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entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,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,
1434 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 7 / Friday, January 10, 1997 / Notices

1996, pursuant to the December 31,

1996, notice of initiation.

Dated: January 6, 1997.

Jeffrey P. Bialos,

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–635 Filed 1–9–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M

[A–583–508]

Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware From

Taiwan: Initiation and Preliminary

Results of Changed Circumstances

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, and Intent To Revoke Order in

Part

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of initiation and

preliminary results of changed

circumstances antidumping duty

administrative review, and intent to

revoke order in part.

SUMMARY: In response to a request from

General Housewares Corporation (GHC),

the Department of Commerce (the

Department) is initiating a changed

circumstances antidumping duty

administrative review and issuing a

notice of preliminary intent to revoke in

part the antidumping duty order on

porcelain-on-steel cooking ware from

Taiwan. GHC requested that the

Department revoke the order in part

with regard to teakettles. Based on the

fact that GHC, who filed the original

petition in this case, has expressed no

interest in the importation or sale of

teakettles, we intend to partially revoke

this order.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 10, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Amy S. Wei or Zev Primor, Office of

Antidumping/Countervailing Duty

Enforcement, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone

(202) 482–4737.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The 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, as

amended (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 September 12, 1996, GHC

requested that the Department conduct

a changed circumstances administrative

review to determine whether to partially

revoke the order on porcelain-on-steel

cooking ware from Taiwan with regard

to teakettles. GHC stated that it is the

only U.S. producer of porcelain-on-steel

cooking ware and that, in the original

petition, it requested that the scope of

the order include teakettles. GHC also

stated that it no longer manufactures

porcelain-on-steel teakettles and has no

further interest in the antidumping duty

order with respect to teakettles.

Scope of Review

The products covered by this

antidumping order are porcelain-onsteel cooking ware, including teakettles,

which do not have self-contained

electric heating elements. All of the

foregoing are constructed of steel and

are enameled or glazed with vitreous

glasses. Kitchenware is not subject to

this order. See Antidumping Duty

Order; Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware

from Taiwan, 51 FR 43416 (December 2,

1986).

The merchandise covered by this

changed circumstances review are

teakettles from Taiwan. Imports of

teakettles are currently classifiable

under the harmonized tariff schedule

(HTS) subheading 7323.94.00.10. The

HTS subheading is provided for

convenience and U.S. Customs

purposes. Our written description of the

scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

The order with regard to imports of

other porcelain-on-steel cooking ware is

not affected by this request.

Initiation and Preliminary Results of

Changed Circumstances Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review, and Intent

To Revoke Order in Part

Pursuant to section 751(d) of the Act,

the Department may partially revoke an

antidumping duty order based on a

review under section 751(b) of the Act

(i.e., a changed circumstances review).

Section 751(b)(1) of the Act requires a

changed circumstances administrative

review to be conducted upon receipt of

a request containing sufficient

information concerning changed

circumstances.

The Department’s regulations at 19

CFR 353.25(d)(2) permit the Department

to conduct a changed circumstances

administrative review under section

353.22(f) based upon an affirmative

statement of no interest from the

petitioner in the proceeding. Section

782(h) of the Act and 19 CFR

353.25(d)(1)(i) further provide that the

Department may revoke an order or

revoke an order in part if it determines

that the order, or part of the order,

under review is no longer of interest to

interested parties. In addition, in the

event that the Department concludes

that expedited action is warranted,

section 353.22(f)(4) of the regulations

permits the Department to combine the

notices of initiation and preliminary

results.

Therefore, in accordance with

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

19 CFR 353.25(d), and 353.22(f), we are

initiating this changed circumstances

administrative review and have

determined that expedited action is

warranted. Based on an affirmative

statement of no interest by petitioner

with respect to teakettles, we have

preliminarily determined that the

portion of the order on porcelain-onsteel cooking ware from Taiwan

concerning teakettles no longer is of

interest to domestic interested parties.

Because we have concluded that

expedited action is warranted, we are

combining these notices of initiation

and preliminary results. Therefore, we

are hereby notifying the public of our

intent to revoke in part the antidumping

duty order as to imports of teakettles

from Taiwan.

If final revocation in part occurs, we

will instruct the U.S. Customs Service to

end the suspension of liquidation and to

refund, with interest, any estimated

antidumping duties collected for all

unliquidated entries of teakettles that

are not subject to a final results of

administrative review. The current

requirement for a cash deposit of

estimated antidumping duties will

continue until publication of the final

results of this changed circumstances

review.

Public Comment

Parties to the proceeding may request

disclosure within 5 days of the date of

publication of this notice and any

interested party may request a hearing

within 10 days of publication. Any

hearing, if requested, will be held no

later than 28 days after the date of

publication of this notice, or the first

working day thereafter. Case briefs and/

or written comments from interested

parties may be submitted no later than

14 days after the date of publication of

this notice. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals

to written comments, limited to the

issues raised in those case briefs or

comments, may be filed no later than 21

days after the date of publication of this

notice. All written comments shall be