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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2000 / Notices 6149

Agreements Act (‘‘URAA’’). In addition,

unless otherwise indicated, all citations

to the Department’s regulations are to 19

CFR Part 351 (1999).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On August 6, 1999, the Department

published in the Federal Register (64

FR 42908) the preliminary results of the

administrative review of the

antidumping order on industrial

nitrocellulose (INC) from the United

Kingdom, 55 FR 28270 (July 10, 1990).

We gave interested parties an

opportunity to comment on the

preliminary results. On September 7,

1999, we received a case brief from

Imperial Chemical Industries PLC

(‘‘ICI’’) (‘‘respondent’’). On September 8,

1999, we received a case brief from

Hercules Incorporated (‘‘petitioner’’).

On September 14, 1999, we received a

rebuttal case brief from the respondent.

Based on our analysis of the comments

received, we changed the final results

from those presented in the preliminary

results as described below in ‘‘Changes

from the Preliminary Results’’ and

‘‘Interested Party Comments’’ sections of

this notice. The Department has now

completed this administrative review in

accordance with section 751(a) of the

Act.

Scope of Review

Imports covered by this review are

shipments of INC from the United

Kingdom. INC is a dry, white

amorphous synthetic chemical with a

nitrogen content between 10.8 and 12.2

percent, and is produced from the

reaction of cellulose with nitric acid.

INC is used as a film-former in coatings,

lacquers, furniture finishes, and printing

inks. The scope of this order does not

include explosive grade nitrocellulose,

which has a nitrogen content of greater

than 12.2 percent.

INC is currently classified under

Harmonized Tariff System (HTS)

subheading 3912.20.00. While the HTS

item number is provided for

convenience and Customs purposes, the

written description remains dispositive

as to the scope of the product coverage.

Changes From the Preliminary Results

1. We corrected an error in the model

match program with regard to the

physical characteristic viscosity. See

Comment 5.

2. We corrected an error in the

calculation of net interest expense used

to determine the constructed export

price (‘‘CEP’’) profit ratio. See Comment

4.

Interested Party Comments

Comment 1: Categorization of U.S. Sales

The petitioner states that in the 1996–

1997 administrative review of the

subject antidumping duty order, the

Department determined that sales to the

United States by ICI were CEP, and not

export price (‘‘EP’’) transaction. See

Industrial Nitrocellulose From the

United Kingdom; Notice of Final Results

of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 64 FR 6609 (Feburary 10, 1999)

(‘‘1996–1997 Final Results’’). According

to the petitioner, ICI has failed to show

any changes in the manner in which its

merchandise is sold in the United States

that would lead the Department to

change its categorization. Thus, the

petitioner contends that the Department

was correct in finding ICI’s U.S.sales to

be CEP in this review as well, and

should not alter such finding. In

addition, the petitioner notes that ICI

reported all of its U.S. sales as CEP

transactions in response to the

Department’s instructions in its

February 17, 1999 supplemental

questionnaire.

In rebuttal ICI states that its action to

acquiesce to the Department’s

determination that its U.S. sales in this

review are CEP sales does not represent

agreement with petitioner’s comments

and ‘‘is without prejudice to its position

involving sales in future reviews.’’

Department’s Position

We agree with the petitioner and for

these final results we have continued to

treat ICI’s U.S. sales as CEP sales.

Comment 2: CEP Offset

The petitioner states that the

Department incorrectly granted ICI a

CEP offset. The petitioner contends that

the Department’s present methodology

for determining the appropriateness of a

CEP offset has been deemed ‘‘contrary to

law’’ by recent Court of International

Trade (‘‘CIT’’) decisions, Borden, Inc. v.

United States, 4 F. Supp. 2d 1221, 1241

(Ct. Intl. Trade 1998) (‘‘Borden’’) and

Micron Technology v. United States, 40

F. Supp 2d 481, (Ct. Intl. Trade1999)

(‘‘Micron’’).

In rebuttal ICI states that the

Department has filed notice of appeal of

Borden and the Micron decision is on

remand to the Department. According to

ICI, Borden and Micron are not final

decisions because a decision of the CIT

that has been appealed ‘‘is not a ‘‘final

court decision’. . .’’ See Timken Co. v.

United States, 893 F.2d 337, 339 (Fed.

Cir. 1990). Thus, ICI contends that the

Department’s position to continue to

apply its current methodology of

adjusting CEP, as articulated in section

351.412 of the Department’s regulations,

is correct since the issue has not been

fully judicially determined.

Department’s Position

The Department has consistently

stated that the statute and the Statement

of Administrative Action (‘‘SAA’’)

support analyzing the level of trade

(‘‘LOT’’) of CEP sales at the constructed

level, after expenses associated with

economic activities in the United States

have been deducted, pursuant to section

772(d) of the Act. In the preamble to our

proposed regulations, we stated:

With respect to the identification of levels

of trade, some commentators argued that,

consistent with past practice, the Department

should base level of trade on the starting

price for both export price EP and CEP sales

... The Department believes that this proposal

is not supported by the SAA. If the starting

price is used for all U.S. sales, the

Department’s ability to make meaningful

comparisons at the same level of trade (or

appropriate adjustments for differences in

levels of trade) would be severely

undermined in cases involving CEP sales. As

noted by other commentators, using the

starting price to determine the level of trade

of both types of U.S. sales would result in a

finding of different levels of trade for an EP

sale and a CEP sale adjusted to a price that

reflected the same selling functions.

Accordingly, the regulations specify that the

level of trade analyzed for EP sales is that of

the starting price, and for CEP sales it is the

constructed level of trade of the price after

the deduction of U.S. selling expenses and

profit.

See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing

Duties; Notice of Proposed Rule Making

and Request for Public Comments, 61

FR 7308, 7347 (February 27, 1996).

Consistent with the above position,

the Department evaluates the level of

trade for CEP sales based on the price

after adjustments are made under

section 772(d) of the Act. See, e.g., Large

Newspaper Printing Presses and

Components Thereof, Whether

Assembled or Unassembled, From

Japan: Notice of Final Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 61 FR

38139, 38143 (July 23, 1996). We note

that, in every case decided under the

revised antidumping statute, we have

consistently adhered to this

interpretation of the SAA and of the

Act. See, e.g., Aramid Fiber Formed of

Poly Para-Phenylene Terephthalamide

from the Netherlands; Preliminary

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 61 FR 15766,

15768 (April 9, 1996); Certain Stainless

Steel Wire Rods from France;

Preliminary Result of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 61 FR 8915,

8916 (March 6, 1996); Antifriction

Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller

6150 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2000 / Notices

Bearings) and parts Thereof from

France, et. al., Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 61 FR 25713, 35718–23 (July 8,

1996); and Dynamic Random Access

Memory Semiconductors of One

Megabit or Above From the Republic of

Korea: Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review and

Determination Not To Revoke the Order

in Part, 64 FR 69694 (December 14,

1999).

In accordance with the above

precedent, our instructions in the

questionnaire issued to ICI for this case

stated that constructed LOT should be

used. ICI adequately documented the

differences in selling functions in the

home and in the U.S. markets. See

Memorandum Regarding industrial

Nitrocellulose from the United

Kingdom-LOT Analysis-Imperial

Chemical Industries, PLC, August 2,

1999 (‘‘LOT Analysis Memo’’).

Therefore, the Department’s decision to

grant a CEP offset to ICI was consistent

with the statute and the Department’s

practice, and was supported by

substantial evidence on the record.

We disagree with the petitioner’s

interpretation of Borden and of its

impact on our current practice. In

Borden, the court held that the

Department’s practice to base the LOT

comparisons on CEP sales after CEP

deductions is an impermissible

interpretation of section 772(d) of the

Act. See Borden, 4 F. Supp. 2d at 1236–

38 ; see also Micron, 40 F. Supp. 2d at

485–86. 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 LOT 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 LOT analysis, as articulated in

the regulations at section 351.412.

Accordingly, consistent with the

preliminary results, we will continue to

analyze the LOT based on adjusted CEP

prices, rather than the starting CEP

prices.

Comment 3: LOT Analysis

Notwithstanding its argument above,

the petitioner contends that the

respondent is not entitled to a CEP

offset even on the basis of the

Department’s LOT/CEP methodology.

The petitioner states that in the 1996–

1997 Final Results, the Department

denied a CEP offset to ICI using the

same methodology as that used in the

instant review. According to the

petitioner, ‘‘even after removing many

of ICI’s selling activities in the U.S.

market, the Department nonetheless

found that not only did significant

selling functions remain in both the U.S.

and home markets, but that these

functions were ‘‘essentially identical’’ in

both markets.’’

The petitioner argues that in the

present review, as in the prior segment,

ICI is not entitled to the CEP offset.

First, the channels of distribution are

the same in both markets. Second,

significant parallel selling functions

‘‘remain in both the U. S. and home

markets’’ even after adjusting for selling

functions occurring in the United States

pursuant to section 772(d) of the Act.

The petitioner notes that in its LOT

analysis the Department concludes that

‘‘the home market LOT includes

significantly more selling functions and

greater selling expenses than the CEP

LOT.’’ See LOT Analysis Memo.

However, the petitioner claims that in

this review, as in the preceding one,

significant selling functions continue to

be carried out at the CEP LOT.

Moreover, the petitioner contends that

certain of the ‘‘selling functions’’ listed

in the chart in the LOT Analysis Memo

in order to differentiate ICI’s home

market and CEP sales are distinctions

without a difference.

According to the petitioner, the

category ‘‘Technical Support Services’’

is insignificant for both home market

and CEP sales. The petitioner argues

that the Department has compared a

‘‘may-occasionally-answer-a-technicalquestion’’ in the home market with a

‘‘no-expense-incurred’’ answer

regarding CEP sales. Moreover, the

petitioner maintains that as one of only

five categories of selling activities

designed to show differences between

home market and CEP sales significant

enough to warrant a CEP offset, this

item carries a full 20 percent of the

‘‘conceptual totality’’ of home market to

CEP sales differences.

The petitioner contends that, in this

manner, the Department has elevated an

item of virtual non-difference to a level

whereby it may significantly impact the

CEP offset determination, and thus,

ultimately, the dumping margin.

The petitioner notes that for the

second of the chart’s five categories,

‘‘Sales Activities’’, there is a ‘‘Yes’’ for

home market sales and a ‘‘No’’ for sales

CEP sales. However, the petitioner

argues that despite the ‘‘No’’ grade,

there are certain functions subsumed

under the ‘‘Sales Activities’’ box on the

chart with regard to CEP sales, such as

order processing, issuing confirmations,

etc..

The fourth of the five categories on

the chart, ‘‘Sales Support’’, shows a

‘‘Yes’’ for the home market and a ‘‘No’’

for CEP sales. With regard to this

category, the petitioner alleges that the

respondent has failed to disclose that

ICI entertained numerous U.S.

customers and potential customers in

Scotland.

According to the petitioner, it can be

seen that the chart used in the LOT

Analysis Memo to differentiate ICI’s

home-market and CEP selling functions

gives the erroneous impression that

major differences exist between the two.

However, the petitioner argues that the

differences in the functions are very

few.

In rebuttal, ICI states that the

petitioner’s argument that ICI is not

entitled to a CEP offset in the present

review because it was denied a CEP

offset in the 1996–1997 review is legally

flawed. ICI argues that each

administrative review is a separate

proceeding, conducted and based upon

its own record. ICI maintains that as

preliminarily determined by the

Department, the record in this

administrative review fully supports the

allowance of a CEP offset. According to

ICI, it is this record that is determinative

and not the record from the previous

review or for that matter the

determination that was based on the

prior record.

ICI contends that virtually the entire

argument submitted by the petitioner

under its category ‘‘sales support’’ is

based on assertions made at the time its

case brief was filed. According to ICI,

the Department should not accept this

information into the record and should

not consider it in its analysis. Further,

ICI notes that throughout its factual

analysis comments the petitioner

attempts to assign a 20 percent

numerical value to each of the five

categories listed in the chart and

attempts to find minor flaws with the

Department’s factual analysis in each

category. ICI contends that this biased

approach seems absurd on its face and

that there is no basis to claim that each

of the summary categories carries the

same weight. Moreover, ICI claims that

the petitioner’s critiques are extremely

selective and limited and, for the most

part, do not address the record as a

whole.

ICI asserts that in its ‘‘sales activities’’

table the petitioner seems to criticize the

Department for not taking into account

ordering and freight functions in sales to

the U.S. affiliate. However, ICI argues

that these categories of activities were

considered and analyzed by the

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2000 / Notices 6151

Department with regard to the sales

administration and sales services

section of the chart. Further, ICI notes

that although the petitioner ‘‘pays lip

service to the notion’’ that selling

functions for respondent’s U.S. sales

and related expenses associated with

economic activity in the United States

are removed from the analysis, its

comments consistently seem to use such

functions as support for its argument.

Department’s Position:

We disagree with the petitioner’s

claim that ICI is not entitled to a CEP

offset in the present review because it

was denied a CEP offset in a preceding

segment of the proceeding. Each review

is a separate segment of the proceeding

with a separate and distinct factual

record. See 1996–1997 Final Results, 64

FR at 6612.

Section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act

provides for a LOT adjustment if the

comparison-market sales are at a

different LOT, and the difference affects

price comparability, as manifested in a

pattern of consistent price differences

between sales on which normal value

(NV) is based and comparison market

sales at the LOT of the export

transaction. Section 351.412(c)(2) of the

Department’s regulations states that the

Secretary will determine that sales are

made at different LOTs if they are made

at different marketing stages (or their

equivalent). To make this

determination, the Department reviews

such factors as selling functions, classes

of customer, and the level of selling

expenses for each type of sale. Different

stages of marketing necessarily involve

differences in selling functions, but

differences in selling functions, even

substantial ones, are not alone sufficient

to establish a difference in the LOT.

Similarly, while customer categories

such as ‘‘distributor’’ and ‘‘wholesaler’’

may be useful in identifying different

LOTs, they are insufficient in

themselves to establish that there is a

difference in the LOT. In addition, the

Department bases the LOT of CEP sales

on the transaction to the affiliate in the

United States after making CEP

deductions under section 772(d) of the

Act, as amended. See Gray Portland

Cement and Clinker from Mexico; Final

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 64 FR 13148

(March 17,1999) (‘‘Gray Portland

Cement’’); Notice of Final Determination

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value;

Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate

from South Africa, 62 FR 61631

(November 19, 1997); Antifriction

Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller

Bearings) and Parts Thereof From

France, Germany, Italy, Japan,

Singapore, and the United Kingdom;

Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Reviews, 62 FR 2081

(January 15, 1997).

Based upon our analysis of the record,

we determine, as in the preliminary

results of review, that ICI’s home market

sales occurred at a different and more

advanced stage of distribution than ICI’s

sales to it U.S. affiliate. The record

demonstrates that ICI performs sales

activities, sales support, and technical

service support for its sales in the home

market but not for its CEP sales to the

U.S. affiliate after deducting the

expenses pursuant to section 772(d) of

the Act. Thus, contrary to the

petitioner’s assertions, we find adequate

basis on the record to conclude that ICI

performs three of its five selling

functions with respect to only its home

market sales and not with respect to its

CEP sales.

In addition, based on our analysis of

sales administration and sales services,

we find that ICI performs these selling

functions at a higher level of intensity

for its home market sales than for its

CEP sales. Contrary to the petitioner’s

assertion, selling functions do not carry

the same weight. In the Department’s

questionnaire, respondents are asked to

describe the degree to which each

selling activity was performed on its

reported sales. Thus, when we compare

the CEP level of trade to the home

market level of trade, we analyze selling

functions on the basis of not only

function but intensity, as well. See Gray

Portland Cement, 64 FR at 13161;

Professional Electric Cutting Tools from

Japan; Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Review, 63 FR

30706, 30708 (June 5, 1998).

Thus, as the record demonstrates, ICI

performs the majority of its selling

functions with respect to its home

market sales and not with respect to its

CEP sales. In addition, ICI does not

perform any services for its CEP sales

which it does not perform for its home

market sales. Accordingly, we

determine that ICI’s home market sales

occur at a different and more advanced

stage of distribution than its CEP sales.

We also determine that a LOT

adjustment cannot be calculated

because the data provided do not

provide an appropriate basis upon

which to determine a LOT adjustment.

Therefore, in accordance with section

773(a)(7)(B) of the Act, a CEP offset is

appropriate for these final results.

Finally, we agree with ICI that the

petitioner’s assertions regarding the

entertaining of U.S. market customers

and potential customers by ICI in

Scotland are unsubstantiated by factual

information on the record and we have

disregarded these assertions for the

purposes of these final results.

Comment 4: CEP Profit Ratio

The petitioner alleges that the

Department has incorrectly calculated

the CEP profit ratio by looking to ICI’s

net operating income as the numerator,

instead of ICI’s total U.S. expenses.

According to the petitioner, under

section 772(f) of the Act, CEP profit is

determined by multiplying total actual

profit by the applicable percentage,

which is determined pursuant to section

772(f)(2)(A) of the Act, by dividing total

U.S. expenses by total expenses. The

CEP profit ratio should be stated as

‘‘[p]rofit on ordinary activities before

taxation’’ divided by operating costs

plus net interest payable.

In rebuttal, ICI contends that the

petitioner is confusing the terms

‘‘applicable percentage’’ and ‘‘CEP profit

ratio’’ as having the same meaning.

According to ICI, the ‘‘applicable

percentage’’ consists of the ratio of U.S.

total expenses divided by the total

expenses, whereas, the ‘‘CEP profit

ratio’’ is a percentage derived from a

two-step calculation: (1) calculation of a

total actual profit by deducting total

expenses from total revenue, and (2)

dividing the total actual profit by the

total expenses. This CEP ratio is then

applied to the CEP selling expenses to

derive an actual CEP profit for the CEP

sales. ICI maintains that this is the

formula used by the Department in its

calculation of the CEP profit for the CEP

sales.

ICI argues that the numerator used by

the petitioner in calculating the CEP

profit ratio, i.e., profit on ordinary

activities before taxation, is incorrect.

According to ICI, the profit figure used

by the petitioner does not consist of

profit before ordinary activities ; rather,

it takes into account profit realized on

activities which have nothing to do with

income derived from ICI’s main core

business.

ICI maintains that the Department’s

calculation of the total actual profit and

CEP ratio is correct because it deducts

the total revenue derived from

operations from the total expenses.

According to ICI, this methodology

reflects the actual profit earned by ICI

from the operations of its main core

business.

Department’s Position

We agree with respondent that the

correct methodology was used in the

calculation of CEP profit in our

preliminary results and thus, we have

used the same methodology for

calculating CEP profit in these final

results.

6152 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2000 / Notices

Section 772(d)(3) of the Act provides

that CEP shall be reduced by the profit

allocable to selling, distribution, and

further manufacturing activities in the

United States.

Section 772(f) of the Act provides

three alternative methods for

determining total expenses for purposes

of computing CEP profit. These

alternatives form a hierarchy where the

use of any one of the methods depends

on the data available to the Department

from the case record. We were unable to

apply the first alternative (section

772(f)(2)(C)(i)) because the Department

is not conducting a sales below cost

investigation and, therefore, ICI did not

report COP or CV information for the

home market and U.S. products. In

addition, we were unable to apply the

second alternative (section 772

(f)(2)(C)(ii)) because the financial

statements of ICI are not specific to the

production costs and sales information

of merchandise sold only in the U.S.

and home market. Therefore, we

calculated CEP profit using alternative

three (section 772(f)(2)(C)(iii)). Under

this alternative, we calculated the profit

percentage based on ICI’s financial

statement of 1997 for merchandise

produced and sold by the respondent in

all countries.

Pursuant to the Department’s policy

as embodied in Policy Bulletin 97.1,

‘‘Calculation of Profit for Constructed

Export Price Transactions,’’ we

determined the CEP profit ratio by using

ICI’s income before taxes which we

calculated by subtracting total expenses

(cost of sales, distribution costs,

research and development,

administrative expenses and net interest

expense) from net sales revenue. We

then divided income before taxes by

total expenses to arrive at a CEP profit

ratio which we then multiplied by CEP

selling expenses to arrive at CEP profit.

During the course of our analysis, we

discovered that an incorrect amount for

net interest expense was used in the

calculation of the CEP profit ratio.

Therefore, for these final results, we

have recalculated the CEP profit ratio to

include the correct net interest expense.

See Calculation Memorandum of the

Final Results for the 1997–1998

Administrative Review of Imperial

Chemical Industries, February 2, 2000

(‘‘Final Calculation Memo’’).

Comment 5: Clerical Error in Model

Match Program

ICI states that the Department should

correct a clerical error in its model

match program that resulted in the

failure of the program to match certain

U.S. sales transactions with the most

similar home market sales. According to

ICI, the Department’s model match

computer program was based on six

physical characteristics reported in both

the U.S. and home market sales files.

With regard to the physical

characteristic viscosity, the Department

ranked the viscosity ranges for each U.S.

and home market control number

(CONNUM) by assigning a code. ICI

contends that the Department’s program

contains a computer programming error

in the ranking of the viscosity codes for

both home market and U.S. products.

ICI argues that this error resulted in

matching one U.S. product with a home

market product that is not the most

similar match in terms of physical

characteristics to the U.S. product. No

comments were submitted by the

petitioner on this issue.

Department’s Position

We agree with ICI and have made the

appropriate modifications to the

Department’s model match program for

these final results. See Final Calculation

Memo.

Comment 6: Error in Preliminary Results

ICI noted that in the preliminary

determination the Department states

that ‘‘* * * all sales to the first

unaffiliated purchaser took place after

importation.’’ See 64 FR at 42909. ICI

alleges that based on the factual record

and the Department’s own analysis this

statement appears to be in error and

should be corrected. No comments were

submitted by the petitioner on this

issue.

Department’s Position

We agree with ICI. In our preliminary

determination we stated that in

calculating price to the United States for

ICI, we used CEP, as defined in section

772(b) of the Act because all sales to the

first unaffiliated purchaser in the United

States took place after importation. This

statement was incorrect. In the instant

review, as in the previous segment of

this proceeding, we determined that

ICI’s U.S. sales were CEP transactions

even though the sales took place before

importation because ICI’s U.S. selling

agent was substantially involved in the

sales process in the United States on

behalf of or for the account of ICI. See

1996–1997 Final Results, 64 FR at 6611–

12.

Final Results of Review

As a result of this review, we have

determined that the following margin

exists for the period of July 1, 1997

through June 30, 1998:

Manufacturer/exporter Margin

(percent)

Imperial Chemical Industries

PLC ....................................... 18.49

The Department shall determine, and

the Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. The Department shall issue

appraisement instructions directly to

the Customs Service.

For assessment purposes, we have

calculated an importer-specific duty

assessment rate based on the ratio of the

total amount of antidumping duties

calculated for the examined sales to the

total entered value of the same sales.

The rate will be assessed uniformly on

all entries made by the relevant

importer during the POR.

The following deposit requirements

shall be effective upon publication of

this notice of final results of review for

all shipments of industrial

nitrocellulose from the United Kingdom

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after the

publication date, as provided for by

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

deposit rate for the reviewed company

will be the rate listed 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, a prior

review, or the original less-than-fairvalue (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) for all other

producers and/or exporters of this

merchandise, the cash deposit rate shall

be 11.13 percent, the ‘‘all others’’ rate

established in the LTFV investigation

(55 FR 21058, May 22, 1990). These

deposit requirements 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) of the

Department’s regulations 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 the only

reminder to parties subject to

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2000 / Notices 6153

administrative protective order (APO) of

their responsibility concerning the

disposition of proprietary information

disclosed under APO in accordance

with Sections 351.305 and 351.306 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 administrative review and notice

are in accordance with sections

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

Dated: February 2, 2000.

Holly A. Kuga,

Acting Assistant Secretary, Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–2850 Filed 2–7–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–588–850, A–588–851, A–791–808]

Notice of Postponement of Final

Antidumping Duty Determinations and

Extension of Provisional Measures:

Certain Large Diameter Carbon and

Alloy Seamless Standard, Line and

Pressure Pipe from Japan and Certain

Small Diameter Carbon and Alloy

Seamless Standard, Line and Pressure

Pipe from Japan and the Republic of

South Africa

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 8, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Charles Riggle at (202) 482–0650 or

Constance Handley at (202) 482–0631,

AD/CVD Enforcement, Office V, DAS

Group II, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue NW,

Washington, DC 20230.

Postponement of Final Determinations

The Department of Commerce (the

Department) is postponing the final

determinations in the antidumping duty

investigations of certain large diameter

carbon and alloy seamless standard, line

and pressure pipe from Japan and

certain small diameter carbon and alloy

seamless standard, line and pressure

pipe from Japan and the Republic of

South Africa.

On December 14, 1999, the

Department published its preliminary

determinations in these investigations.

See ‘‘Notice of Preliminary

Determinations of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Certain Large Diameter

Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard,

Line and Pressure Pipe from Japan and

Certain Small Diameter Carbon and

Alloy Seamless Standard, Line and

Pressure Pipe from Japan and the

Republic of South Africa’’, 64 FR 69718

(December 14, 1999). The notice stated

that the Department would issue its

final determinations no later than 75

days after the date of issuance of the

notice.

Pursuant to section 735(a)(2)(A) of the

Act, on January 13, 2000, Sumitomo

Metal Industries (Sumitomo), a

respondent in the investigations

involving Japan, and Iscor Ltd. (Iscor),

the sole respondent in the investigation

involving South Africa, requested that

the Department postpone its final

determinations. Further to those

requests, the respondents requested that

the Department extend by 60 days the

application of the provisional measures

prescribed under paragraphs (1) and (2)

of section 773(d) of the Act. In

accordance with 19 CFR 351.210(b),

because: (1) these preliminary

determinations are affirmative; (2) the

requesting exporters account for a

significant proportion of exports of the

subject merchandise in their respective

investigations; and (3) no compelling

reasons for denial exist, we are granting

the respondents’ requests and are

postponing the final determinations

until no later than 135 days after the

publication of the preliminary

determinations in the Federal Register

(i.e., until no later than April 27, 2000).

Suspension of liquidation will be

extended accordingly.

This extension is in accordance with

section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act, and 19

CFR 351.210(b)(2).

Dated: January 31, 2000.

Holly A. Kuga,

Acting Assistant Secretary, Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–2841 Filed 2–7–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–351–505]

Certain Malleable Cast Iron Pipe

Fittings From Brazil: Preliminary

Results of Antidumping Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of

antidumping administrative review.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

is conducting an administrative review

of the antidumping duty order on

certain malleable cast iron pipe fittings

from Brazil in response to a request

from a respondent, Indu ́stria de

Fundic ̧a

 ̃

o Tupy Ltda. This review covers

the period May 1, 1998, through April

30, 1999.

We preliminarily determine that sales

have been made below normal value.

Interested parties are invited to

comment on these preliminary results.

Parties who submit argument are

requested to submit with the argument

(1) a statement of the issue and (2) a

brief summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 8, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thomas Schauer or Richard Rimlinger,

Office of AD/CVD Enforcement, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230;

telephone (202) 482–0410 or (202) 482–

4477, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute

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 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

On May 28, 1999, the Department

received a request from Indu ́stria de

Fundic ̧a

 ̃

o Tupy Ltda. (Tupy) to conduct

an administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on certain

malleable cast iron pipe fittings from

Brazil. On June 30, 1999, the

Department published a notice of

initiation of an administrative review of

Tupy, covering the period May 1, 1998,

through April 30, 1999, in the Federal

Register (64 FR 14860).

Scope of Review

Imports covered by this review are

shipments of certain malleable cast iron

pipe fittings, other than grooved, from

Brazil. In the original antidumping duty

order, these products were classifiable

in the Tariff Schedules of the United

States, Annotated, under item numbers

610.7000 and 610.7400. These products

are currently classifiable under item