68978 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 15, 2000 / Notices

highest margin from any segment of the

proceeding related to DRAMS from

Korea.

Analysis of Comments Received

All issues raised in the case and

rebuttal briefs by parties to this

administrative review are addressed in

the ‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum’’

(‘‘Decision Memorandum’’) from Holly

A. Kuga, Acting Deputy Assistant

Secretary, Import Administration, to

Troy H. Cribb, Assistant Secretary for

Import Administration, dated November

3, 2000, which is hereby adopted by this

notice. A list of the issues which parties

have raised and to which we have

responded, all of which are in the

Decision Memorandum, is attached to

this notice as an Appendix. Parties can

find a complete discussion of all issues

raised in this review and the

corresponding recommendations in this

public memorandum which is on file in

the Central Records Unit, room B–099 of

the main Department building. In

addition, a complete version of the

Decision Memorandum can be accessed

directly on the Web at http://

ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/summary/list.htm.

The paper copy and electronic version

of the Decision Memorandum are

identical in content.

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

Based on our analysis of comments

received, we have made certain changes

in the margin calculations. These

changes are discussed in the relevant

sections of the ‘‘Decision

Memorandum.’’

Final Results of Review

We determine that the following

percentage weighted-average margins

exist for the period April 1, 1998

through, May 30, 1999:

Manufacturer/exporter Margin

(percent)

LG ................................................. 1.18

Hyundai ......................................... 2.30

G5 ................................................. 10.44

Wooyang ....................................... 10.44

Jewon ........................................... 10.44

Kim’s Marketing ............................ 10.44

Assessment

The Department shall determine, and

the Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. The Department will issue

appraisement instructions directly to

the Customs Service. Where the

importer-specific assessment rate is

above de minimis, we will instruct

Customs to assess antidumping duties

on that importer’s entries of subject

merchandise.

These final results of review shall be

the basis for the assessment of

antidumping duties on entries of

merchandise covered by this review. For

duty-assessment purposes, we

calculated importer-specific assessment

rates by aggregating the dumping

margins calculated for all U.S. sales to

each importer and dividing this amount

by the total estimated entered value

reported for those sales. Hyundai and

LG, in accordance with the

Department’s questionnaire, estimated

the entered value of their respective

sales by calculating the average of the

entered value of each control number

for the POR. For all other respondents,

we based assessment rate on the facts

available margin percentage.

Notification

This notice serves as a final reminder

to importers of their responsibility

under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a

certificate regarding the reimbursement

of antidumping duties prior to

liquidation of the relevant entries

during this review period. Failure to

comply with this requirement could

result in the Secretary’s presumption

that reimbursement of antidumping

duties occurred and the subsequent

assessment of doubled antidumping

duties.

This notice also serves as a reminder

to parties subject to administrative

protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their

responsibility concerning the

disposition of proprietary information

disclosed under APO in accordance

with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely

notification of return/destruction of

APO materials or conversion to judicial

protective order is hereby requested.

Failure to comply with the regulations

and the terms of an APO is a

sanctionable violation.

We are issuing and publishing this

determination and notice in accordance

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

Act.

Dated: November 3, 2000.

Richard W. Moreland,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

Appendix—Issues in Decision

Memorandum

Comments and Responses

1. Currency Conversions

2. Calculation of Foreign Currency

Transaction Gains

3. Offset to Foreign Currency Translation

Losses

4. Calculation of Foreign Currency

Translation Gains

5. Allocation of Foreign Currency Translation

Gains and Losses

6. Foreign Exchange Translation Losses in

Construction in Progress (‘‘CIP’’) Account

7. Offset for Long-Term Interest Income

8. Unspecified Foreign Exchange Gains and

Losses

9. Research and Development (‘‘R&D’’)

10. Cross-Fertilization of R&D

11. Use of Cost of Goods Sold (‘‘COGS’’) to

Calculate R&D Ratio

12. Calculation of LG’s R&D Ratio

13. Calculation of LG’s G&A Ratio

14. Increase in Useful Lives

15. Adjustment to Depreciation

16. Programming Error in LG’s Depreciation

Adjustment

17. Adjustment for Special Depreciation for

LG

18. Level of Trade (‘‘LOT’’)/Constructed

Export Price (‘‘CEP’’) Offset

19. LG’s Interest Expense

20. Calculation of CEP Profit for LG

21. Correction of LG’s Concordance Program

22. Overstatement of LG’s Duty Assessment

Rate

[FR Doc. 00–29256 Filed 11–14–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

ADMINISTRATION

(A–484–801)

Electrolytic Manganese Dioxide From

Greece: 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 May 15, 2000, the

Department of Commerce published the

preliminary results of administrative

review of the antidumping duty order

on electrolytic manganese dioxide from

Greece. The review covers one

producer/exporter, Tosoh Hellas, during

the period of review April 1, 1998,

through March 31, 1999.

We gave interested parties an

opportunity to comment on the

preliminary results. We have made one

change in our calculations. The review

indicates the existence of no dumping

margins for Tosoh Hellas during this

period.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 15, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Hermes Pinilla or Richard Rimlinger,

Office of AD/CVD Enforcement 3,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, Washington, D.C. 20230;

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 15, 2000 / Notices 68979

telephone: (202) 482–3477 or (202) 482–

4477, 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 citations

to the Department of Commerce’s (the

Department’s) regulations are to 19 CFR

Part 351 (1999).

Background

On May 8, 2000, the Department

published in the Federal Register the

preliminary results of the administrative

review of the antidumping duty order

on electrolytic manganese dioxide

(EMD) from Greece. See Preliminary

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review: Electrolytic

Manganese Dioxide from Greece, 65 FR

26570 (May 8, 2000) (Preliminary

Results). Kerr-McGee Chemical LLC and

Chemetals, Inc. (collectively ‘‘the

petitioners’’), submitted their case briefs

on June 7, 2000. Tosoh Hellas (Tosoh),

the sole respondent in this review,

submitted its case brief on June 7, 2000.

Tosoh submitted its rebuttal brief on

June 12, 2000. The petitioners did not

submit a rebuttal brief. We held a

hearing on June 29, 2000. The

Department has conducted this

administrative review in accordance

with section 751 of the Act.

Scope of Review

Imports covered by this review are

shipments of EMD from Greece. EMD is

manganese dioxide (MnO2) that has

been refined in an electrolysis process.

The subject merchandise is an

intermediate product used in the

production of dry-cell batteries. EMD is

sold in three physical forms (powder,

chip, or plate) and two grades (alkaline

and zinc chloride). EMD in all three

forms and both grades is included in the

scope of the order. This merchandise is

currently classifiable under item

number 2820.10.0000 of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (HTSUS). The HTSUS

number is provided for convenience and

customs purposes. It is not

determinative of the products subject to

the order. The written product

description remains dispositive.

Analysis of Comments Received

All issues raised in the case and

rebuttal briefs by the petitioners and

Tosoh are addressed in the ‘‘Issues and

Decision Memorandum’’ (Decision

Memo) from Richard W. Moreland,

Deputy Assistant Secretary, to Troy H.

Cribb, Acting Assistant Secretary, dated

November 6, 2000, which is hereby

adopted by this notice. A list of the

issues which parties have raised and to

which we have responded, all of which

are in the Decision Memo, is attached to

this notice as an appendix. This

Decision Memo, which is a public

document, is on file in the Central

Records Unit, Main Commerce Building,

Room B–099, and is accessible on the

Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov. The paper

copy and electronic version of the

Decision Memo are identical in content.

Sunset Revocation

On April 20, 2000, the International

Trade Commission (ITC), pursuant to

section 751(c) of the Act, determined

that revocation of the antidumping duty

order on EMD from Greece would not be

likely to lead to continuation or

recurrence of material injury within a

reasonably foreseeable time. Therefore,

because the order was revoked on May

31, 2000, as a result of the ITC’s

determination with an effective date of

January 1, 2000, no deposit

requirements will be effective for

shipments entered, or withdrawn from

warehouse, for consumption on or after

the publication date of the final results

of this administrative review.

Changes From the Preliminary Results

We made one change in our

calculations for these final results. We

used Tosoh’s revised U.S. variable costof-manufacturing figure in our margin

calculation (see Decision Memorandum,

Comment 2).

Final Results of Review

We have determined that a weightedaverage margin of zero percent exists for

Tosoh for the period April 1, 1998,

through March 31, 1999. The

Department will issue appraisement

instructions directly to the Customs

Service.

This notice also serves as a reminder

to parties subject to administrative

protective order (APO) of their

responsibility concerning the

disposition of proprietary information

disclosed under APO in accordance

with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely

notification of return/destruction of

APO materials or conversion to judicial

protective order is hereby requested.

Failure to comply with the regulations

and the terms of an APO is a

sanctionable violation.

We are issuing and publishing this

determination in accordance with

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

Act.

Dated: November 3, 2000.

Richard W. Moreland,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

Appendix

Comments and Responses

1. Facts Available

2. Foreign Like Product

3. Home Market Viability/Particular Market

Situation

4. Date of Sale

5. Credit Expense

[FR Doc. 00–29258 Filed 11–14–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–588–815; A–201–802]

Continuation of Antidumping Duty

Orders: Gray Portland Cement and

Cement Clinker from Japan and

Mexico

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of continuation of

antidumping duty rrders: Gray portland

cement and cement clinker from Japan

and Mexico.

SUMMARY: On March 3, 2000, and July 3,

2000, the Department of Commerce

(‘‘the 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 gray

portland cement and cement clinker

from Japan and Mexico would be likely

to lead to continuation or recurrence of

dumping. See Gray Portland Cement

and Cement Clinker From Japan; Final

Results of Antidumping Duty Expedited

Sunset Review, 65 FR 11549 (March 3,

2000), and Gray Portland Cement and

Cement Clinker From Mexico; Final

Results of Full Sunset Review, 65 FR

41049 (July 3, 2000).

On November 1, 2000, the

International Trade Commission (‘‘the

Commission’’), pursuant to section

751(c) of the Act, determined that

revocation of the antidumping duty

orders on gray portland cement and

cement clinker from Japan and Mexico

would be likely to lead to continuation

or recurrence of material injury to an

industry in the United States within a

reasonably foreseeable time. See Gray

Portland Cement and Cement Clinker