Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 1997 / Notices 9

[A–428–810]

High-Tenacity Rayon Filament Yarn

From Germany; Initiation and

Preliminary Results of Changed

Circumstances Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, and Intent To

Revoke Order

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.

SUMMARY: In response to a request from

the North American Rayon Corporation

(petitioner and sole U.S. producer of

high-tenacity rayon filament yarn), the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) is initiating a changed

circumstances antidumping duty

administrative review and issuing a

notice of intent to revoke the

antidumping duty order on hightenacity rayon filament yarn from

Germany. The petitioner also requested

that this revocation be retroactive to

June 1, 1995. Based on the fact that the

petitioner has expressed no interest in

the continuation of the antidumping

duty order on high-tenacity rayon

filament yarn produced in Germany, we

intend to revoke this order.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 26, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Matthew Blaskovich, AD/CVD

Enforcement, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone

(202) 482–5831.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute

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 May 22, 1992 (57 FR 21770), the

Department published the final

determination in the LTFV investigation

on high-tenacity rayon filament yarn

from Germany, and subsequently

published an antidumping duty order

on June 30, 1992 (57 FR 29062). On

January 7, 1997, the petitioner requested

that the Department conduct a changed

circumstances administrative review to

determine whether to revoke the order.

Petitioner states that it has no further

interest in the order.

Scope of the Review

The product covered by this

administrative review is high-tenacity

rayon filament yarn from Germany.

During the review period, such

merchandise was classifiable under

Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) item

number 5403.10.30.40. High-tenacity

rayon filament yarn is a multifilament

single yarn of viscose rayon with a twist

of five turns or more per meter, having

a denier of 1100 or greater, and a

tenacity greater than 35 centinewtons

per tex. The HTS item numbers are

provided for convenience and Customs

purposes. The written description

remains dispositive as to the scope of

the product coverage. This changed

circumstances administrative review

covers all manufacturers/exporters of

high-tenacity rayon filament yarn from

Germany.

Initiation and Preliminary Results of

Changed Circumstances Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review, and Intent

To Revoke Order

Pursuant to section 751(d) and 782(h)

of the Act, the Department may 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 § 353.22(f)

based upon an affirmative statement of

no interest from the petitioner in the

proceeding. Section 353.25(d)(1)(i)

further provides that the Department

may revoke the order if it determines

that the order under review is no longer

of interest to interested parties, as

enumerated therein. 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 782(h) of the Act,

19 CFR 353.25(d), and 353.22(f), based

on an affirmative statement of no

interest in the proceeding by petitioner,

we are initiating this changed

circumstances administrative review

and have determined that expedited

action is warranted. Further, we have

preliminarily determined that the order

on high-tenacity rayon filament yarn, as

described in petitioner’s request for a

changed circumstances review, no

longer is of interest to domestic

interested parties as of June 1, 1995.

Because we 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 the antidumping duty order

on high-tenacity rayon filament yarn

from Germany, effective June 1, 1995.

If final revocation occurs, we intend

to instruct the U.S. Customs Service

(Customs) to liquidate without regard to

antidumping duties and to refund any

estimated antidumping duties collected

for all unliquidated entries of the

subject merchandise made on or after

the effective date of revocation, June 1,

1995, in accordance with 19 CFR

353.25(d)(5). We will also instruct

Customs to refund interest for entries

made on or after June 1, 1995, in

accordance with section 778 of the Act.

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 comments, may be

filed no later than 21 days after the date

of publication of this notice. All written

comments shall be submitted in

accordance with 19 CFR 353.31(e) and

shall be served on all interested parties

on the Department’s service 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.
10 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 1997 / Notices

This initiation, preliminary results of

review and notice are in accordance

with section 751(b) of the Act, as

amended (19 U.S.C. 1675(b)), and 19

CFR 353.22(f)(4).

Dated: March 18,1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–7588 Filed 3–25–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[A–433–807]

Notice of Preliminary Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and

Postponement of Final Determination:

Open-End Spun Rayon Singles Yarn

From Austria

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATES: March 26, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert Copyak or Russell Morris, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230;

telephone: (202) 482–2786.

The Applicable Statute

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 Rounds

Agreements Act (‘‘URAA’’).

Preliminary Determination

We preliminarily determine that

open-end spun rayon singles yarn from

Austria is being, or is likely to be, sold

in the United States at less than fair

value (‘‘LTFV’’), as provided in section

733 of the Act. The estimated margins

of sales at LTFV are shown in the

‘‘Suspension of Liquidation’’ section of

this notice.

Case History

Since the initiation of this

investigation (Notice of Initiation of

Antidumping Duty Investigations:

Open-End Spun Rayon Singles Yarn

from Austria (61 FR 48472, September

13, 1996)), the following events have

occurred. On October 4, 1996, the

United States International Trade

Commission (‘‘ITC’’) issued an

affirmative preliminary injury

determination in this case (see ITC

Investigation No. 731–TA–751; 61 FR

53760, October 15, 1996).

On October 4, 1996, the Department

issued an antidumping duty

questionnaire to the following

companies identified by petitioners as

possible exporters of the subject

merchandise: Linz Textil GmbH (Linz)

and G. Borckenstein und Sohn A.G.

(Borckenstein). The questionnaire is

divided into four sections. Section A

requests general information concerning

a company’s corporate structure and

business practices, the merchandise

under investigation that it sells, and the

sales of the merchandise in all of its

markets. Sections B and C request home

market sales listings and U.S. sales

listings, respectively. Section D requests

information on the cost of production

(‘‘COP’’) of the foreign like product and

constructed value (‘‘CV’’) of the subject

merchandise.

Borckenstein submitted its response

to section A of the questionnaire on

November 8, 1996 and to sections B and

C on December 3, 1996. As a result of

our analysis of Borckenstein’s

submissions to our original

questionnaire, we determined that we

required additional information as well

as clarification of the information

submitted in the responses, and thus we

issued a supplemental request for

information on December 19, 1996, and

requests for additional supplemental

information on January 29, 1997. We

received the responses to these requests

on January 9, 1997, and February 6,

1997 respectively.

Linz submitted its questionnaire

response to section A on October 25,

1996 and sections B and C on November

26, 1996. As a result of our analysis of

Linz’s response to our original

questionnaire, we determined that we

required additional information as well

as clarification of the information

submitted in the responses. We issued

a supplemental request for information

on December 12, 1996 and requests for

additional supplemental information on

January 29, 1997 and February 10, 1997.

We received responses to these requests

on January 6, 1997, and February 6 and

24, 1997, respectively.

Pursuant to section 733(c)(1)(B) of the

Act, as amended, we postponed the date

of the preliminary determination of

whether sales of open-end spun rayon

singles yarn from Austria have been

made at less than fair value until not

later than March 18, 1997 (see 62 FR

3003, January 21, 1997). We postponed

the preliminary determination because

this investigation is extraordinarily

complicated, and because of the novel

legal and methodological issues in this

investigation.

In their questionnaire responses to

Section A, both respondents argued that

particular market conditions of this case

render the home market non-viable as a

comparison market. Borckenstein

argued that because there is no demand

in the home market for all the same yarn

counts which it sells in the United

States, a third country market, Italy, is

a more appropriate comparison market.

Borckenstein also argued that a majority

of its sales in the home market were of

black rayon yarn which is generally a

higher-cost, higher-priced product

compared to the raw white product sold

in the United States. Linz also argued

that because there is no demand in the

home market for the same yarn counts

that Linz sells in the United States, a

third country market, France, is the

more appropriate comparison market.

Linz also noted that French sales are

more appropriate as the comparison

market for U.S. sales because the

customers are similar, the yarns are

used in a similar fashion, there are

similar quantities of sales, and similar

channels and methods of distribution.

On November 14, 1996, we

determined that the home market was

viable for each of the respondents.

Under section 773(a)(1) of the Act, the

Department normally considers sales in

the home market to be of sufficient

quantity if they represent five percent of

the aggregate quantity of sales of the

subject merchandise in the United

States. Both the home market sales of

Borckenstein and Linz met that

requirement. If the sales in the home

market met the five percent

requirement, the Department will only

resort to a third country market when

unusual situations renders the home

market inappropriate. The fact that the

home market may not have identical

sales to compare to the sales of the

subject merchandise in the United

States is not an unusual situation and

thus does not render the home market

inappropriate. (For further explanation,

see the memoranda from Barbara E.

Tillman, Director, Office of CVD/AD

Enforcement VI, Import Administration

dated November 14, 1996, (public

version) on file in the Central Records

Unit, Room B–099 of the Department of

Commerce.)

On December 10, 1996, petitioner

objected to the use of date of invoice as

the date of sale. Petitioner argued that

given the actual sales processes of both

respondents, the appropriate date of sale

is the date of contract and not the date

on which the sale is invoiced. Petitioner

noted that there are no changes in the

basic terms of each sale after the

negotiation of the sales contract, and

there is a significant lag time between

the date of the sales contract and the

date of the invoice. After a careful

review of the petitioner’s comments and

the method by which sales are made in