Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 7, 2000 / Notices 66697

1SMC is the affiliated U.S. importer of manganese

metal from the U.K. reseller LSM.

have calculated importer-specific ad

valorem duty assessment rates based on

the ratio of the total amount of the

dumping margins calculated for the

examined sales to the total entered

value of those same sales. In order to

estimate the entered value, we

subtracted international movement

expenses from the gross sales value. For

those respondents or classes or kinds of

merchandise with margins based on

facts available, we based the importerspecific assessment rates on the facts

available margin percentages. These

importer-specific rates will be assessed

uniformly on all entries of each

importer that were made during the

POR. In accordance with 19 CFR

351.106 (c)(2), we will instruct Customs

to liquidate without regard to

antidumping duties any entries for

which the assessment rate is de

minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent. The

Department will issue appraisement

instructions directly to Customs.

Cash Deposit Requirements

The following deposit requirements

will be effective upon publication of the

final results of these administrative

reviews for all shipments of HFHTs

from the PRC entered, or withdrawn

from warehouse, for consumption on or

after the publication date of this notice,

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

the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for

the reviewed companies named above

which have separate rates (Shandong

Huarong, LMC, SMC and TMC) will be

the rates for those firms established in

the final results of these administrative

reviews for the classes or kinds of

merchandise listed above; (2) for any

previously reviewed PRC or non-PRC

exporter with a separate rate not

covered in these reviews, the cash

deposit rates will be the companyspecific rates established for the most

recent period; (3) for all other PRC

exporters, the cash deposit rates will be

the PRC-wide rates established in the

final results of these reviews; and (4) the

cash deposit rates for non-PRC exporters

of subject merchandise from the PRC

will be the rates applicable to the PRC

supplier of that exporter. These deposit

requirements, when imposed, shall

remain in effect until publication of the

final results of the next administrative

reviews.

Notification to Interested Parties

This notice serves as a preliminary

reminder to importers of their

responsibility under section

351.402(f)(2) 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 double antidumping duties.

We are issuing and publishing this

determination in accordance with

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

Act.

Dated: October 31, 2000.

Troy H. Cribb,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–28571 Filed 11–6–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–570–840]

Manganese Metal From the People’s

Republic of China; Preliminary Results

and Rescission in Part of Antidumping

Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results

and Rescission in Part of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review of

Manganese Metal from the People’s

Republic of China.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

is currently conducting an

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on manganese

metal from the People’s Republic of

China. The period of review is February

1, 1999 through January 31, 2000. This

review covers imports of subject

merchandise from four producers/

exporters.

We have preliminarily determined

that sales have been made below normal

value. If these preliminary results are

adopted in our final results of review,

we will instruct the U.S. Customs

Service to assess antidumping duties

based on the difference between the

U.S. price and normal value.

We have also determined that the

review of China National Electronics

Import & Export Hunan Company

should be rescinded.

We invite interested parties to

comment on these preliminary results.

We will issue the final results no later

than 120 days from the date of

publication of this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 7, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg

Campbell or Suresh Maniam, Office I,

Antidumping/Countervailing Duty

Enforcement, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202)

482–2239 or (202) 482–0176,

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 (URAA). In addition,

unless otherwise indicated, all

references to the Department of

Commerce’s (Department’s) regulations

are to 19 CFR Part 351 (April 1999).

Background

On February 14, 2000, the Department

published in the Federal Register an

Antidumping or Countervailing Duty

Order, Finding, or Suspended

Investigation; Opportunity to Request

Administrative Review, 65 FR 7348

(February 14, 2000).

In accordance with 19 CFR

351.213(b)(2), on February 29, 2000, the

petitioner, Eramet Marietta Inc.,

requested that we conduct an

administrative review of this order

covering China Metallurgical Import &

Export Hunan Corporation/Hunan

Nonferrous Metals Import & Export

Associated Corporation (CMIECHN/

CNIECHN), Minmetals Precious and

Rare Minerals Import & Export

Company (Minmetals), London &

Scandinavian Metallurgical Co. Ltd./

Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation

(LSM/SMC),1 Sumitomo Canada, Ltd.

(SCL), and China National Electronics

Import & Export Hunan Company

(CEIEC). On February 29, 2000, the copetitioner, Kerr-McGee Chemical, LLC

(Kerr-McGee), likewise requested that

we conduct an administrative review of

this order covering CMIECHN/

CNIECHN, Minmetals, CEIEC, LSM, and

SCL.

On March 30, 2000, we published a

notice of initiation of this antidumping

duty administrative review of the

companies named by the petitioners.

See Antidumping and Countervailing

Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended

Investigation; Opportunity to Request

Administrative Review, 65 FR at 16875.

On June 9, 2000, we issued

questionnaires to the companies. On

June 19, 2000, SCL informed the

66698 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 7, 2000 / Notices

2See Memorandum to the Case File; Confirmation

of No Shipment by CEIEC (October 31, 2000).

3See 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3); Silicon Metal from

Brazil; Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 61 FR 46763 (September 5,

1996).

Department that, given the small

volume of merchandise it entered

during the period of review (POR), SCL

would not participate in this review.

CEIEC made a submission on June 23,

2000, certifying that it did not sell or

ship subject merchandise to the United

States during the POR. CMIECHN/

CNIECHN and Minmetals submitted

their questionnaire responses by July 24,

2000, and their supplemental responses

by September 19, 2000. LSM/SMC

submitted its questionnaire responses

by July 24, 2000, and their supplemental

responses by September 12, 2000. On

August 29, 2000, Eramet Marietta

informed the Department that, because

it intended to close its manganese metal

operations by year-end, it was

withdrawing as a domestic interested

party in this case.

Preliminary Rescission of Review in

Part

As stated above in the Background

section, CEIEC notified the Department

that it had not made any U.S. sales of

subject merchandise during the POR.

Entry data provided by the U.S.

Customs Service (Customs) confirms

that there were no POR entries from

CEIEC of manganese metal.2 Therefore,

consistent with the Department’s

regulations and practice,3 we are

preliminarily rescinding this review

with respect to CEIEC.

Scope of Review

The merchandise covered by this

review is manganese metal, which is

composed principally of manganese, by

weight, but also contains some

impurities such as carbon, sulfur,

phosphorous, iron and silicon.

Manganese metal contains by weight not

less than 95 percent manganese. All

compositions, forms and sizes of

manganese metal are included within

the scope of this administrative review,

including metal flake, powder,

compressed powder, and fines. The

subject merchandise is currently

classifiable under subheadings

8111.00.45.00 and 8111.00.60.00 of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (HTSUS). Although the

HTSUS subheadings are provided for

convenience and customs purposes, our

written description of the scope of this

proceeding is dispositive.

Separate Rates

It is the Department’s standard policy

to assign all exporters of the

merchandise subject to review in

nonmarket economy (NME) countries a

single rate unless an exporter can

demonstrate an absence of government

control, both in law and in fact, with

respect to exports. To establish whether

an exporter is sufficiently independent

of government control to be entitled to

a separate rate, the Department analyzes

the exporter in light of the criteria

established in the Final Determination

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:

Sparklers from the People’s Republic of

China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991)

(Sparklers), as amplified in the Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the

People’s Republic of China, 59 FR 22585

(May 2, 1994) (Silicon Carbide).

Evidence supporting, though not

requiring, a finding of de jure absence

of government control over export

activities includes: (1) an absence of

restrictive stipulations associated with

an individual exporter’s business and

export licenses; (2) any legislative

enactments decentralizing control of

companies; and (3) any other formal

measures by the government

decentralizing control of companies. See

Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589. A de facto

analysis of absence of government

control over exports is based on four

factors—whether the respondent: (1)

sets its own export prices independent

of the government and other exporters;

(2) retains the proceeds from its export

sales and makes independent decisions

regarding the disposition of profits or

financing of losses; (3) has the authority

to negotiate and sign contracts and other

agreements; and (4) has autonomy from

the government regarding the selection

of management. See Silicon Carbide, 59

FR at 22587; see also Sparklers, 56 FR

at 20589.

In the Notice of Amended Final

Determination and Antidumping Duty

Order; Manganese Metal from the

People’s Republic of China 61 FR 4415

(February 6, 1996) (LTFV Investigation),

we determined that there was de jure

and de facto absence of government

control of each company’s export

activities and determined that each

company warranted a company-specific

dumping margin. For the POR,

CMIECHN/CNIECHN and Minmetals

responded to the Department’s request

for information regarding separate rates.

We have found that the evidence on the

record is consistent with the final

determination in the LTFV Investigation

and both CMIECHN/CNIECHN and

Minmetals continue to demonstrate an

absence of government control, both in

law and in fact, with respect to their

companies’ exports, in accordance with

the criteria identified in Sparklers and

Silicon Carbide.

Use of Facts Otherwise Available

Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides

that if an interested party: (1) withholds

information that has been requested by

the Department, (2) fails to provide such

information in a timely manner or in the

form requested, (3) significantly

impedes a proceeding under the

antidumping statute, or (4) provides

information that cannot be verified, the

Department shall use, subject to section

782(d), facts available in reaching the

applicable determination.

1. Application of Facts Available

On June 19, 2000, SCL informed the

Department that, given the small

volume of merchandise it entered

during the POR, SCL would not

participate in this review. We

preliminarily determine that, in

accordance with sections 776(a)(2)(A)

and (C) of the Act, the use of facts

otherwise available is appropriate for

SCL because it did not submit a

response to our questionnaire issued to

it on June 9, 2000.

2. Use of Adverse Facts Available

In selecting from among the facts

available, section 776(b) of the Act

authorizes the Department to use an

adverse inference if the Department

finds that a party has failed to cooperate

by not acting to the best of its ability to

comply with requests for information.

See Statement of Administrative Action

(SAA), H.R. Doc. 103–316 at 870 (1994).

To examine whether the respondent

‘‘cooperated’’ by ‘‘acting to the best of

its ability’’ under section 776(b) of the

Act, the Department considers, inter

alia, the accuracy and completeness of

submitted information and whether the

respondent has hindered the calculation

of accurate dumping margins. See e.g.,

Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and

Tubes From Thailand: Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 62 FR 53808, 53819–53820

(October 16, 1997).

As discussed above, SCL failed to

respond to the Department’s

questionnaire. Thus, we have

determined that SCL withheld

information that we requested and

significantly impeded the antidumping

proceeding. Without information from

SCL, the Department is unable to review

SCL’s entries and calculate an

assessment rate for those entries. We

therefore find that SCL has not acted to

the best of its ability to comply with our

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 7, 2000 / Notices 66699

4For a more in-depth discussion of these issues,

see Memorandum to Richard W. Moreland; ThirdCounty Resellers and Treatment of SG&A and

Movement Expenses (October 25, 2000).

5See Memorandum to Susan Kuhbach from Jeff

May; Non-Market-Economy Status and Surrogate

Country Selection (June 12, 2000), a public copy of

which is available in the Central Records Unit.

requests for information. Accordingly,

consistent with section 776(b) of the

Act, we have applied adverse facts

available to this company.

3. Corroboration of Secondary

Information

In this review, we are using as adverse

facts available the PRC-wide rate

(143.32 percent) determined for nonresponding exporters involved in the

LTFV Investigation. This margin, which

is the highest rate determined in any

segment of this proceeding, represents

the highest margin in the petition, as

modified by the Department for the

purposes of initiation. See Initiation of

Antidumping Duty Investigation:

Manganese Metal from the People’s

Republic of China, 59 FR 61869

(December 2, 1994) (LTFV Initiation). It

is also the rate currently applicable to

all PRC exporters that do not have

separate rates.

Information derived from the petition

constitutes secondary information

within the meaning of the SAA. See

SAA at 870. Section 776(c) of the Act

provides that the Department shall, to

the extent practicable, corroborate

secondary information from

independent sources reasonably at its

disposal. The SAA provides that

‘‘corroborate’’ means that the

Department will satisfy itself that the

secondary information to be used has

probative value. The SAA at 870,

however, states further that ‘‘the fact

that corroboration may not be

practicable in a given circumstance will

not prevent the agencies from applying

an adverse inference.’’ In addition, the

SAA at 869, emphasizes that the

Department need not prove that the

facts available are the best alternative

information.

The PRC-wide rate being used in this

proceeding as adverse facts available

was previously corroborated. See

Manganese Metal from the People’s

Republic of China; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 64 FR 49447 (September 13,

1999). We have no new information that

would lead us to reconsider that

decision.

Export Price

For U.S. sales made by CMIECHN/

CNIECHN and Minmetals we calculated

an export price, in accordance with

section 772(a) of the Act, because the

subject merchandise was sold to

unaffiliated purchasers in the United

States prior to importation into the

United States.

For these sales, we calculated export

price based on the price to unaffiliated

purchasers. We deducted an amount,

where appropriate, for foreign inland

freight, ocean freight, and marine

insurance.

For U.S. sales made by LSM/SMC, we

calculated a constructed export price

(CEP), in accordance with section 772(c)

of the Act, because the subject

merchandise was sold by an affiliated

importer in the United States after

importation into the United States. We

calculated CEP based on the packed, exwarehouse prices from the U.S.

subsidiary to unaffiliated customers. We

made deductions, where appropriate,

from the starting price for CEP for

international freight from the United

Kingdom to the United States, U.K.

inland freight, marine insurance, U.S.

customs duties, U.S. brokerage, U.S.

inland freight, and U.S. freight to the

unaffiliated purchaser. In accordance

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

made further deductions from the

starting price for CEP for the following

selling expenses that related to

economic activity in the United States:

credit expenses and indirect selling

expenses, including inventory carrying

costs. In accordance with section

772(d)(3) of the Act, we have also

deducted from the starting price an

amount for profit. Finally, since the

sales made by SMC to the unaffiliated

purchaser were further manufactured

products, we further deducted, in

accordance with section 772(d)(2), the

following costs associated with the

further manufacturing: material, labor,

overhead, packing, general and

administrative expenses, and interest

expense.

Normal Value

1. Nonmarket-Economy Status

For the calculation of dumping

margins for merchandise originating in

NME countries, section 773(c)(1) of the

Act provides that the Department shall

determine normal value (NV) using a

factors-of-production methodology if (1)

the merchandise is exported from an

NME country, and (2) the information

does not permit the calculation of NV

using home-market prices, third-country

prices, or constructed value under

section 773(a) of the Act.

The Department has treated the PRC

as an NME country in all previous

antidumping cases. In accordance with

section 771(18)(c)(i) of the Act, any

determination that a foreign country is

a NME country shall remain in effect

until revoked by the administering

authority. None of the parties to this

proceeding has contested such

treatment in this review. Furthermore,

available information does not permit

the calculation of NV using homemarket prices, third-country prices, or

constructed value under section 773(a)

of the Act. Therefore, we treated the

PRC as a NME country for purposes of

this review and calculated NV for the

two PRC exporters CMIECHN/CNIECHN

and Minmetals by valuing the factors of

production in a comparable marketeconomy country which is a significant

producer of comparable merchandise.

With regard to NV for LSM/SMC’s

sales, the statute directs that,

Where the subject merchandise is exported

to the United States from an intermediate

country, normal value shall be determined in

the intermediate country, except that normal

value may be determined in the country of

origin if—

(A) the producer knew at the time of the

sale that the subject merchandise was

destined for exportation;

(B) the subject merchandise is merely

transshipped through the intermediate

country;

(C) sales of the foreign like product in the

intermediate country do not satisfy the

conditions of paragraph (1)(c); or

(D) the foreign like product is not produced

in the intermediate country.

See Section 773(a)(3) of the Act.

Information from the petition and on

the record of prior administrative

reviews has established the United

Kingdom does not produce the foreign

like product. Parties to this review have

submitted no evidence suggesting that

this situation has changed. Thus, at least

one of the above statutory criteria (i.e.,

criterion D) has been met. Therefore, to

determine whether LSM/SMC’s sales

were sold at prices below NV, we have

determined NV in the PRC, the country

of origin. Furthermore, because the

country of origin is the PRC, consistent

with section 773(c)(1) of the Act we

have constructed a NV based on PRC

factors of production. As a result, the

NV for LSM/SMC is the same as the NV

for CMIECHN/CNIECHN.4

2. Surrogate-Country Selection

In accordance with section 773(c)(4)

of the Act and section 351.408(b) of our

regulations, we preliminarily determine

that India is comparable in terms of

economic development to the PRC.5 In

addition, India is a significant producer

of comparable merchandise. Therefore,

for this review, we have selected India

as the surrogate country and have used

publicly available information relating

66700 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 7, 2000 / Notices

6For a more detailed explanation of the

methodology used in calculating various surrogate

values, see Memorandum to the File from Case

Team; Calculations for the Preliminary Results

(October 31, 2000).

7See the ITA website at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/

wages/

to India, unless otherwise noted, to

value the various factors of production.

3. Factors-of-Production Valuation

For purposes of calculating NV, we

valued PRC factors of production in

accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the

Act. Factors of production include but

are not limited to the following

elements: (1) hours of labor required; (2)

quantities of raw materials used; (3)

amounts of energy and other utilities

consumed; and (4) representative capital

cost, including depreciation. In

examining potential surrogate values,

we selected, where possible, the

publicly available value which was: (1)

an average non-export value; (2)

representative of a range of prices

within the POR or closest in time to the

POR; (3) product-specific; and (4) taxexclusive. Where we could not obtain a

POR-representative price for an

appropriate surrogate value, we selected

a value in accordance with the

remaining criteria mentioned above

which was the closest in time to the

POR. In accordance with this

methodology, we have valued the

factors as follows.6

We valued manganese Ore 1 using a

POR price quotation for carbonate

manganese ore submitted by the

petitioner. We valued Ore 2 using an

average of two POR price quotations

from Indian manganese ore producers.

We adjusted these prices for Ore 1 and

Ore 2 to account for the reported

manganese content of the ore used in

the PRC manufacture of the subject

merchandise and to account for the

differences in transportation distances.

To value various process chemicals

used in the production of manganese

metal, we used prices obtained from the

following Indian sources: Indian

Chemical Weekly (February 1999

through January 2000), the Monthly

Statistics of Foreign Trade of India,

Volume II—Imports (April 1998 through

August 1998) (Import Statistics), as well

as price quotations from various Indian

chemicals producers. Where necessary,

we adjusted these values to reflect

inflation up through the POR using an

Indian wholesale price index (WPI)

published by the International Monetary

Fund (IMF). Additionally, we adjusted

these values, where appropriate, to

account for differences in chemical

content and to account for freight costs

incurred between the suppliers and

manganese metal producers.

We have derived a surrogate value for

electricity based on electricity price data

published by the Center for Monitoring

Indian Economy (CMIE) and on an

electricity-specific price index

published by the Reserve Bank of India.

To value the labor input, consistent

with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3), we used the

regression-based estimated wage rate for

the PRC as calculated by the

Department.7

We have derived ratios for selling,

general, and administrative expenses

(SG&A), factory overhead, and profit

based on aggregated financial data

published by the CMIE for the Indian

nonferrous metals industry.

For most packing materials values, we

used per-unit values based on data from

the Import Statistics. For metal drums,

however, we used a price quote from an

Indian drum manufacturer. We made

further adjustments, where necessary, to

these packing material values to account

for freight costs incurred between the

PRC supplier and manganese metal

producers.

To value rail freight, we relied on rate

tables published by the Indian Railway

Conference Association. To value truck

freight, we used a price quotation from

an Indian freight provider. With regard

to ocean freight, where a company had

reported that it incurred ocean freight

expenses in market economy currency,

from a market economy provider

through a market economy agent, we

used the reported expenses to value all

ocean freight costs reported by that

company.

Preliminary Results of the Review

As a result of our review, we

preliminarily determine that the

following percentage weighted-average

margins exist for the period February 1,

1999, through January 31, 2000:

Manufacturer/exporter Margin

CMIECHN/CNIECHN ................ 27.18

Minmetals ................................. 19.70

LSM/SMC ................................. 13.33

SCL ........................................... 143.32

Because we are rescinding the review

with respect to CEIEC, the companyspecific rate for that company remains

unchanged.

Parties to the proceeding may request

disclosure within five days of the date

of publication of this notice. Any

interested party may request a hearing

within 30 days of publication of this

notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any

hearing, if requested, will be held

approximately 44 days after the date of

publication, 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 this notice. Rebuttal

briefs and rebuttals to written

comments, which must be limited to

issues raised in such briefs or

comments, may be filed not later than

37 days after the date of publication.

Parties who submit arguments are

requested to submit with the argument

(1) a statement of the issue, (2) a brief

summary of the argument, and (3) a

table of authorities. Further, parties

submitting written comments should

provide the Department with an

additional copy of the public version of

any such comments on diskette. The

Department will issue a notice of final

results of this administrative review,

including the results of its analysis of

issues raised in any such written

comments, within 120 days of

publication of these preliminary results.

Assessment Rates

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the

Department calculates an assessment

rate for each importer of the subject

merchandise. Upon issuance of the final

results of this administrative review, if

any importer-specific assessment rates

calculated in the final results are above

de minimis (i.e., at or above 0.5 percent),

the Department will issue appraisement

instructions directly to the Customs

Service to assess antidumping duties on

appropriate entries by applying the

assessment rate to the entered value of

the merchandise. For assessment

purposes, we calculate importer-specific

assessment rates for the subject

merchandise by aggregating the

dumping duties due for all U.S. sales to

each importer and dividing the amount

by the total entered value of the sales to

that importer.

Cash Deposit Requirements

To calculate the cash-deposit rate for

each producer and/or exporter included

in this administrative review, we

divided the total dumping margins for

each company by the total net value for

that company’s sales during the review

period.

Furthermore, the following cash

deposit requirements will be effective

upon publication of the final results of

this administrative review for all

shipments of manganese metal 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 rate for CMIECHN/

CNIECHN, Minmetals, LSM/SMC, and

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 7, 2000 / Notices 66701

8See e.g., Manganese Metal from the People’s

Republic of China; Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review, 64 FR 49447

(September 13, 1999); Fresh Garlic from the

People’s Republic of China; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and

Partial Termination of Administrative Review, 62

FR 23758, 23760 (May 1, 1997); Sparklers from the

People’s Republic of China; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR

39630, 39631 (July 30, 1996).

SCL will be the rates established in the

final results of this administrative

review, except if the rate is less than 0.5

percent and, therefore, de minimis, the

cash deposit will be zero; (2) for CEIEC,

which we determined to be entitled to

a separate rate in the LTFV Investigation

but which did not have shipments or

entries to the United States during the

POR, the rate will continue to be the

currently-applicable rate of 11.77

percent, (3) for non-PRC exporters of

subject merchandise from the PRC not

specifically listed above, the cash

deposit rate will be the rate applicable

to the PRC supplier of that exporter; 8

and (4) for all other PRC exporters, the

cash deposit rate will be 143.32 percent.

These cash deposit requirements,

when imposed, shall remain in effect

until publication of the final results of

the next administrative review.

Notification to Importers

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.

We are issuing and publishing this

determination in accordance with

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

Act.

Dated: October 31, 2000.

Troy H. Cribb,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–28569 Filed 11–6–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–357–810; A–475–816; A–588–835; A–

580–825]

Final Results of Expedited Sunset

Reviews: Oil Country Tubular Goods

From Argentina, Italy, Japan, and

Korea

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Final Results of

Expedited Sunset Reviews: Oil Country

Tubular Goods from Argentina, Italy,

Japan, and Korea.

SUMMARY: On July 3, 2000, the

Department of Commerce (‘‘the

Department’’) initiated sunset reviews of

the antidumping duty orders on oil

country tubular goods from Argentina,

Italy, Japan, and Korea (65 FR 41053)

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff

Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’). On

the basis of notices of intent to

participate and adequate substantive

responses filed on behalf of U.S. Steel

Group, a unit of USX Corporation,

IPSCO Tubulars, Inc., Lone Star Steel

Company, Maverick Tube Corporation,

Newport Steel and Koppel Steel

Divisions of NS Group, Grant-Prideco,

and North Star Steel Ohio (collectively,

‘‘domestic interested parties’’), and

inadequate responses (in the Italy,

Japan, and Korea cases, no responses)

from respondent interested parties, the

Department determined to conduct

expedited reviews. As a result of these

reviews, the Department finds that

revocation of the antidumping duty

orders would be likely to lead to

continuation or recurrence of dumping

at the levels indicated in the Final

Results of Reviews section of this notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John

P. Maloney, Jr. or James P. Maeder, Jr.,

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) 482–1503 or (202) 482–

3330, respectively.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 7, 2000.

Statute and Regulations

These reviews were conducted

pursuant to sections 751(c) and 752 of

the Act. The Department’s procedures

for the conduct of sunset reviews are set

forth in Procedures for Conducting Fiveyear (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews of

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty

Orders, 63 FR 13516 (March 20, 1998)

(‘‘Sunset Regulations’’), and in 19 CFR

Part 351 (1999) in general. Guidance on

methodological or analytical issues

relevant to the Department’s conduct of

sunset reviews is set forth in the

Department’s Policy Bulletin 98:3—

Policies Regarding the Conduct of Fiveyear (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews of

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty

Orders; Policy Bulletin, 63 FR 18871

(April 16, 1998) (‘‘Sunset Policy

Bulletin’’).

Background

On July 3, 2000, the Department

initiated sunset reviews of the

antidumping duty orders on oil country

tubular goods (‘‘OCTG’’) from

Argentina, Italy, Japan, and Korea (65

FR 41053), pursuant to section 751(c) of

the Act. The Department received a

notice of intent to participate on behalf

of U.S. Steel group, a unit of USX

Corporation, IPSCO Tubulars, Inc., Lone

Star Steel Company, Maverick Tube

Corporation, Newport Steel and Koppel

Steel Divisions of NS Group, GrantPrideco, and North Star Steel Ohio

(collectively, ‘‘domestic interested

parties’’), within the applicable deadline

(July 18, 2000) specified in section

351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Sunset

Regulations. Domestic interested parties

claimed interested-party status under

section 771(9)(C) of the Act, as

manufacturers, producers, or

wholesalers in the United States of a

domestic like product.

On August 2, 2000, we received

substantive responses on behalf of

domestic interested parties and, in the

Argentina case, on behalf of Siderca

SAIC (‘‘Siderca’’). Siderca is an

interested party pursuant to section

771(9)(A) of the Act as a foreign

producer and exporter of the subject

merchandise.

On August 7, 2000, we received

rebuttal comments on behalf of

domestic interested parties in response

to Siderca’s comments.

Scope of Review of Oil Country Tubular

Goods From Argentina

Oil country tubular goods are hollow

steel products of circular cross-section,

including oil well casing, tubing, and

drill pipe, of iron (other than cast iron)

or steel (both carbon and alloy), whether

seamless or welded, whether or not

conforming to American Petroleum

Institute (API) or non-API

specifications, whether finished or

unfinished (including green tubes and

limited-service OCTG products). This

scope does not cover casing, tubing, or

drill pipe containing 10.5 percent or

more of chromium. The OCTG subject to

this review are currently classified in

the following Harmonized Tariff