16542 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 66 / Monday, April 7, 1997 / Notices

authority.’’ Furthermore, we determine

that, pursuant to section 776(b) of the

Act, it is appropriate to make an

inference adverse to the interests of this

company because it failed to cooperate

by not responding to our questionnaire.

Where the Department must base the

entire dumping margin for a respondent

in an administrative review on facts

otherwise available because that

respondent failed to cooperate, section

776(b) of the Act authorizes the use of

an inference adverse to the interests of

that respondent in choosing the facts

available. Section 776(b) of the Act 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.

Section 776(c) of the 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) provides that ‘‘corroborate’’

means simply that the Department will

satisfy itself that the secondary

information to be used has probative

value. (See H.R. Doc. 316, Vol. 1, 103d

Cong., 2d sess. 870 (1994).)

In this case, for total adverse FA we

have used the best information available

(BIA) rate from the LTFV investigation

(50.84 percent), which was based on the

highest alleged margin in the

antidumping petition (52.60 percent),

adjusted to exclude the export subsidies

found during the period of investigation

(1.76 percent). To corroborate the LTFV

BIA rate of 50.84 percent, we examined

the basis of the rates contained in the

petition. The US prices in the petition

were based on publicly known prices

from a Thai manufacturer selling in the

United States. The foreign market value

was based on constructed value. We

reviewed the data submitted by the

petitioner and the assumptions that

petitioner made when calculating CV.

The methodology was reasonable and

was based on the data reasonably

available to petitioner at the time.

We preliminarily find that, in this

case, there are no circumstances that

indicate that the selected margin is not

appropriate as adverse facts available.

Preliminary Results of the Review

As a result of our review, we

preliminarily determine that a margin of

50.84 percent exists for TTU for the

period July 1, 1995, through June 30,

1996.

Any interested party may request a

hearing within 10 days of publication.

Any hearing, if requested, will be held

44 days after the date of publication, or

the first workday thereafter. Case briefs

and/or written comments from

interested parties may be submitted not

later than 30 days after the date of

publication of this notice. Rebuttal

briefs and rebuttals to written

comments, limited to issues raised in

the case briefs and comments, may be

filed not later than 37 days after the date

of publication. Parties who submit

arguments in this proceeding are

requested to submit with the arguments:

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

brief summary of the arguments. The

Department will publish the final

results of the administrative review,

including the results of its analysis of

issues raised in any such written

comments or at a hearing.

Upon completion of this

administrative review, the Department

will issue appraisement instructions

directly to the Customs Service.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective upon

completion of the final results of this

administrative review for all shipments

of carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings

from Thailand entered, or withdrawn

from warehouse, for consumption on or

after the publication date of the final

results of this administrative review, as

provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:

(1) The cash deposit rate for the

reviewed company will be the rate

established in the final results of

administrative review; (2) for

merchandise exported by manufacturers

or exporters not covered in this review

but covered in the original LTFV

investigation or a previous review, the

cash deposit will continue to be the

most recent rate published in the final

determination or final results for which

the manufacturer or exporter received

an individual rate; (3) if the exporter is

not a firm covered in this review, the

previous review, or the original

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 reviews,

the cash deposit rate will be 39.10

percent, the ‘‘all others’’ rate established

in the LTFV investigation (57 FR 29702,

July 6, 1992).

This notice serves as a 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 antidumping duties

occurred and the subsequent assessment

of double antidumping duties.

This administrative review and notice

are in accordance with sections

751(a)(1) and 751(d) of the Act (19

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

19 CFR 353.25.

Dated: April 1, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–8845 Filed 4–4–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–821–807]

Ferrovanadium and Nitrided Vanadium

From the Russian Federation; Notice

of Extension of Time Limit for

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 7, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David Goldberger at (202) 482–4136, or

Erik Warga at (202) 482–0922, Office of

AD/CVD Enforcement, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

(the Department) is extending the time

limit for the preliminary results of the

first administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on

ferrovanadium and nitrided vanadium

from the Russian Federation. This

extension is made pursuant to the Tariff

Act of 1930, as amended by the Uruguay

Round Agreements Act (hereinafter,

‘‘the Act’’).

Postponement

Under the Act, the Department may

extend the deadline for completion of

an administrative review if it

determines it is not practicable to

complete the review within the

statutory time limit of 365 days. The

Department finds that it is not

practicable to complete the first

administrative review of ferrovanadium

and nitrided vanadium from the Russian

Federation within this time limit.

In accordance with section

752(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department

will extend the time for completion for

the preliminary results of this review
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 66 / Monday, April 7, 1997 / Notices 16543

from a 245-day period to no later than

a 365-day period.

Dated: March 28, 1997.

Jeffrey P. Bialos,

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for

Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–8770 Filed 4–4–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–489–807]

Notice of Amendment of Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Certain Steel Concrete

Reinforcing Bars From Turkey

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 7, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Shawn Thompson at (202) 482–1776, or

Cameron Werker at (202) 482–3874, AD/

CVD Enforcement, Group II, Office 5,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230.

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 by the

Uruguay Rounds Agreements Act

(URAA).

Amendment to the Final Determination

We are amending the final

determination of sales at less than fair

value of certain steel concrete

reinforcing bars from Turkey, to reflect

the correction of a ministerial error

made in the margin calculation of one

of the respondents in that

determination. We are publishing this

amendment to the final determination

in accordance with section 353.28(c) of

the Department’s regulations.

Scope of Investigation

The product covered by this

investigation is all stock deformed steel

concrete reinforcing bars (‘‘rebar’’) sold

in straight lengths and coils. This

includes all hot-rolled deformed rebar,

rolled from billet steel, rail steel, axle

steel, or low-alloy steel. It excludes (i)

plain round rebar, (ii) rebar that a

processor has further worked or

fabricated, and (iii) all coated rebar.

Deformed rebar is currently classifiable

in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of

the United States (HTSUS) under item

numbers 7213.110.00 and 7214.20.00.

The HTSUS subheadings are provided

for convenience and customs purposes.

The written description of the scope of

this investigation is dispositive.

Case History

In accordance with section 735(d) of

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the

Act), on March 4, 1997, the Department

published its final determination that

rebar from Turkey was being, or was

likely to be, sold in the United States at

less than fair value (62 FR 9737).

Subsequent to the final determination,

we received allegations that the

Department made ministerial errors in

the margin calculations for one of the

respondents, Habas Sinai Ve Tibbi

Gazalar Istihsal Endustrisi A.S. (Habas).

Amendment of Final Determination

On March 12, 1997, Habas submitted

allegations that two ministerial errors

were made in the Department’s final

determination. Specifically, Habas

asserts that the Department did not

incorporate the verified costs for billets

produced by Habas during the first four

months of the POI. In addition, Habas

argues that the Department made a

manifest error by changing to

constructed value as the basis for

normal value, rather than using the

home market sales data that the

Department used for the preliminary

determination. On March 19, 1997,

petitioners responded to Habas’

ministerial error allegations.

Concerning the allegation with

respect to billet costs, we agree with

Habas and have corrected the

ministerial error pursuant to section

735(e) of the Act and section 353.28(c)

of the Department’s regulations.

However, concerning Habas’ allegation

that the Department made a ministerial

error in rejecting Habas’ home market

sales data, we disagree. As described in

the Department’s final determination,

we fully intended to reject Habas’ home

market sales data and base normal value

on constructed value. For a detailed

discussion of the alleged ministerial

errors and the department’s analysis,

see, memorandum from the Team to

Louis Apple, Acting Office Director,

regarding Ministerial Error Allegations

in the Final Determination of Rebar

From Turkey, dated March 24, 1997.

The revised final weighted-average

dumping margins are as follows:

Manufacturer/producer/exporter

Original

final margin percentage

Revised

final margin percentage

Colakoglu .................. 9.84 9.84

Ekinciler ..................... 18.68 18.68

Habas ........................ 19.15 18.54

IDC ............................ 41.80 41.80

Metas ........................ 30.16 30.16

All Others .................. 16.25 16.06

Continuation of Suspension of

Liquidation

In accordance with § 735(c) of the Act,

we are directing the Customs Service to

continue to suspend liquidation of all

entries of rebar from all companies

except Colakoglu that are entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after July 12, 1996,

which is 90 days prior to the date of

publication of the notice of the

preliminary determination in the

Federal Register. Regarding Colakoglu,

we are directing the Customs Service to

continue to suspend liquidation of all

entries of rebar from Colakoglu that are

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after October 10,

1996, the date of publication of our

preliminary determination in the

Federal Register. We will instruct the

Customs Service to require a cash

deposit or the posting of a bond equal

to the weighted-average amount by

which normal value exceeds export

price, as indicated in the chart above.

This suspension of liquidation will

remain in effect until further notice.

Notification of International Trade

Commission (ITC)

In accordance with § 735(d) of the

Act, we have notified the ITC of our

determination. If the ITC determines

that material injury, or threat of material

injury, does not exist, the proceeding

will be terminated and all securities

posted will be refunded or canceled. If

the ITC determines that such injury

does exist, the Department will issue an

antidumping duty order directing

Customs officials to assess antidumping

duties on all imports of the subject

merchandise entered, or withdrawn

from warehouse, for consumption on or

after the effective date of the suspension

of liquidation.

This determination is published

pursuant to § 735(d) of the Act.

Dated: March 27, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–8767 Filed 4–4–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M