Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 7 / Friday, January 10, 1997 / Notices 1435

submitted in accordance with 19 CFR

353.31(e) and shall be served on all

interested parties on the Department’s

service list in accordance with 19 CFR

353.31(g). Persons interested in

attending the hearing should contact the

Department for the date and time of the

hearing. The Department will publish

the final results of this changed

circumstances review, including the

results of its analysis of issues raised in

any written comments.

This notice is in accordance with

sections 751 (b)(1) and (d) of the Act

and sections 353.22(f) and 353.25(d) of

the Department’s regulations.

Dated: December 31, 1996.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–631 Filed 1–9–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[A–583–815]

Certain Welded Stainless Steel Pipe

From Taiwan; Preliminary Results of

Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of

Administrative Review.

SUMMARY: In response to a request by

respondent Ta Chen Stainless Pipe Co.,

Ltd. (Ta Chen), the Department of

Commerce (the Department) is

conducting an administrative review of

the antidumping duty order on certain

welded stainless steel pipe from Taiwan

(A–583–815). This review covers one

manufacturer/exporter of the subject

merchandise to the United States during

the period December 1, 1994 through

November 30, 1995.

We preliminarily determine that sales

of welded stainless steel pipe (WSSP)

have been made below the normal value

(NV). If these preliminary results are

adopted in our final results of

administrative review, we will instruct

the U.S. Customs Service to assess

antidumping duties equal to the

difference between United States price

and NV. Interested parties are invited to

comment on these preliminary results.

Parties who submit comments are

requested to submit with the argument:

(1) A statement of the issues; and (2) a

brief summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 10, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert James at (202) 482–5222 or John

Kugelman at (202) 482–0649,

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty

Enforcement Group III, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.

APPLICABLE STATUTE AND REGULATIONS:

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations

to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended

(the Tariff Act), are to the provisions

effective January 1, 1995, the effective

date of the amendments made to the

Tariff Act by the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act. 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 December 30, 1992, the

Department published in the Federal

Register the antidumping duty order on

WSSP from Taiwan (57 FR 62300). On

December 4, 1995, the Department

published the notice of ‘‘Opportunity to

Request Administrative Review’’ for the

period December 1, 1994 through

November 30, 1995 (60 FR 62070). In

accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(a)(1)

(1995), Ta Chen requested that we

conduct a review of its sales. On

February 1, 1996, we published in the

Federal Register a notice of initiation of

this antidumping duty administrative

review covering the period December 1,

1994 through November 30, 1995 (61 FR

3670).

Because it was not practicable to

complete this review within the normal

time frame, on September 12, 1996, we

published in the Federal Register our

notice of extension of time limits for

this review (61 FR 48126). As a result,

we extended the deadline for these

preliminary results to December 30,

1996. The deadline for the final results

will continue to be 120 days after

publication of these preliminary results.

Scope of the Review

The merchandise subject to this

administrative review is certain welded

austenitic stainless steel pipe (WSSP)

that meets the standards and

specifications set forth by the American

Society for Testing and Materials

(ASTM) for the welded form of

chromium-nickel pipe designated

ASTM A–312. The merchandise covered

by the scope of the order also includes

austenitic welded stainless steel pipes

made according to the standards of

other nations which are comparable to

ASTM A–312.

WSSP is produced by forming

stainless steel flat-rolled products into a

tubular configuration and welding along

the seam. WSSP is a commodity product

generally used as a conduit to transmit

liquids or gases. Major applications for

WSSP include, but are not limited to,

digester lines, blow lines,

pharmaceutical lines, petrochemical

stock lines, brewery process and

transport lines, general food processing

lines, automotive paint lines, and paper

process machines.

Imports of WSSP are currently

classifiable under the following

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (HTS) subheadings:

7306.40.5005, 7306.04.5015,

7306.40.5040, 7306.40.5065, and

7306.40.5085. Although these

subheadings include both pipes and

tubes, the scope of this investigation is

limited to welded austenitic stainless

steel pipes. Although the HTS

subheadings are provided for

convenience and Customs purposes, our

written description of the scope of this

order is dispositive.

The period for this review is

December 1, 1994 through November

30, 1995. This review covers one

manufacturer/exporter, Ta Chen.

Use of Facts Available

We preliminarily determine that the

use of facts available is appropriate for

a portion of Ta Chen’s U.S. sales, in

accordance with section 776(a) of the

Tariff Act, because Ta Chen

mischaracterized a portion of its U.S.

sales as EP sales when, in fact, these are

properly considered Constructed Export

Price (CEP) sales. Ta Chen reported in

its initial questionnaire response of

April 30, 1996 that all of its U.S. sales

were EP sales with each reported sale

being made to an unaffiliated customer.

However, in its November 12, 1996,

supplemental questionnaire response,

Ta Chen provided additional

information with respect to one U.S.

customer which clearly indicates that

Ta Chen and this customer were

affiliated within the meaning of section

771(33) of the Tariff Act.

Section 771(33)(G) of the Tariff Act

holds that two parties shall be

considered ‘‘affiliated’’ if one party

‘‘controls’’ the other. One party controls

another if the party ‘‘is legally or

operationally in a position to exercise

restraint or direction over the other

person.’’ From the information provided

by Ta Chen, we have preliminarily

determined that Ta Chen was

‘‘operationally in a position to exercise

restraint or direction over’’ the U.S.

customer at issue. Ta Chen reported that

it controlled this customer’s

disbursements and had physical

custody of its signature stamp used to
1436 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 7 / Friday, January 10, 1997 / Notices

execute checks and other instruments.

The two parties also shared common

sales department personnel. Further, Ta

Chen had full and complete access, via

computer modem, to this customer’s

accounting system, including its

accounts receivable, accounts payable,

payroll, and other company books. Ta

Chen also indicated that its president

participated directly in negotiating the

terms of certain sales this customer

made to subsequent purchasers of WSSP

in the United States. Finally, this

customer offered its accounts receivable

and inventory as security for a line of

credit obtained from a local bank by Ta

Chen International (TCI), Ta Chen’s

wholly-owned U.S. subsidiary. Thus,

this customer placed its continued

ability to operate in the hands of a

putatively unaffiliated party, TCI. Based

upon the totality of evidence before the

Department in this matter, we

preliminarily determine that Ta Chen

effectively exercised operational control

over this putatively unaffiliated

customer. See the public version of the

Department’s Preliminary Analysis

Memorandum to the File, on file in

Room B–099 of the Main Commerce

Building.

Since Ta Chen reported its sales

prices to this affiliated customer, and

not the customer’s sales prices to the

first unaffiliated customer in the United

States, Ta Chen failed to provide the

Department with a complete and

reliable listing of its U.S. sales. We

preliminarily determine, therefore,

pursuant to section 776(a)(2) of the

Tariff Act, that Ta Chen withheld

information requested by the

Department by failing to report all of its

sales to its first unaffiliated customers in

the United States. In selecting the facts

available, section 776(b) of the Tariff

Act provides that where, as here, an

interested party has failed to cooperate

by not acting to the best of its ability to

comply with a request for information,

the Department may use an inference

that is adverse to the interests of that

party in selecting among the facts

available. Section 776(b) also authorizes

the Department to use as adverse facts

available information derived from the

petition, the final determination, a

previous administrative review, or other

information placed on the record.

Because information from prior

proceedings constitutes secondary

information, section 776(c) of the Tariff

Act provides that the Department shall,

to the extent practicable, corroborate

that secondary information from

independent sources reasonably at its

disposal. The Statement of

Administrative Action (SAA) notes that

‘‘corroborate’’ means simply that the

Department will satisfy itself that the

secondary information to be used has

probative value (see H. Doc. 316, Vol. 1,

103d Cong., 2d Sess. 870 (1996)). To

corroborate secondary information, the

Department will, to the extent

practicable, examine the reliability and

relevance of the information to be used.

However, unlike for other types of

information, such as input costs or

selling expenses, there are no

independent sources for dumping

margins. Thus, when in an

administrative review the Department

chooses as facts available a dumping

margin from a prior segment of the

proceeding, it is not necessary to

question the reliability of the margin for

the time period. With respect to the

relevance aspect of corroboration,

however, the Department will consider

information reasonably at its disposal as

to whether there are circumstances that

would render a margin irrelevant. In

this case, there are no circumstances

present to indicate that the selected

margin is not appropriate as facts

available. In this case, we have used the

highest rate from any prior segment of

the proceeding, 31.9 percent, the highest

rate from the less-than-fair-value (LTFV)

determination, for Ta Chen’s sales made

through this particular U.S. customer.

Export Price

Ta Chen reported in its initial and

supplemental questionnaire responses

that all of its U.S. sales were first sold

to unrelated purchasers prior to

importation into the United States. A

substantial portion of these sales were

made through Ta Chen’s U.S.

subsidiary, TCI. Ta Chen claims that for

each of these sales, TCI acted merely as

a ‘‘facilitator,’’ handling sales- and

Customs-related paper work. In each

instance, according to Ta Chen, the

price and quantity of the U.S. sale were

determined prior to importation into the

United States. The remainder of Ta

Chen’s U.S. sales were to an unrelated

importer, who subsequently resold the

merchandise after importation into the

United States. Therefore, with the

exception noted above under ‘‘Use of

Facts Available,’’ in calculating U.S.

price we used export price (EP) for all

of Ta Chen’s sales, as defined in section

772(a) of the Tariff Act. We calculated

EP as the packed, delivered or ex-U.S.

port price to unaffiliated purchasers in

the United States. In accordance with

section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act, we

reduced this price by Taiwanese presale inland freight, international ocean

freight, marine insurance, Taiwanese

brokerage and handling, U.S. brokerage

and handling, U.S. duty, and U.S.

inland freight. Where appropriate, we

also reduced the EP by Taiwanese and

U.S. bank charges.

Duty Absorption

On July 16, 1996, petitioners

requested that the Department

determine whether Ta Chen had

absorbed antidumping duties during the

period of review (POR) pursuant to

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

Section 751(a)(4) requires 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 Tariff Act by

the URAA. The Department’s interim

regulations do not address this

provision of the Tariff Act.

For transition orders as defined in

section 751(c)(6)(C) of the Tariff Act,

i.e., orders in effect as of January 1,

1995, section 351.213(j)(2) of the

Department’s proposed antidumping

regulations provides that the

Department will make a duty absorption

determination, if requested, for any

administrative review initiated in 1996

or 1998. See Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking, 61 FR 7308, 7366

(February 27, 1996). The preamble to

the proposed antidumping regulations

explains that reviews initiated in 1996

will be considered initiated in the

second year and reviews initiated in

1998 will be considered initiated in the

fourth year. Id. at 7317. Although these

proposed antidumping regulations are

not yet binding upon the Department,

they do constitute a public statement of

how the Department expects to proceed

in applying section 751(a)(4) of the

amended statute. This approach assures

that interested parties will have the

opportunity to request a duty absorption

determination on entries for which the

second and fourth years following an

order have already passed, prior to the

time for sunset review of the order

under section 751(c). Because the order

on WSSP from Taiwan has been in

effect since 1992, this qualifies as a

transition order. Therefore, based on the

policy stated above, the Department will

first consider a request for an absorption

determination during a review initiated

in 1996. This being a review initiated in

1996, we are making a duty-absorption

determination as part of this segment of

the proceeding.

The statute provides for a

determination on duty absorption if the
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 7 / Friday, January 10, 1997 / Notices 1437

subject merchandise is sold in the

United States through an affiliated

importer. In this case, TCI, Ta Chen’s

wholly owned subsidiary, is the

importer of record for a majority of Ta

Chen’s U.S. sales, i.e., the exporter and

the importer are the same entity.

Therefore, the importer and the exporter

are ‘‘affiliated’’ within the meaning of

751(a)(4). Furthermore, we have

preliminarily determined that there is a

dumping margin for Ta Chen on 13.47

percent (by quantity) of its U.S. sales

during the POR. In addition, we cannot

conclude from the record that the

unaffiliated purchaser in the United

States will pay the ultimately assessed

duty. Under these circumstances,

therefore, we preliminarily find that

antidumping duties have been absorbed

by Ta Chen on 13.57 percent of its U.S.

sales.

Normal Value

A. Viability

Based upon (i) our comparison of the

aggregate quantity of home market and

U.S. sales, (ii) the absence of any

information that a particular marketing

situation in Taiwan does not permit a

proper comparison, and (iii) the fact that

Ta Chen’s quantity of sales in the home

market exceeded five percent of its sales

to the U.S. market, we determined that

the quantity of foreign like product Ta

Chen sold in Taiwan was sufficient to

permit a proper comparison with the

sales of subject merchandise to the

United States pursuant to section 773(a)

of the Tariff Act. Therefore, in

accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i)

of the Tariff Act, we based NV on the

prices at which the foreign like products

were first sold for consumption in the

exporting market, i.e., Taiwan.

B. Cost-of-Production Analysis

Because we disregarded sales below

the cost of production in the LTFV

investigation (the most-recently

completed segment of these

proceedings), we have reasonable

grounds to believe or suspect that sales

of the foreign like product under

consideration for determining NV in

this review may have been at prices

below the cost of production (COP), as

provided in section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of

the Tariff Act (see Final Determination

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Certain

Welded Stainless Steel Pipe from

Taiwan, 57 FR 53705 (November 12,

1992)). Therefore, pursuant to section

773(b)(1) of the Tariff Act, we initiated

a COP investigation of sales by Ta Chen

(see Memorandum to the File, dated

February 13, 1996, available in Room B–

099 of the Main Commerce Building).

In accordance with section 773(b)(3)

of the Tariff Act, we calculated COP

based on the sum of materials and

fabrication employed in producing the

foreign like product, plus selling,

general, and administrative expenses

(SG&A) and the cost of all expenses

incidental to placing the foreign like

product in condition packed ready for

shipment. We relied on the home

market sales and COP information Ta

Chen provided in its questionnaire

responses.

After calculating COP, we tested

whether home market sales of subject

WSSP were made at prices below COP

within an extended period of time and

whether such prices permit the recovery

of all costs within a reasonable period

of time. We compared model-specific

COPs to the reported home market

prices less any applicable movement

charges, and post-sale price adjustments

(reported as discounts).

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the

Tariff Act, where less than twenty

percent of Ta Chen’s home market sales

for a model were at prices less than the

COP, we did not disregard any belowcost sales of that model because we

determined that the below cost sales

were not made within an extended

period of time in ‘‘substantial

quantities.’’ Where twenty percent or

more of Ta Chen’s home market sales

were at prices less than the COP, we

determined that such sales were made

within an extended period of time in

substantial quantities in accordance

with section 773(b)(2) (B) and (C) of the

Tariff Act. To determine whether such

sales were at prices which would not

permit the full recovery of all costs

within a reasonable period of time, in

accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of

the Tariff Act, we compared home

market prices to the weighted-average

COPs for the POR.

The results of our cost test for Ta

Chen indicated that for certain home

market models less than twenty percent

of the sales of the model were at prices

below COP. We therefore retained all

sales of these models in our analysis

and used them as the basis for

determining NV. Our cost test for Ta

Chen also indicated that within an

extended period of time (one year, in

accordance with section 773(b)(2)(B) of

the Tariff Act) for certain other home

market models more than twenty

percent of the home market sales were

at prices below COP which would not

permit the full recovery of all costs

within a reasonable period of time. In

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

Tariff Act, we therefore excluded the

below-cost sales of these models from

our analysis and used the remaining

above-cost sales as the basis for

determining NV.

C. Product Comparisons

We compared Ta Chen’s U.S. sales

with contemporaneous sales of the

foreign like product in the home market.

We considered pipe identical based on

product nomenclature and considered

specifications/alloy, nominal pipe size,

and wall thickness in determining the

most similar types of pipe. We used a

twenty percent cap in reported

differences in merchandise as the

maximum difference in cost allowable

for similar merchandise. For purposes of

these preliminary results, we have used

the difference-in-merchandise

information Ta Chen submitted with its

supplemental questionnaire response of

November 12, 1996.

D. Level of Trade

As set forth in section 773(a)(1)(B)(i)

of the Tariff Act and in the SAA at 829

through 831, to the extent practicable,

the Department will calculate NV based

on sales at the same level of trade as the

U.S. sales. When we are unable to find

sales of the foreign like product in the

comparison market at the same level of

trade as the U.S. sale, we may compare

U.S. sales to sales at a different level of

trade in the comparison market.

In accordance with section

773(a)(7)(A) of the Tariff Act, if sales at

allegedly different levels of trade are

compared, we will adjust the NV to

account for the difference in levels of

trade if two conditions are met. First,

there must be differences between the

actual selling activities performed by

the exporter at the level of trade of the

U.S. sale and the level of trade of the

comparison market sale used to

determine NV. Second, the differences

between levels of trade must affect price

comparability as evidenced by a pattern

of consistent price differences between

sales at the different levels of trade in

the market in which NV is determined.

In order to determine that there is a

difference in level of trade, the

Department must find that two sales

have been made at different stages of

marketing, or the equivalent. Different

stages of marketing necessarily involve

differences in selling functions, but

differences in selling functions (even

substantial differences) are not, in and

of themselves, sufficient to establish a

difference in the level of trade.

Similarly, seller and customer

descriptions (such as ‘‘distributor’’ and

‘‘wholesaler’’), while useful in

identifying different levels of trade, are

insufficient to establish that there is, in

fact, a difference in the level of trade.
1438 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 7 / Friday, January 10, 1997 / Notices

To implement these principles in this

review, we asked Ta Chen to provide

detailed information regarding its

selling activities/functions at each phase

of marketing, and to establish any

claimed level of trade based on these

activities. In order to determine whether

separate levels of trade actually existed

within or between the U.S. and home

markets, we reviewed the selling

activities associated with each phase of

marketing claimed by Ta Chen.

Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the

Tariff Act and the SAA at 827, in

identifying levels of trade for EP and

home market sales we considered the

selling functions reflected in the starting

price before any adjustments.

We considered all types of selling

activities performed by Ta Chen in our

review of Ta Chen’s questionnaire

responses. We found that no single

selling function in the pipe industry

was sufficient to indicate that a separate

level of trade existed (see Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking and Request for

Public Comments, 61 FR 7307, 7348

(February 27, 1996)). In addition, in

determining whether separate levels of

trade existed in or between the U.S. and

home markets, we analyzed the selling

activities associated with the stages of

marketing Ta Chen reported and

expected the functions and activities of

the seller to be similar if, as in the

instant review, Ta Chen claimed the

levels of trade to be the same.

Ta Chen reported two stages of

marketing in the home market (to

unrelated distributors and end users)

and a single phase of marketing in the

United States (to unrelated distributors).

With respect to the home market, Ta

Chen claimed that its two stages of

marketing constituted a single level of

trade. Based upon our examination of

information supplied by Ta Chen in its

original and supplemental questionnaire

responses, we agree that only one level

of trade existed for Ta Chen in the home

market.

For its U.S. sales, Ta Chen reported a

single stage of marketing, i.e.,

distributors. In determining whether, in

fact, a single stage of marketing existed,

we examined the selling functions as

reflected in the starting price to the

unaffiliated U.S. customer. While TCI

processed the paperwork and provided

certain selling functions for the majority

of Ta Chen’s U.S. sales, the remainder

of these sales involved direct contact

between the unaffiliated U.S. customer

and Ta Chen without TCI’s

‘‘facilitation.’’ We find preliminarily,

however, that TCI provided very limited

selling functions for those sales TCI

facilitated and, therefore, found no

significant differences in selling

functions between sales through either

channel. As a result, we preliminarily

agree with Ta Chen that Ta Chen’s EP

sales constitute a single level of trade.

We have requested additional

clarification from Ta Chen on this point,

and will incorporate this information in

our final results of review.

When we compared Ta Chen’s sales at

its EP level of trade to its home market

level of trade, we found that the record

indicated that Ta Chen provided little or

no strategic or economic planning,

market research, engineering services,

advertising, after-sales services, or postsale warehousing at either the EP or

home market level of trade. Ta Chen

reported that it provided the ‘‘same’’

degree of technical assistance at both

the EP and home market level of trade.

All packing expenses at either level

were borne by Ta Chen; freight and

delivery arrangements varied between

the two markets in that U.S. movement

expenses on certain U.S. sales were

incurred by TCI. Based upon our

analysis of the selling functions

performed by Ta Chen in both markets,

the similarities lead us to agree

preliminarily that the level of trade of

Ta Chen’s EP and home market sales is

the same.

E. Home Market Price

While we found below-cost home

market sales for Ta Chen in this review,

Ta Chen’s remaining home market sales

at or above cost were sufficient to serve

as the basis for NV.

We based home market prices on the

packed, ex-factory or delivered prices to

unaffiliated purchasers in the home

market. We made adjustments for

differences in packing and for

movement expenses in accordance with

sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the

Tariff Act. In addition, we made

adjustments for differences in cost

attributable to differences in physical

characteristics of the merchandise

pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of

the Tariff Act, and for differences in

circumstances of sale (COS) in

accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii)

of the Tariff Act and 19 CFR 353.56. We

made further adjustments by deducting

home market direct selling expenses

and adding U.S. direct selling expenses.

Finally, where the comparison EP sale

involved a commission, we increased

home market price by the amount of this

commission and subtracted home

market indirect selling expenses up to

the amount of the U.S. commission, as

provided at 19 CFR 353.56(b).

Fair Value Comparison

To determine whether Ta Chen made

sales of subject WSSP in the United

States at prices that were less than fair

value, we compared the EP to NV, as

described in the ‘‘United States Price’’

and ‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this

notice. In accordance with section

777A(d)(2) of the Tariff Act, we

calculated monthly weighted-average

prices for NV and compared these

monthly averages to individual U.S.

sales transactions.

Preliminary Results of Review

As a result of our review, we

preliminarily determine the weightedaverage margin for Ta Chen for the

period December 1, 1994 through

November 30, 1995 is 2.65 percent.

Parties to these proceedings may

request disclosure within five days of

the date of publication of this notice and

may request a hearing within ten days

of publication. Any hearing, if

requested, will be held 44 days after the

date of publication, or the first business

day thereafter. Case briefs and/or

written comments from interested

parties may be submitted no later than

30 days after the date of publication.

Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written

comments, limited to issues raised in

the case briefs and comments, may be

submitted no later than 37 days after the

date of publication of this notice. Parties

who submit arguments in these

proceedings are requested to submit

with the argument (1) a statement of the

issues and (2) a brief summary of the

argument. The Department will issue

final results of these administrative

reviews, including the results of our

analysis of the issues in any such

written comments or at a hearing,

within 180 days of issuance of these

preliminary results.

The Department shall determine, and

the U.S. Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. Individual differences between

U.S. price and NV may vary from the

percentage stated above. The

Department will issue appraisement

instructions directly to Customs.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective upon

completion of the final results of this

administrative review for all shipments

of WSSP from Taiwan entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after the publication

of the final results of this administrative

review, as provided in section 751(a)(1)

of the Tariff Act:

(1) The cash deposit rate for Ta Chen

will be the rate established in the final

results of this administrative review;

(2) For previously reviewed or

investigated companies other than Ta

Chen, the cash deposit rate will
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 7 / Friday, January 10, 1997 / Notices 1439

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 less-than-fair-value 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) 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 19.84 percent. See Amended Final

Determination and Antidumping Duty

Order; Certain Welded Stainless Steel

Pipe From Taiwan, 57 FR 62300

(December 30, 1992).

All U.S. sales by the respondent Ta

Chen will be subject to one deposit rate

according to the proceeding. The cash

deposit rate has been determined on the

basis of the selling price to the first

unrelated customer in the United States.

For appraisement purposes, where

information is available, we will use the

entered value of the subject

merchandise to determine the

appraisement rate.

This notice serves as preliminary

reminder to importers of their

responsibility 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 the antidumping

duties occurred and the subsequent

assessment of double antidumping

duties. This administrative review and

this notice are in accordance with

section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act (19

U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 353.22.

Dated: December 30, 1996.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–633 Filed 1–9–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

North American Free-Trade Agreement

(NAFTA), Article 1904 Binational Panel

Reviews; Decision of Binational Panel

AGENCY: NAFTA Secretariat, United

States Section, International Trade

Administration, Department of

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of decision of Binational

Panel.

SUMMARY: On December 16, 1996, the

Binational Panel issued its decision in

the matter of Fresh Cut Flowers from

Mexico, Secretariat File No. USA–95–

1904–05.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James R. Holbein, United States

Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat, Suite

2061, 14th and Constitution Avenue,

Washington, D.C. 20230, (202) 482–

5438.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Chapter

19 of the North American Free-Trade

Agreement (‘‘Agreement’’) establishes a

mechanism to replace domestic judicial

review of final determinations in

antidumping and countervailing duty

cases involving imports from a NAFTA

country with review by independent

binational panels. When a Request for

Panel Review is filed, a panel is

established to act in place of national

courts to review expeditiously the final

determination to determine whether it

conforms with the antidumping or

countervailing duty law of the country

that made the determination.

Under Article 1904 of the Agreement,

which came into force on January 1,

1994, the Government of the United

States, the Government of Canada and

the Government of Mexico established

Rules of Procedure for Article 1904

Binational Panel Reviews (‘‘Rules’’).

These Rules were published in the

Federal Register on February 23, 1994

(59 FR 8686). The panel review in this

matter was conducted in accordance

with these Rules.

Background Information

On October 26, 1995, Rancho El

Aguaje, Rancho El Toro and Rancho

Guacatay filed a First Request for Panel

Review with the U.S. Section of the

NAFTA Secretariat pursuant to Article

1904 of the North American Free Trade

Agreement. Panel review was requested

of the Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review made by

the International Trade Administration

respecting Fresh Cut Flowers from

Mexico. This determination was

published in the Federal Register on

September 26, 1995 (60 FR 49569). The

request was assigned File No. USA–95–

1904–05.

Panel Decision

The Panel decided that the

Department properly determined that

the Complainants provided misleading

and evasive statements concerning their

respective tax statuses and that the

Department properly invoked BIA given

the substantial evidence on the record

in this action. However, the first-tier

BIA rate imposed by the Department

was not justified by substantial evidence

on the record and was not otherwise in

accordance with law. Based upon the

substantial evidence on the record, the

Panel remanded the action with

instructions to assign a second-tier rate

of 18.20 percent, which is taken from

the Department’s original investigation

and takes into account the substantial

cooperation provided by the Ranches.

The Panel ordered the Department to

issue a determination on remand

consistent with the instructions and

findings set forth in the Panel’s

decision. The determination on remand

shall be issued within forty-five (45)

days of the date of the Order (not later

than January 30, 1997).

Dated: December 18, 1996.

James R. Holbein,

U.S. Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat.

[FR Doc. 97–509 Filed 1–9–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–GT–M

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

Federal Approval of the Texas Coastal

Management Program

AGENCY: National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration, National

Ocean Service.

ACTION: Notice of the National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration,

National Ocean Services’s approval of

the Texas Coastal Management Program

pursuant to the Coastal Zone

Management Act of 1972, as amended

16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration (NOAA) approved the

Texas Coastal Management Program

(TCMP) on December 23, 1996, pursuant

to the provisions of section 306 of the

Federal Coastal Zone Management Act

of 1972, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1455

(CZMA). The TCMP is described in the

Texas Coastal Management Program and

Final Environmental Impact Statement

(P/FEIS) published in August 1996.

Texas is the 30th state to receive

federal approval of its coastal

management program and the first state

program to be approved by NOAA in ten

years. Texas submitted a proposed

coastal program to NOAA in October

1995. Upon reaching a preliminary

decision that the program met the

requirements of the CZMA, and in order

to meet its responsibilities under the

National Environmental Policy Act,

NOAA published the Texas Coastal

Management Program and Draft

Environmental Impact Statement (P/

DEIS) for public review on June 23,

1996. NOAA published the P/FEIS

including public comments on the P/

DEIS and responses to those comments

on August 23, 1996. NOAA has also

fulfilled its responsibilities under the

Endangered Species Act through