Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 42 / Tuesday, March 4, 1997 / Notices 9735

Dated: February 26, 1997.

Ted C. Stubblefield,

Forest Supervisor.

[FR Doc. 97–5234 Filed 3–3–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

Intent To Revoke Antidumping Duty

Orders and Findings and To Terminate

Suspended Investigations

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of intent To revoke

antidumping duty orders and findings

and To terminate suspended

investigations.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

(the Department) is notifying the public

of its intent to revoke the antidumping

duty orders and findings and to

terminate the suspended investigations

listed below. Domestic interested parties

who object to these revocations and

terminations must submit their

comments in writing no later than the

last day of March 1997.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 4, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael Panfeld or the analyst listed

under Antidumping Proceeding at:

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution

Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Department may revoke an

antidumping duty order or finding or

terminate a suspended investigation if

the Secretary of Commerce concludes

that it is no longer of interest to

interested parties. Accordingly, as

required by § 353.25(d)(4) of the

Department’s regulations, we are

notifying the public of our intent to

revoke the following antidumping duty

orders and findings and to terminate the

suspended investigations for which the

Department has not received a request

to conduct an administrative review for

the most recent four consecutive annual

anniversary months:

Antidumping Proceeding

Australia

Canned Bartlett Pears

A–602–039

38 FR 7566

March 23, 1973

Contact: Mathew Rosenbaum at (202)

482–0198

Canada

Construction Castings

A–122–503

51 FR 17220

March 5, 1986

Contact: Laurel LaCivita at (202) 482–

4470

Chile

Standard Carnations

A–337–602

52 FR 8939

March 20, 1987

Contact: Lyn Johnson at (202) 482–

5287

France

Brass Sheet & Strip

A–427–602

52 FR 6995

March 6, 1987

Contact: Thomas Killiam at (202) 482–

2704

Israel

Oil Country Tubular Goods

A–508–602

52 FR 7000

March 6, 1987

Contact: Michael Heaney at (202)

482–4475

Italy

Certain Valves and Connections of

Brass, for Use in Fire Protection

Equipment

A–475–401

50 FR 8354

March 1, 1985

Contact: Leon McNeill at (202) 482–

4236

Italy

Brass Sheet & Strip

A–475–601

52 FR 6997

March 6, 1987

Contact: Tom Killiam at (202) 482–

2704

Japan

Televisions

A–588–015

36 FR 4597

March 10, 1971

Contact: Sheila Forbes at (202) 482–

5253

Sweden

Brass Sheet & Strip

A–401–601

52 FR 6998

March 6, 1987

Contact: Tom Killiam at (202) 482–

2704

Taiwan

Light-Walled Welded Rectangular

Carbon Steel Tubing

A–583–803

54 FR 12467

March 27, 1989

Contact: Thomas O. Barlow at (202)

482–0410

The People’s Republic of China

Chloropicrin

A–570–002

49 FR 10691

March 22, 1984

Contact: Andrea Chu at (202) 482–

4794

If no interested party requests an

administrative review in accordance

with the Department’s notice of

opportunity to request administrative

review, and no domestic interested

party objects to the Department’s intent

to revoke or terminate pursuant to this

notice, we shall conclude that the

antidumping duty orders, findings, and

suspended investigations are no longer

of interest to interested parties and shall

proceed with the revocation or

termination.

Opportunity To Object

Domestic interested parties, as

defined in § 353.2(k) (3), (4), (5), and (6)

of the Department’s regulations, may

object to the Department’s intent to

revoke these antidumping duty orders

and findings or to terminate the

suspended investigations by the last day

of March 1997. Any submission to the

Department must contain the name and

case number of the proceeding and a

statement that explains how the

objecting party qualifies as a domestic

interested party under § 353.2(k) (3), (4),

(5), and (6) of the Department’s

regulations.

Seven copies of such objections

should be submitted to the Assistant

Secretary for Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Room B–099, U.S. Department of

Commerce, Washington, D.C. 20230.

You must also include the pertinent

certification(s) in accordance with

§ 353.31(g) and § 353.31(i) of the

Department’s regulations. In addition,

the Department requests that a copy of

the objection be sent to Michael F.

Panfeld in Room 4203. This notice is in

accordance with 19 CFR 353.25(d)(4)(i).

(Dated): February 25, 1997.

Richard W. Moreland,

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for AD/

CVD Enforcement.

[FR Doc. 97–5230 Filed 3–3–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[A–533–809]

Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges

From India: Final Results of

Antidumping Duty New Shipper

Reviews

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of

antidumping duty new shipper reviews.
9736 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 42 / Tuesday, March 4, 1997 / Notices

SUMMARY: On November 25, 1996, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) published the preliminary

results of its new shipper reviews of the

antidumping duty order on certain

stainless steel flanges (SSF) from India

(61 FR 59861). These reviews cover

exports of this merchandise to the

United States by two manufacturer/

exporters, Isibars Ltd. (Isibars) and

Patheja Forgings and Auto Parts Ltd.

(Patheja), during the period September

1, 1995 through February 29, 1996.

We gave interested parties an

opportunity to comment on our

preliminary results. We received

comments from respondent Patheja

concerning alleged clerical errors. The

review indicates the existence of a

dumping margin for Patheja for this

period.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 4, 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 November 25,

1996, the Department published in the

Federal Register the preliminary results

of these new shipper reviews of the

antidumping duty order on SSF from

India (61 FR 59861). The Department

has now completed these new shipper

reviews 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 reviews cover two Indian

manufacturer/exporters, Isibars and

Patheja, and the period September 1,

1995 through February 29, 1996.

Analysis of Comments Received

We gave interested parties an

opportunity to comment on the

preliminary results. We received

comments from Patheja on December

10, 1996, concerning alleged clerical

errors.

Comment 1: Patheja argues that it

provided audited figures on August 22,

1996, to update provisional data

submitted earlier, but the Department

relied instead on the earlier, provisional

data for the preliminary results. Patheja

argues that the Department should

revise its analysis using the audited

figures pertaining to cost of

manufacturing, general and

administrative expenses, interest

expenses and profitability.

Department’s Position: We agree and

have revised our analysis accordingly.

Comment 2: Patheja argues that the

Department inadvertently added vendor

charges, a component of material costs,

twice, resulting in double counting of

those charges.

Department’s Position: We agree and

have revised our analysis accordingly.

Comment 3: Patheja argues that the

Department failed to deduct the value of

scrap metal from the cost of

manufacturing.

Department’s Position: We agree and

have revised our analysis accordingly.

Comment 4: Patheja argues that the

Department used as an ending date for

the credit expense period for U.S. sales

the date of October 11, 1996, whereas

the correct date of payment is October

30, 1996.

Department’s Position: We agree and

have revised our analysis accordingly.

Final Results of Reviews

As a result of our analysis of the

comments received, we have

determined that the following weightedaverage dumping margins exist for

Isibars and Patheja:

Manufacturer/exporter Period Margin

(percent)

Isibars ......................................................................................................................................................................... 9/1/95–

2/29/96

0.00

Patheja ....................................................................................................................................................................... 9/1/95–

2/29/96

1.61

Individual differences between the

U.S. price and normal value may vary

from the above percentages. The

Department shall instruct the Customs

Service to liquidate all appropriate

entries, and to assess no antidumping

duties on Isibars’ 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 rate for the reviewed firms

will be as 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-fair-value

(LTFV) investigation, but the
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 42 / Tuesday, March 4, 1997 / Notices 9737

manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate

will be that rate established for the

manufacturer of the merchandise in

earlier reviews or the original

investigation, whichever is the most

recent; and

(4) If neither the exporter nor the

manufacturer is a firm covered in this or

any previous review conducted by the

Department, the cash deposit rate will

be 162.14 percent, 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

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 (19 U.S.C.

1675(a)(2)(B)) and 19 CFR § 353.22(h).

Dated: February 24, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–5229 Filed 3–3–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

ADMINISTRATION

[A–489–807]

Notice of Final Determination of Sales

at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Steel

Concrete Reinforcing Bars From

Turkey

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 4, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Shawn Thompson, Cameron Werker, or

Fabian Rivelis, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone:

(202) 482–1776, (202) 482–3874, or

(202) 482–3853, respectively.

The Applicable Statute

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).

Final Determination

We determine that certain steel

concrete reinforcing bars (rebar) from

Turkey are being, or are likely to be,

sold in the United States at less than fair

value (LTFV), as provided in § 735 of

the Act.

Case History

Since the preliminary determination

in this investigation (Notice of

Preliminary Determination and

Postponement of Final Determination:

Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars

from Turkey, 61 FR 53203, (Oct. 10,

1996)), the following events have

occurred:

In October 1996, we issued

supplemental sales and cost

questionnaires to Colakoglu Metalurji

A.S. (Colakoglu), Ekinciler Demir Celik

A.S. (Ekinciler), and Habas Sinai Ve

Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi A.S.

(Habas), and a supplemental cost

questionnaire to Izmir Metalurji

Fabrikasi Turk A. S. (Metas). Responses

to these questionnaires were also

received in October 1996.

From October through December

1996, we verified the questionnaire

responses of Colakoglu, Ekinciler,

Habas, and Metas. We also verified that

the following companies had no

shipments of subject merchandise to the

United States during the period of

investigation (POI): Cebitas Demir Celik

Endustrisi A.S., Cukurova Celik

Endustrisi A.S., Icdas Istanbul Celik ve

Demir Izabe Sanayii A.S., Diler Demir

Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S., Diler

Dis Ticaret A.S., and Yazici Demir Celik

Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S.

On January 14 and 27, 1997, the

Department requested that Colakoglu

and Habas submit new computer tapes

to include data corrections identified

through verification. This information

was submitted on January 17 and 29,

1997, respectively.

Petitioners (i.e., AmeriSteel

Corporation and New Jersey Steel

Corporation) and three of the

respondents (i.e., Colakoglu, Ekinciler,

and Habas) submitted case briefs on

January 22, 1997, and rebuttal briefs on

January 27, 1997. No case or rebuttal

briefs were received from any other

interested party.

Scope of Investigation

The product covered by this

investigation is all stock deformed steel

concrete reinforcing bars sold in straight

lengths and coils. This includes all hotrolled deformed rebar rolled from billet

steel, rail steel, axle steel, or low-alloy

steel. It excludes (i) plain round rebar,

(ii) rebar that a processor has further

worked or fabricated, and (iii) all coated

rebar. Deformed rebar is currently

classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)

under item numbers 7213.10.000 and

7214.20.000. The HTSUS subheadings

are provided for convenience and

customs purposes. The written

description of the scope of this

investigation is dispositive.

Period of Investigation

The POI is January 1, 1995, through

December 31, 1995.

Facts Available

One of the respondents in this case,

Izmir Demir Celik Sanayi A.S. (IDC),

failed to respond completely to the

Department’s requests for information.

Specifically, IDC submitted a response

to Sections A, B, and C of the May 9

questionnaire, but did not provide any

subsequent information, including a

response to the supplemental sales

questionnaire and the cost of production

(COP) questionnaire.

On August 12, 1996, IDC informed the

Department that it would not be able to

provide any additional information in a

timely manner and requested that the

Department use the information already

on the record in its analysis. However,

we were unable to perform any analysis

for IDC without a COP response because

COP data is an essential component in

our margin calculations. We afforded

IDC an opportunity to request additional

time for completion of its responses.

However, IDC neither requested an

extension nor submitted any additional

data.

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 or manner requested; (3)

significantly impedes a determination

under the antidumping statute; or (4)

provides such information but the

information cannot be verified, the

Department shall, subject to subsections

782(c)(1) and (e) of the Act, use facts

otherwise available in reaching the

applicable determination. Because IDC