitly

indicated that the effective date of

continuation of these orders is January

3, 2000, seven days after the publication

in the Federal Register of the

Commission’s determination. As a

result, pursuant to section 751(c)(6)(A)

of the Act, the Department intends to

initiate the next five-year review of

these orders not later than December

2004.

Dated: February 1, 2000.

Holly A. Kuga,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–2837 Filed 2–7–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–412–803]

Industrial Nitrocellulose From the

United Kingdom; Notice of Final

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of

antidumping duty administrative

review.

SUMMARY: On August 6, 1999, the

Department of Commerce (‘‘the

Department’’) published the preliminary

results of its administrative review of

the antidumping duty order on

industrial nitrocellulose (‘‘INC’’) from

the United Kingdom. This review covers

one manufacturer/exporter of the

subject merchandise to the United

States during the period July 1, 1997,

through June 30, 1998.

We gave interested parties an

opportunity to comment on our

preliminary results. Based on our

analysis of the comments received, we

have changed the final results from

those presented in the preliminary

results. The final results are listed below

in the section Final Results of the

Review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 8, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron

Trentham or Thomas Futtner, AD/CVD

Enforcement, Office IV, Group II, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230;

telephone: (202) 482–6320 or 482–3814,

respectively.

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