Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 7 / Friday, January 10, 1997 / Notices 1429

1 Petitioners are: Allied Tube & Conduit Corp.,

Sawhill Tubular Division of Tex-Tube Co., Century

Tube Corp., Laclede Steel Co., LTV Tubular

Products Co.; Sharon Tube Co., Western Tube &

Conduit Co., Wheatland Tube Co., and CSI Tubular

Products, Inc.

2 This merchandise, sometimes referred to as

‘‘dual-stenciled,’’ may also include ‘‘multiplestenciled’’ pipe.

3Based on the Court’s denial of our request for

voluntary remand, the Department is not initiating

an anticircumvention inquiry with respect to pipe

imports from Brazil and Korea.

otherwise indicated) will be required to

procure the service listed below from

nonprofit agencies employing persons

who are blind or have other severe

disabilities.

I certify that the following action will

not have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

The major factors considered for this

certification were:

1. The action will not result in any

additional reporting, recordkeeping or

other compliance requirements for small

entities other than the small

organizations that will furnish the

service to the Government.

2. The action will result in

authorizing small entities to furnish the

service to the Government.

4. There are no known regulatory

alternatives which would accomplish

the objectives of the Javits-WagnerO’Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46–48c) in

connection with the service proposed

for addition to the Procurement List.

Comments on this certification are

invited. Commenters should identify the

statement(s) underlying the certification

on which they are providing additional

information.

The following service has been

proposed for addition to Procurement

List for production by the nonprofit

agency listed:

Duplicating/Copying of Court

Documents

(GPO Program #C414–S)

NPA: Alliance, Inc., Baltimore,

Maryland.

Beverly L. Milkman,

Executive Director.

[FR Doc. 97–661 Filed 1–9–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6353–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–201–805]

Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy

Steel Pipe From Mexico; Initiation of

Anticircumvention Inquiry on

Antidumping Duty Order

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of initiation of

anticircumvention inquiry.

SUMMARY: In response to a request from

petitioners in this case 1, the Department

of Commerce (the Department) is

initiating an anticircumvention inquiry

to determine whether imports of (i) pipe

certified to the American Petroleum

Institute (API) 5L line pipe

specifications (API 5L or line pipe) and

(ii) pipe certified to both the API 5L line

pipe specifications and the less

stringent American Society for Testing

and Materials (ASTM) A–53 standard

pipe specifications (dual certified

pipe 2), falling within the physical

dimensions outlined in the scope of the

order, are circumventing the

antidumping duty order on certain

welded non-alloy carbon steel pipe from

Mexico (57 FR 49453, November 2,

1992).

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 10, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert M. 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), and to the Department’s

regulations are references to the

provisions as they existed on December

31, 1994.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On April 23, 1993, petitioners

requested that the Department conduct

an anticircumvention inquiry pursuant

to section 781(c) of the Tariff Act

covering imports of API 5L line pipe

and dual-certified pipe from Mexico.

Petitioners alleged that, following

publication of the antidumping duty

order, exporters of standard pipe from

Mexico began circumventing the order

by having pipe intended for use as

standard pipe certified as line pipe or

certified for use as both line and

standard pipe. Petitioners further

alleged that pipe distributors were

substituting pipe certified to the more

stringent line and dual-certified

specifications for the standard pipe

subject to the order, and that end users

of standard pipe began using imported

line and dual-certified pipe in ‘‘standard

pipe applications.’’ According to

petitioners, the ‘‘transformation of

standard pipe into * * * pipe which

also meets the line pipe standard is a

‘‘minor alteration of merchandise’’

within the meaning of section 781(c) of

the [Tariff] Act.’’ See Anticircumvention

Petition, April 23, 1993 at 1.

After examining petitioners’

allegations, we instead initiated a scope

inquiry under 19 CFR 353.29(i) on June

7, 1993, to determine whether both API

5L line pipe and dual-certified pipe,

when actually used in standard pipe

applications, are within the scope of the

orders. On March 21, 1996, we

determined that both line and dualcertified pipe were explicitly excluded

from the orders. Final Negative Scope

Determination (61 FR 11608).

On April 12, 1996, Wheatland Tube

Company (Wheatland), one of the

original petitioners, filed a lawsuit

before the Court of International Trade

(the Court) challenging the final scope

determination and the fact that the

Department did not initiate an

anticircumvention inquiry, as

petitioners originally requested. On July

12, 1996, we requested a remand from

the Court in order to provide a full

explanation on the record as to why we

did not initiate an anticircumvention

inquiry or, if appropriate, to initiate

such a proceeding. On October 9, 1996,

the Court denied our motion for a

voluntary remand and, in response to a

separate motion filed by Wheatland,

also dismissed all counts of the original

complaint as to Mexico. 3

Initiation of Anticircumvention

Proceeding

Section 353.29(b) of our regulations

provides that applications for

anticircumvention determinations

contain (1) a detailed description of the

product, including technical

characteristics and uses of the product,

and its current U.S. Tariff Classification

number; (2) a statement of the interested

party’s position as to whether the

product is within the scope of an

antidumping order, including (i) a

summary of the reasons for this

conclusion, (ii) citations to any

applicable statutory authority, and (iii)

attachment of any factual support for

this position, including applicable

portions of the Secretary’s or the

Commission’s investigation. Where all

of these conditions are met, our

regulations state we will evaluate the

application to determine whether an

inquiry is warranted.

Upon review of petitioners’

application, we find that it contains a

detailed description of the products and
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,