1430 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 7 / Friday, January 10, 1997 / Notices

a statement of the petitioners’ position

as to whether the product is included

within the order, as required by 19 CFR

353.29(b). Based on our evaluation of

the petition (see Memorandum, Joseph

A. Spetrini to Robert S. LaRussa,

December 19, 1996, on file in Room B–

099 of the Main Commerce Building),

we determine that a formal inquiry is

warranted.

Accordingly, we are initiating a

circumvention inquiry concerning the

antidumping duty order on standard

pipe from Mexico, pursuant to section

781(c) of the Tariff Act. In accordance

with 19 CFR 353.29(j), we will not

instruct the Customs Service to suspend

liquidation and require a cash deposit of

estimated duties on the merchandise

which is the subject of this inquiry

unless and until we issue an affirmative

preliminary determination.

The Department will, following

consultation with the interested parties,

establish a schedule for questionnaires

and comments on the issues. The

Department intends to issue its final

determination within 300 days of the

date of publication of this initiation.

This notice is published in

accordance with section 781(c) of the

Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. 1677j(c)) and 19

CFR 353.29.

Dated: December 20, 1996.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–632 Filed 1–9–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[A–403–801]

Fresh and Chilled Atlantic Salmon

From Norway; Final Results of New

Shipper Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of new

shipper antidumping duty

administrative review.

SUMMARY: On October 4, 1996, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) issued preliminary results

in the 1995 new shipper administrative

review of the antidumping duty order

on fresh and chilled Atlantic salmon

from Norway (61 FR 51910). The review

covers one manufacturer/exporter

Nordic Group A/L (Nordic) of the

subject merchandise to the United

States. The period of review (POR) is

May 1, 1995, through October 31, 1995.

We gave interested parties an

opportunity to comment on our

preliminary results and received a case

brief from petitioner and a rebuttal brief

from respondent. The final results

remain unchanged from the preliminary

results. The final dumping margin for

the reviewed firm is listed below in the

section entitled ‘‘Final Results of

Review’’.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 10, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Todd Peterson or Thomas Futtner, AD/

CVD Enforcement, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230;

telephone: (202) 482–4195 or (202) 482–

3814, 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

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).

Background

On October 4, 1996, the Department

issued preliminary results (61 FR 51910)

of its new shipper review of the

antidumping duty order on fresh and

chilled Atlantic salmon from Norway.

The preliminary results indicated that

Nordic sold subject merchandise at not

less than normal value during the POR.

We invited parties to comment on the

preliminary results.

The Department has now conducted

this review in accordance with section

751 of the Act and section 353.22 of its

regulations (19 CFR 353.22).

Scope of the Review

The merchandise covered by this

review is fresh and chilled Atlantic

salmon (salmon). It encompasses the

species of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar)

marketed as specified herein; the subject

merchandise excludes all other species

of salmon: Danube salmon; Chinook

(also called ‘‘king’’ or ‘‘quinnat’’); Coho

(‘‘silver’’); Sockeye (‘‘redfish’’ or

‘‘blueback’’); Humpback (‘‘pink’’); and

Chum (‘‘dog’’). Atlantic salmon is whole

or nearly whole fish, typically (but not

necessarily) marketed gutted, bled, and

cleaned, with the head on. The subject

merchandise is typically packed in fresh

water ice (chilled). Excluded from the

subject merchandise are fillets, steaks,

and other cuts of Atlantic salmon. Also

excluded are frozen, canned, smoked or

otherwise processed Atlantic salmon.

Fresh and chilled Atlantic salmon is

currently provided for under

Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS)

subheading 0302.12.00.02.09. The HTS

item number is provided for

convenience and Customs purposes.

The written description remains

dispositive.

Analysis of Comments Received

We gave interested parties an

opportunity to comment on our

preliminary results. We received a case

brief from petitioner and a rebuttal brief

from respondent.

Comment 1:

Petitioner contends that Nordic’s one

sale was made prior to the POR on April

28, 1995, and not on June 30, 1995, as

claimed by respondent. Petitioner

argues that the essential terms (i.e. price

and quantity) of Nordic’s sale to its U.S.

customer were set in a letter dated April

28, 1995, and not changed substantially

before completion of the transaction two

months later. Based on this argument,

petitioner maintains that the respondent

entered into a binding agreement on

April 28, 1995, and that this constitutes

the correct date of sale.

Respondent contends that the

reported sale date of June 23, 1995, (i.e.

date of shipment) is correct. Respondent

argues that it is the Department’s

established practice to rely on date of

shipment as the date of sale when the

quantity of the sale is not fixed until

date of shipment. See Cold-Rolled Steel

Flat Products from Korea, (60 FR 65284)

December 19, 1995.

Respondent points to the

Department’s termination of the first

new-shipper review of Nordic where the

petitioner successfully argued that April

28, 1995, was not the date of sale for the

same transaction reported in this review

because the price and quantity differed

materially between April 28, 1995, and

the date of shipment. See Fresh and

Chilled Atlantic Salmon from Norway:

Termination In-Part of New Shipper

Antidumping Duty Review, 60 FR

53162, (October 12, 1995).

Department’s Position

We agree with respondent. The

Department terminated Nordic’s first

new shipper review, at the request of

the petitioner, because the Department

determined that Nordic made the U.S.

sale to the first unrelated customer

based on the invoice date of June 30,

1995, which was outside the POR of

November 1, 1994, through April 30,
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 7 / Friday, January 10, 1997 / Notices 1431

1995. In making this determination, we

concluded that April 28, 1995, was not

the correct date of sale because Nordic’s

April 28, 1995, letter did not identify

the unrelated customer in the U.S. We

also concluded that there were

differences in the price and quantity

specified in Nordic’s April 28, 1995,

letter and the June 30, 1995, invoice

date. Accordingly, the Department

determined the June 30, 1995, date of

invoice to be the correct date of sale. See

Memorandum from Joseph Spetrini to

Susan Esserman, September 20, 1995.

Comment 2

Petitioner argues that Nordic’s sole

U.S. sale cannot be the basis for

Nordic’s dumping margin because it is

not a bona fide sale. Petitioner states

that in such situations, the U.S. Court of

International Trade (CIT) has recognized

that the Department has the authority to

disregard U.S. sales that are not the

result of a bona fide transaction to

‘‘prevent fraud upon its proceedings.’’

See Chang Tieh Industry Company, Ltd.

v. United States, 840 F. Supp. 141–46

(CIT 1993). In addition, petitioner

points to Sulfanilic Acid from Hungary,

(58 FR 8257) to demonstrate that the

Department has a history of disregarding

U.S. sales where it is established that

such sales are not bona fide

transactions.

Petitioner argues that there is

abundant evidence to demonstrate that

Nordic’s single sale under review is not

a bona fide transaction but rather is a

transaction that was contrived for the

purpose of escaping dumping liability.

As support for this allegation, petitioner

offers several arguments. Petitioner

asserts that Nordic did not follow its

own sales procedure in making this sale.

According to petitioner, it is highly

unusual for the U.S. customer to have

traveled to Norway to arrange this

transaction. In addition, there is no

evidence of a written order confirmation

produced by the U.S. customer that is

typically the first document produced in

the sales process.

Petitioner contends that Nordic

should not qualify as a new entrant into

the fresh Atlantic salmon market based

on making only one U.S. sale of the

subject merchandise during the period

November 1994 through October 1995.

During this period, petitioner claims

that there were no other sales of the

subject merchandise to other markets.

Rather, petitioner charges that

respondent will enter the U.S. market

after obtaining a zero dumping margin

for its contrived sale.

Petitioner contends that Nordic’s U.S.

customer, a smoker, paid an above

market price for the sale under review.

In support of this allegation, petitioner

submitted an affidavit from a large U.S.

salmon smoker that states that smokers

can use frozen salmon at a price far less

than the price incurred to Nordic for

fresh salmon. The U.S. smoker also

states that his company has not had an

order for the covered merchandise

because it is too expensive as a result of

the antidumping duties and high

movement charges. Petitioner points to

U.S. import statistics which show that

Nordic’s U.S. smoker could have

purchased frozen salmon at a price far

below the price commanded by the

fresh salmon it purchased from Nordic.

Petitioner insists that the sale in

question was not based on commercial

considerations, but rather, Nordic’s

illegitimate purpose of achieving a zero

rate. Petitioner supports this by pointing

to the fact that less that one-half of one

percent of Nordic’s total sales to the

U.S. customer were fresh salmon; the

rest were frozen salmon. Petitioner

further points out that Nordic has never

sold fresh salmon to any another U.S.

smoker. Petitioner argues that there is

nothing on record to support why the

U.S. customer would purchase such a

small amount of fresh salmon.

Petitioner provides documentation to

demonstrate that Nordic’s U.S. customer

could have purchased fresh salmon

from alternative sources such as Canada,

Maine and Chile at significantly lower

prices. Petitioner insists that not only

was the sale in question priced higher

than other comparable U.S. sales, but it

was also priced higher than other world

sales of fresh Norwegian salmon.

Petitioner provides documentation to

support his assertion that the European

price is higher than the price paid in the

sale under review.

Petitioner insists that in order for the

Department to accept the bona fide

nature of this sale, the Department must

investigate Nordic’s U.S. customer.

Petitioner points to PQ Corporation v.

United States, 652 F. Supp. 724 (CIT

1987) (PQ Corporation), to demonstrate

that when there is a question pertaining

to the bona fide nature of U.S. sales, the

Department vigorously investigates to

determine whether the U.S. sales are

indeed bona fide sales. Thus, petitioner

advocates a thorough investigation of

the U.S. customer.

Respondent contends that there is

nothing on record to support the

argument that the sale in question is not

a bona fide transaction. The respondent

points to Chang Tieh Industry Co., Ltd.

v. United States, 840 F. Supp. 141, 145

(CIT 1993) to show that the CIT has

noted that antidumping laws do not

contain provisions to disregard U.S.

sales in the same manner that the statute

directs the Department to disregard

home market sales intended to establish

a fictitious market. Therefore,

respondent states arguendo, even had

this one U.S. sale been considered

outside the ordinary course of trade, the

Department is not required by statute to

disregard that sale. However,

respondent concedes that the

Department has the discretion, citing to

Ipsco, Inc. v. United States, 714 F. Supp.

1211 (CIT 1989), to disregard U.S. sales

that are considered to be atypical and

not representative of a respondent’s U.S.

sales. Because there was only one sale,

this standard cannot be relied on as the

one sale is entirely representative of all

U.S. sales. Respondent refutes the

applicability of Sulfanilic Acid from

Hungary, 58 FR 8256 February 12, 1993,

where U.S. sales were disregarded

because of fabricated verification

documents. Similarly, respondent

refutes the applicability of Manganese

Metal From the People’s Republic of

China, 60 FR 56045 November 6, 1995

(Manganese). Unlike this review, in the

Manganese investigation, the

Department disregarded sales based on

the suspicious timing of the petition

filing relative to the sales being made

and the ‘‘significantly higher prices

reported for this fungible commodity.’’

Respondent argues the fact that there

was one sale cannot form the basis for

a determination that the sale is not a

bona fide transaction. In PQ

Corporation, the CIT found it proper for

the Department to review the

respondent’s one sale to the United

States with the intention of eliminating

a dumping margin. Respondent points

to the Memorandum from Holly Kuga to

the File of July 26, 1995, stating that ‘‘a

new shipper review for salmon based on

one sale would be consistent with prior

practice.’’

Respondent further substantiates the

bona fide nature of the transaction

under review, contending that the

record evidence demonstrates that its

U.S. sale was made in the ordinary

course of trade. Respondent argues that

it followed customary sales procedures

for this sale. Part of the customary

procedure is for the President of Nordic

Group, Inc. (the U.S. subsidiary) to

travel back to Norway, often with U.S.

customers as a means to educate the

U.S. customer. See Sales Verification

report.

Respondent argues that petitioner is

wrong in its claim that Nordic is not a

new entrant to the U.S. fresh Atlantic

salmon market because Nordic has

made only one sale during the POR.

Respondent states that by definition, to

qualify for a new shipper review, Nordic

did not sell any salmon prior to the
1432 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 7 / Friday, January 10, 1997 / Notices

POR. Since Nordic is currently assessed

an ‘‘all-others’’ rate of 23.80 percent,

U.S. customers are difficult to attract.

Thus Nordic’s one sale is justifiable and

does not disqualify Nordic as a new

shipper in the U.S. market.

Respondent argues that Nordic’s price

for fresh Norwegian salmon is within

the price range charged by others for

fresh Norwegian salmon sold to the

United States. Nordic claims that it was

aware of the antidumping duty order

and did its best to negotiate a price that

would not violate U.S. antidumping

laws. Respondent argues that in alleging

Nordic’s U.S. customer paid an above

market price for the sale under review,

the petitioner incorrectly compared the

price of frozen salmon from other

countries to that of fresh salmon from

Norway. Frozen salmon is outside the

scope of the order. The International

Trade Commission found that fresh

salmon is more expensive than frozen

and that Norwegian Atlantic salmon is

also considered by purchasers to be a

higher priced product and is typically

more expensive than U.S. produced

salmon. Thus, the price of Norwegian

Atlantic salmon cannot be compared to

world market prices. Respondent

dismisses the U.S. smoker’s claim that

the U.S. smoker cannot profitably

purchase premium Norwegian Atlantic

salmon because he either sells ‘‘low

end’’ salmon or he runs an inefficient,

high cost operation.

Respondent states that to the extent

price is relevant to determine the bona

fide nature of the U.S. transaction, the

comparison should be limited to the

prices of subject merchandise sold in

the United States in June 1995.

According to the June 1995 Report IM

145, Department of Commerce, Bureau

of the Census, Foreign Trade Division,

Trade Data Services, Washington, D.C.

(IM 145 Report), the price of Nordic’s

sale is consistent with other

contemporaneous sales of fresh

Norwegian salmon sold in the United

States.

Respondent argues that PQ

Corporation does not compel the

Department to investigate the U.S.

customer to verify the bona fide nature

of a transaction simply because a

petitioner thinks the U.S. price is too

high. Rather the result of PQ

Corporation is that an administrative

review could be based on one sale even

though the importation was made for

the purpose of adjusting the

antidumping cash deposit rate.

Department’s Position

We disagree with petitioner. While

there is no specific statutory or

regulatory provision for the exclusion of

U.S. sales as ‘‘outside the ordinary

course of trade,’’ the Department’s

authority to prevent fraud upon its

proceedings has been recognized. See

Chang Tieh, 840 F. Supp. at 146. The

Department may disregard a U.S. sale if

it is determined that the sale is not the

result of a bona fide arm’s length

transaction. PQ Corp., 652 F. Supp. at

729. We are very mindful of this issue,

especially in the context of new shipper

reviews, and take appropriate steps to

investigate credible allegations. Based

on our review of this here, we conclude

that there is no evidence on the record

to indicate that the single U.S. sale

under review was not a bona fide

transaction or that the transaction was

in any way fraudulent. Further, insofar

as there was no written order

confirmation for the transaction under

review, we relied on Nordic’s June 30,

1995, invoice to determine the date of

sale. See Department’s position on

Comment 1.

At the outset, we note that the fact

that there is only one U.S. sales

transaction does not suggest that the

transaction is not bona fide. As reflected

in the Department’s practice, the

dumping analysis may be based upon a

single sale even where the sale is

designed for the express purpose of

reducing the cash deposit rate. See P.Q.

Corp., 652 F. Supp. at 729. This may be

even more true in the context of a new

shipper review, where new entrants into

the market are likely to assess (based on

the Department’s antidumping analysis)

whether they can sell on a sustained

basis. In this case, the Department

advised that such a review could be

based on one sale provided that the

transaction be completed and all

relevant data available prior to

verification. See July 26, 1995

Memorandum from Holly Kuga to File.

Moreover, the fact that the quantity

involved in this transaction represents a

small fraction of Nordic’s total sales is

not a determining factor in our analysis

of the bona fide nature of the sale of

subject merchandise. Thus, the fact that

Nordic engaged in only one transaction

cannot detract from the bona fide nature

of the transaction.

We also disagree with petitioner’s

assertion that Nordic employed an

unusual sales procedure with respect to

this transaction. At verification, we

confirmed that the President of Nordic

Inc. (the U.S. subsidiary) often traveled

to Norway with U.S. customers. See

Nordic Sales Verification Report at 3.

Nordic officials indicated that they were

expanding their relationship with the

U.S. customer which had previously

focused on frozen salmon. Id. There is

no evidence on the record to contradict

this statement. Moreover, we are not

persuaded by the statement submitted

by a U.S. salmon smoking operation that

it would not use fresh salmon as an

input. As Nordic explained in its

October 7, 1996, supplemental

questionnaire response, the U.S.

customer could be expected to keep

both fresh and frozen salmon on hand

in order to serve a range of customers.

With regard to petitioner’s comments

on the price of the sale, according to the

IM 145 Report, the price Nordic charged

was within the range of prices of other

sales of the subject merchandise from

Norway during the relevant June 1995

time period. Petitioner incorrectly

compared prices of the subject

merchandise to that of non-subject

merchandise (frozen salmon) or salmon

from other countries. Given evidence

that Norwegian salmon is typically a

higher priced product due to it being

considered a premium product, we

determine that the use of fresh salmon

prices from other producing countries is

an inaccurate basis for comparison.

Finally, we disagree with petitioner’s

suggestion that the Department has not

sufficiently investigated this

transaction. Based on the Department’s

review of Nordic’s initial and

supplemental questionnaire responses,

its on-site verification of Nordic’s

records, and other information of

record, we conclude that there is no

evidence on record to indicate that the

single U.S. sale under review was not a

bona fide transaction or that the

transaction was in anyway fraudulent.

Comment 3

Petitioner contends that the

Department’s constructed value

methodology is improper given the facts

of this review. In past reviews of this

proceeding, petitioner contended that

the third-country export prices used as

foreign market value were made at

prices below the cost of production.

Thus, petitioner argued for use of the

salmon farmers’ actual cost of

production as opposed to the

acquisition prices paid by the exporters

to the farmers. In this review, however,

there are no home market or third

country sales. Therefore, the petitioner

argues that these different

circumstances require foreign market

value to be based on constructed value

using the price Nordic actually paid for

the merchandise. Petitioner argues that

by using the actual price paid, the

Department would fulfill the original

concern of petitioner.

Respondent contends that the

Department correctly determined

constructed value on the basis of cost of

cultivation. Respondent argues that
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 7 / Friday, January 10, 1997 / Notices 1433

petitioner’s argument is essentially a

middleman dumping argument and

should be rejected. The Department is

not free to choose the higher of fish

farmer cost or exporter acquisition

price. The Department’s policy for using

the fish farmers’ cost of production

rather than the exporter’s acquisition

price was established in the

Memorandum from David Mueller,

dated December 18, 1990, and has been

used as the basis for determining cost of

production in all salmon reviews.

Department’s Position

We agree with respondent. We

consider the live salmon produced by

the fish farmers and sold to the

exporters to be the same merchandise

covered by the antidumping duty order,

but at an earlier stage of production.

Accordingly, we consider the live

salmon produced by the fish farmers to

be the identical merchandise and not an

input of the subject merchandise. As we

found in all prior administrative

reviews of this proceeding, the

responding exporter is not transforming

the merchandise. To determine the cost

of producing salmon, the Department

properly reviewed respondent’s costs as

well as the fish farm cost of cultivation.

Insofar as the Department used the

same methodology described in the

preliminary results, the final results

remain unchanged from the preliminary

results. As a result of our comparison of

constructed export price (CEP) and

normal value (NV), we determine that

the following weighted-average

dumping margin exists:

Manufacturer/exporter Period Margin

Nordic Group A/

L.

5/1/95–10/31/95 0.00

The results of this review shall be the

basis for the assessment of antidumping

duties on entries of merchandise

covered by the determination and for

future deposits of estimated duties. The

posting of a bond or security in lieu of

a cash deposit, pursuant to section

751(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act and section

353.22(h)(4) of the Department’s

regulations, will no longer be permitted

for this firm. The Department will issue

appraisement instructions directly to

the Customs Service.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective for all

shipments of the subject merchandise

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after the

publication date of these final results of

this administrative review, as provided

by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1)

The cash deposit rate for the reviewed

company 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 company-specific 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 23.80

percent. This rate is the ‘‘All Others’’

rate from the LTFV investigation.

These deposit requirements shall

remain in effect until publication of the

final results of the next administrative

review.

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 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.

This notice also serves as a reminder

to parties subject to administrative

protective orders (APOs) of their

responsibility concerning the

disposition of proprietary information

disclosed under APO in accordance

with 19 CFR 353.34(d)(1). 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 the terms of an

APO is a sanctionable violation.

This new shipper administrative

review and 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: December 30, 1996.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–634 Filed 1–9–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[A–570–832]

Pure Magnesium From the People’s

Republic of China (PRC): Rescission of

Notice of Initiation of New Shipper

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 10, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Everett Kelly or Dorothy Tomaszewski,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,

DC 20230; telephone (202) 482–4194 or

482–0631, respectively.

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. 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

In accordance with section

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

353.22(h)(6) Taiyuan Heavy Machinery

Import and Export Corporation

(Taiyuan) requested a new shipper

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on pure

magnesium from the PRC. The

Department of Commerce (the

Department) inadvertently published

two notices of initiation, one on

December 30, 1996 (Notice of Initiation

of New Shipper Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review: Pure

Magnesium from the People’s Republic

of China (60 FR 68712, 68713 December

30, 1996) and one on December 31, 1996

(Notice of Initiation of New Shipper

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review: Pure Magnesium from the

People’s Republic of China (61 FR

69067 December 31, 1996).

Rescission of Initiation of Review

The December 30, 1996, notice of

initiation was published in error and is

hereby rescinded. We are proceeding to

conduct a review of Taiyuan for the

period May 1, 1996 through October 31,