Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 1997 / Notices 1317

States and the period May 1, 1995

through April 30, 1996.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 9, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael J. Heaney or Linda Ludwig,

Office of AD/CVD Enforcement, Group

III, Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,

DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482–4475 or

482–3833, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Because it is not practicable to

complete this review within the time

limits mandated by the Uruguay Rounds

Agreements Act (245 days from the last

day of the anniversary month for

preliminary determinations, 120

additional days for final

determinations), pursuant to Section

751(a)(3)(A) of the Trade and Tariff Act

of 1930, as amended, the Department is

extending the time limit for completion

of the preliminary results until June 2,

1997. See Memorandum to the file dated

December 13, 1996.

This extension is in accordance with

section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of

1930, as amended (19 U.S.C.

1675(a)(3)(A)).

Dated: December 19, 1996.

Ronald L. MacDonald,

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for AD/

CVD Enforcement, Group III.

[FR Doc. 97–497 Filed 1–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M

[A–533–809]

Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges

From India: Final Results of

Antidumping Duty New Shipper

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of

antidumping duty new shipper review.

SUMMARY: On October 1, 1996, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) published the preliminary

results of its new shipper review of the

antidumping duty order on certain

stainless steel flanges (SSF) from India

(61 FR 51261). This review covers

exports of this merchandise to the

United States by one manufacturer/

exporter, Viraj Forgings Ltd. (Viraj),

during the period March 1, 1995

through August 31, 1995.

We gave interested parties an

opportunity to comment on our

preliminary results. We received no

comments. The review indicates the

existence of no dumping margins for

this firm for this period.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 9, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thomas Killiam or John Kugelman,

Office of AD/CVD Enforcement, Group

III, Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone:

(202) 482–2704 or 482–0649,

respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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 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’s regulations are to the

current regulations, as amended by the

interim regulations published in the

Federal Register on May 11, 1995 (60

FR 25130).

Background

The antidumping duty order on SSF

from India was published February 9,

1994 (59 FR 5994). On October 1, 1996,

the Department published in the

Federal Register the preliminary results

of its new shipper review of the

antidumping duty order on SSF from

India (61 FR 51261). The Department

has now completed this new shipper

review in accordance with section 751

of the Act.

Scope of the Review

The products covered by this order

are certain forged stainless steel flanges

both finished and not finished,

generally manufactured to specification

ASTM A–182, and made in alloys such

as 304, 304L, 316, and 316L. The scope

includes five general types of flanges.

They are weld neck, used for butt-weld

line connection; threaded, used for

threaded line connections; slip-on and

lap joint, used with stub-ends/butt-weld

line connections; socket weld, used to

fit pipe into a machined recession; and

blind, used to seal off a line. The sizes

of the flanges within the scope range

generally from one to six inches;

however, all sizes of the abovedescribed merchandise are included in

the scope. Specifically excluded from

the scope of this order are cast stainless

steel flanges. Cast stainless steel flanges

generally are manufactured to

specification ASTM A–351. The flanges

subject to this order are currently

classifiable under subheadings

7307.21.1000 and 7307.21.5000 of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (HTSUS). The HTSUS

subheadings are provided for

convenience and customs purposes. The

written description of the scope of this

order remains dispositive.

The review covers one Indian

manufacturer/exporter, Viraj, and the

period March 1, 1995 through August

31, 1995.

Final Results of Review

We gave interested parties an

opportunity to comment on the

preliminary results. We received no

comments. We have determined that a

margin of zero percent exists for Viraj

for the period March 1, 1995 through

August 31, 1995.

The Department shall instruct the

U.S. Customs Service to assess no

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective for all

shipments of subject merchandise

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after the

publication date of these final results, as

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

Act:

(1) The cash deposit rate for Viraj will

be zero percent;

(2) for exporters not covered in this

review, but covered in previous reviews

or the original less-than-fair-value

(LTFV) investigation, the cash deposit

rate will continue to be the companyspecific rate published for the most

recent period;

(3) if the exporter is not a firm

covered in this review, previous

reviews, or the original LTFV

investigation, but the manufacturer is,

the cash deposit rate will be the rate

established for the most recent period

for the manufacturer of the

merchandise; and

(4) the cash deposit rate for all other

manufacturers or exporters will

continue to be 162.14 percent. This rate

is the ‘‘All Others’’ rate established in

the LTFV investigation.

This notice also serves as a final

reminder to importers of their

responsibility under 19 CFR § 353.26 to

file a certificate regarding the

reimbursement of antidumping duties

prior to liquidation of the relevant

entries during the review period. Failure

to comply with this requirement could

result in the Secretary’s presumption

that reimbursement of antidumping

duties occurred and the subsequent
1318 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 1997 / Notices

assessment of double antidumping

duties.

This notice also serves as a reminder

to parties subject to administrative

protective order (APOs) of their

responsibility concerning the

disposition of proprietary information

disclosed under APO in accordance

with 19 CFR § 353.34(d). Timely written

notification of the return/destruction of

APO materials or conversion to judicial

protective order is hereby requested.

Failure to comply with the regulations

and terms of an APO is a violation

which is subject to sanction. This

administrative review and this notice

are in accordance with section

751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR

§ 353.22.

Dated: December 30, 1996.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–507 Filed 1–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[A–201–601]

Fresh Cut Flowers From Mexico;

Preliminary Results and Partial

Termination of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results

and partial termination of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

(the Department) is conducting an

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on certain fresh

cut flowers from Mexico. This review

was initiated in response to requests by

respondents, Rancho del Pacifico

(Pacifico) and Rancho Guacatay

(Guacatay). Although we initiated a

review of both producers, we are

terminating the review with respect to

Guacatay because the respondent timely

withdrew its request for review. This

review covers one producer/exporter

and entries of the subject merchandise

into the United States during the period

April 1, 1995 through March 31, 1996.

We have preliminarily determined

that sales have not been made below

normal value (NV). Interested parties are

invited to comment on these

preliminary results. Parties who submit

comments are requested to submit with

each comment (1) a statement of the

issue and (2) a brief summary of the

comment.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 9, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Daniel Singer or Leon McNeill, AD/CVD

Enforcement, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone:

(202) 482–4733.

Applicable Statutes and Regulations

Unless otherwise stated, 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’s regulations are to the

current regulations, as amended by the

interim regulations published in the

Federal Register on May 11, 1995 (60

FR 25130).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On April 23, 1987, the Department

published in the Federal Register an

antidumping duty order on certain fresh

cut flowers from Mexico (52 FR 13491).

On April 30, 1996, Pacifico and

Guacatay requested that the Department

conduct an administrative review in

accordance with § 353.22 (a)(1) of the

Department’s regulations. Pacifico and

Guacatay also requested that the

Department revoke the antidumping

duty order as it pertains to them upon

completion of the review. We published

a notice of initiation on May 24, 1996

(61 FR 26518), covering Pacifico and

Guacatay, and the period April 1, 1995

through March 31, 1996. On July 2,

1996, Guacatay timely withdrew its

request for review. Because there were

no other requests for review for

Guacatay from any other interested

party, the Department is now

terminating this review in part in

accordance with § 353.22(a)(5). We shall

instruct the U.S. Customs Service to

liquidate Guacatay’s entries for this

period at the rates in effect at the time

of entry. Because Guacatay is a

previously reviewed company, the cash

deposit rate will continue to be the

company-specific rate currently in

effect.

The Department is conducting this

review in accordance with section 751

of the Act.

Scope of the Review

The products covered by this review

are certain fresh cut flowers, defined as

standard carnations, standard

chrysanthemums, and pompon

chrysanthemums. During the period of

review, such merchandise was

classifiable under Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)

items 0603.10.7010 (pompon

chrysanthemums), 0603.10.7020

(standard chrysanthemums), and

0603.10.7030 (standard carnations). The

HTSUS item numbers are provided for

convenience and Customs purposes

only. The written description remains

dispositive.

This review covers sales of the subject

merchandise entered into the United

States during the period April 1, 1995

through March 31, 1996.

Determination Not To Revoke

On April 30, 1996, Pacifico requested

revocation of the antidumping order,

pursuant to § 353.222(d) of the

Department’s proposed regulations.

According to § 351.222(d) of the

proposed regulations, the Department

need not conduct a review of the second

year of the three-year period of sales at

not less than fair value (LTFV) required

for revocation. Because the proposed

regulations have not been issued as final

regulations, the current regulations

remain in effect.

Under § 353.25(a)(2)(i) of the

Department’s current regulations, the

Department may revoke an order if one

or more producers or resellers covered

by the order have sold subject

merchandise at not less than NV for a

period of at least three consecutive

years. Although Pacifico was a

respondent in the administrative

reviews of the 1992/1993 POR and

1993/1994 POR, earning zero margins in

both reviews, Pacifico did not

participate in the administrative review

of the 1994/1995 POR. See 61 FR 28166

(June 4, 1996). Therefore, the

Department finds Pacifico ineligible for

revocation at this time.

Duty Absorption

On June 21, 1996, the petitioner

requested that the Department

determine whether antidumping duties

had been absorbed by Pacifico during

the period of review (POR) pursuant to

section 751(a)(4) of the Act. Section 751

(a)(4) provides for the Department, if

requested, to determine, during an

administrative review initiated two

years or four years after publication of

the order, whether antidumping duties

have been absorbed by a foreign

producer or exporter subject to the

order, if the subject merchandise is sold

in the United States through an importer

who is affiliated with such foreign

producer or exporter. Section 751(a)(4)

was added to the Act by the URAA. The

Department’s interim regulations do not

address this provision of the Act.

For transition orders as defined in

section 751(c)(6)(C) of the Act, i.e.,

orders in effect as of January 1, 1995,