Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 66 / Monday, April 7, 1997 / Notices 16547

Department will use the rate of

exchange in the forward currency sale

agreement.

Section 773A(a) also directs the

Department to use a daily exchange rate

in order to convert foreign currencies

into U.S. dollars, unless the daily rate

involves a fluctuation. It is the

Department’s practice to find that a

fluctuation exists when the daily

exchange rate differs from the

benchmark rate by 2.25 percent. The

benchmark is defined as the rolling

average of rates for the past 40 business

days. When we determine a fluctuation

existed, we substitute the benchmark for

the daily rate, in accordance with

established practice. Further, section

773A(b) directs the Department to allow

a 60-day adjustment period when a

currency has undergone a sustained

movement. A sustained movement has

occurred when the weekly average of

actual daily rates exceeds the weekly

average of benchmark rates by more

than five percent for eight consecutive

weeks. (For an explanation of this

method, see, Policy Bulletin 96–1:

Currency Conversions, 61 FR 9434,

March 8, 1996.) Such an adjustment

period is required only when a foreign

currency is appreciating against the U.S.

dollar. The use of an adjustment period

was not warranted in this case because

the Japanese yen did not undergo a

sustained movement, nor were there any

currency fluctuations during the POI.

Verification

As provided in section 782(i) of the

Act, we will verify all information used

in making our final determination.

Suspension of Liquidation

In accordance with section 733(d) of

the Act, we are directing the Customs

Service to suspend liquidation of all

entries of vector supercomputers from

Japan, as defined in the ‘‘Scope of

Investigation’’ section of this notice, that

are entered, or withdrawn from

warehouse for consumption, on or after

the date of publication of this notice in

the Federal Register. For these entries,

the Customs Service will require a cash

deposit or posting of a bond equal to the

estimated amount by which the normal

value exceeds the export price as shown

below.

The entries must be accompanied by

documentation provided by both the

foreign manufacturer/exporter and the

U.S. importer which discloses the

following information: (1) The vector

supercomputer contract pursuant to

which the merchandise is imported, (2)

a description of the merchandise

included in the entry, (3) the actual or

estimated price (agreed to as of the time

of importation) of the complete vector

supercomputer system, and (4) a

schedule of all shipments to be made

pursuant to a particular vector

supercomputer contract, if more than

one shipment is involved. We will also

request that the Japanese manufacturer/

exporter(s) submit to the Department the

contracts pursuant to which subject

merchandise is imported. These

suspension of liquidation instructions

will remain in effect until further notice.

The scope of this investigation

includes both complete and

unassembled shipments. Given that

vector supercomputer systems may be

entered into the United States in

different shipments, it is important to

ensure that the subject merchandise,

particularly parts, components, and

subassemblies, be readily identifiable to

the U.S. Customs Service and to the

Department. To ensure that any

antidumping order which may issue as

a result of this investigation is clear, we

are requesting interested parties to

submit their comments on this subject

to the Department by May 5, 1997.

Reply comments will be due by May 19,

1997.

The weighted-average dumping

margins are as follows:

Exporter/manufacturer

Weightedaverage

margin

percentage

Fujitsu ....................................... 27.17

NEC * ........................................ 454.00

All Others .................................. 27.17

* Facts Available Rate.

Pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(A) of the

Act, the Department has excluded the

margin determined entirely under

section 776 of the Act from the

calculation of the All Others rate.

ITC Notification

In accordance with section 733(f) of

the Act, we have notified the ITC of our

determination. If our final

determination is affirmative, the ITC

will determine before the later of 120

days after the date of this preliminary

determination or 45 days after our final

determination whether these imports

are materially injuring, or threaten

material injury to, the U.S. industry.

Public Comment

Case briefs or other written comments

in at least ten copies must be submitted

to the Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration no later than July 7,

1997, and rebuttal briefs, no later than

July 10, 1997. A list of authorities used

and an executive summary of issues

should accompany any briefs submitted

to the Department. The summary should

be limited to five pages total, including

footnotes. In accordance with section

774 of the Act, we will hold a public

hearing, if requested, to give interested

parties an opportunity to comment on

arguments raised in case or rebuttal

briefs. Tentatively, the hearing will be

held on July 14, 1997, time and room to

be determined, at the U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230. Parties should

confirm by telephone the time, date, and

place of the hearing 48 hours before the

scheduled time.

Interested parties who wish to request

a hearing, or to participate if one is

requested, must submit a written

request to the Assistant Secretary for

Import Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, Room 1870, within ten

days of the publication of this notice.

Requests should contain: (1) The party’s

name, address, and telephone number;

(2) the number of participants; and (3)

a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral

presentations will be limited to issues

raised in the briefs. If this investigation

proceeds normally, we will make our

final determination by 135 days after the

date of the preliminary determination.

This determination is published

pursuant to section 733(f) of the Act.

Dated: March 28, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–8766 Filed 4–4–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–489–501]

Notice of Amended Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review: Certain Welded Carbon Steel

Pipe and Tube From Turkey

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 7, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jennifer Stagner at (202) 482–1673 or

Gabriel Adler at (202) 482–1442, 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.
16548 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 66 / Monday, April 7, 1997 / Notices

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).

Amended Final Results

On December 31, 1996, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) published the final results

of its administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on certain

welded carbon steel pipe and tube (pipe

and tube) from Turkey (61 FR 69067).

The period of review (POR) is May 1,

1994, through April 30, 1995.

In January 1997, the petitioners and

the Borusan Group (Borusan) filed

timely allegations, pursuant to 19 CFR

353.28, of ministerial and clerical errors

with regard to the final results in the

1994–95 administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on pipe and

tube from Turkey.

We determine, in accordance with

section 735(e) of the Act, that

ministerial errors were made in our

margin calculation for Borusan.

Specifically, Borusan alleged that (1) the

verified costs upon which the

Department relied for its final results

did not include inventory holdings

gains; (2) the concordance program (i.e.,

matching) selected inappropriate

matches; and (3) the computer program

incorrectly applied the weight savings

adjustment to all costs, rather than only

to costs based on the weight of coil. In

accordance with 19 CFR 353.28(c), we

are amending the final results of the

administrative review of steel pipe and

tube from Turkey to correct these

ministerial errors. For a detailed

discussion and the Department’s

analysis, see Memorandum from Case

Analysts to Richard W. Moreland, dated

March 24, 1997.

Additionally, Borusan alleged that (1)

the Department’s calculation of cost of

production is improperly based on an

average of the production costs for the

period July 1994 to April 1995, and

erroneously ignores reported costs for

the period July 1993 through June 1994;

and (2) the Department erroneously

based its level of trade price analysis on

the POR rather than on a monthly basis

since Turkey experienced

hyperinflation during the POR. We

determine that these allegations are not

ministerial errors pursuant to 19 CFR

353.28(d) because it is a substantive

argument for a new methodology. KerrMcGee Chemical Corp. v. United States,

No. 97–2, Slip Op. at 20 (CIT January 8,

1997). Accordingly, we have not

considered these issues because they are

outside the scope of permissible

corrections under 19 CFR 353.28(d). Id.

For a detailed discussion and the

Department’s analysis, see

Memorandum from Case Analysts to

Richard W. Moreland, dated February

27, 1997.

The petitioners alleged that the

Department incorrectly relied on the

exchange rates for investigations, rather

than those for administrative reviews.

They state that the Department did not

follow its policy outlined in Change in

Policy Regarding Currency Conversion

(61 FR 9434, March 8, 1996) (Change in

Policy). We determine that this

allegation is not a ministerial error

pursuant to 19 CFR 353.28(d) because it

was the Department’s intention to limit

the application of the Change in Policy.

See Final Results, at 69071.

Scope of the Review

Imports covered by this review are

shipments of certain welded carbon

steel pipe and tube products with an

outside diameter of 0.375 inch or more

but not over 16 inches, of any wall

thickness. These products are currently

classifiable under the following

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (HTSUS) subheadings:

7306.30.10.00, 7306.30.50.25,

7306.30.50.32, 7306.30.50.40,

7306.30.50.55, 7306.30.50.85, and

7306.30.50.90. These products,

commonly referred to in the industry as

standard pipe and tube, are produced to

various American Society for Testing

and Materials (ASTM) specifications,

most notably A–120, A–53 or A–135.

Although the HTSUS subheadings are

provided for convenience and customs

purposes, our written description of the

scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

Amended Final Results of Review

Upon correction of the ministerial

errors, we have determined that the

following margins exist for the period

indicated:

Manufacturer/

exporter Time period Marginpercent

Borusan ......... 5/1/94–4/30/95 3.37

The Customs Service shall assess

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. Individual differences between

United States price and normal value

may vary from the percentages stated

above. The Department will issue

appraisement instructions directly to

the Customs Service.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective, upon

publication of this notice of amended

final results of review for all shipments

of certain circular welded carbon steel

pipe and tube from Turkey entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after the publication

date, as provided for by section

751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash

deposit rate for Borusan will be the rate

established above; (2) for merchandise

exported by manufacturers or exporters

not covered in this review but covered

in the original less than fair value

(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 a company-specific rate; (3) if

the exporter is not a firm covered in this

review, or the original investigation, but

the manufacturer is, the cash deposit

rate will be that established for the

manufacturer of the merchandise in

these final results of review or the LTFV

investigation; and (4) if neither the

exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm

covered in this or any previous review,

the cash deposit rate will be 14.74

percent, the All Others rate established

in 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 final

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 notice also is the only reminder

to parties subject to administrative

protective order (APO) of their

responsibility concerning the return or

destruction of proprietary information

disclosed under APO in accordance

with 19 CFR 353.34(d). Failure to

comply is a violation of the APO.

This administrative review and notice

are in accordance with section 751(a)(1)

of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19

C.F.R. 353.28.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 66 / Monday, April 7, 1997 / Notices 16549

Dated: March 31, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–8769 Filed 4–4–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

University of Arizona; Notice of

Decision on Application for Duty-Free

Entry of Scientific Instrument

This decision is made pursuant to

Section 6(c) of the Educational,

Scientific, and Cultural Materials

Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89–

651, 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301).

Related records can be viewed between

8:30 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. in Room 4211,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and

Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C.

Docket Number: 96–129. Applicant:

University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ

85721. Instrument: Surface Forces

Apparatus, Model Mark 4.

Manufacturer: Australian National

University, Australia. Intended Use: See

notice at 62 FR 4032, January 28, 1997.

Comments: None received. Decision:

Approved. No instrument of equivalent

scientific value to the foreign

instrument, for such purposes as it is

intended to be used, is being

manufactured in the United States.

Reasons: The foreign instrument

provides measurement of the forces

between two surfaces in vapor or liquid

with a sensitivity of 10 nN and a

distance resolution of about 0.1 nm with

a positioning accuracy to 50 nm. This

capability is pertinent to the applicant’s

intended purposes and we know of no

other instrument or apparatus of

equivalent scientific value to the foreign

instrument which is being

manufactured in the United States.

Frank W. Creel,

Director, Statutory Import Programs Staff.

[FR Doc. 97–8768 Filed 4–4–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C–401–401]

Certain Carbon Steel Products from

Sweden; Final Results of

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of

countervailing duty administrative

review.

SUMMARY: On December 3, 1996, the

Department of Commerce (‘‘the

Department’’) published in the Federal

Register its preliminary results of

administrative review of the

countervailing duty order on Certain

Carbon Steel Products from Sweden for

the period January 1, 1994 through

December 31, 1994 (61 FR 64062;

December 3, 1996). The Department has

now completed this administrative

review in accordance with section

751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended. For information on the net

subsidy for the reviewed company, and

for all non-reviewed companies, please

see the Final Results of Review section

of this notice. We will instruct the U.S.

Customs Service to assess

countervailing duties as detailed in the

Final Results of Review section of this

notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 7, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gayle Longest or Lorenza Olivas, Office

of CVD/AD Enforcement VI, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230;

telephone: (202) 482–2786.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Pursuant to 19 C.F.R. 355.22(a), this

review covers only those producers or

exporters of the subject merchandise for

which a review was specifically

requested. Accordingly, this review

covers SSAB Svenskt Stal AB (‘‘SSAB’’),

the sole known producer/exporter of the

subject merchandise during the review

period. This review also covers the

period January 1, 1994 through

December 31, 1994, and 10 programs.

We published the preliminary results

on December 3, 1996 (61 FR 64062). We

invited interested parties to comment on

the preliminary results. We received no

comments from any of the parties.

Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute are references to

the provisions of the Tariff Act of 1930,

as amended by the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act (‘‘URAA’’) effective

January 1, 1995 (‘‘the Act’’). The

Department is conducting this

administrative review in accordance

with section 751(a) of the Act.

Scope of the Review

Imports covered by this review are

shipments of certain carbon steel

products from Sweden. These products

include cold-rolled carbon steel, flatrolled products, whether or not

corrugated, or crimped: whether or not

pickled, not cut, not pressed and not

stamped to non-rectangular shape; not

coated or pleated with metal and not

clad; over 12 inches in width and of any

thickness; whether or not in coils.

During the review period, such

merchandise was classifiable under the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) item

numbers 7209.11.0000, 7209.12.0000,

7209.13.0000, 7209.21.0000,

7209.22.0000, 7209.23.0000,

7209.24.5000, 7209.31.0000,

7209.32.0000, 7209.33.0000,

7209.34.0000, 7209.41.0000,

7209.43.0000, 7209.44.0000,

7209.90.0000, 7211.30.5000,

7211.41.7000 and 7211.49.5000. The

HTS item numbers are provided for

convenience and customs purposes. The

written description remains dispositive.

Allocation Methodology

In the past, the Department has relied

upon information from the U.S. Internal

Revenue Service on the industryspecific average useful life (‘‘AUL’’) of

assets in determining the allocation

period for nonrecurring grant benefits.

See General Issues Appendix appended

to Final Countervailing Duty

Determination; Certain Steel Products

from Austria, 58 FR 37217, 37226 (July

9, 1993) (‘‘General Issues Appendix’’).

However, in British Steel plc. v. United

States, 879 F. Supp. 1254 (CIT 1995)

(‘‘British Steel’’), the U.S. Court of

International Trade (‘‘the Court’’) ruled

against this allocation methodology. In

accordance with the Court’s remand

order, the Department calculated a

company-specific allocation period for

nonrecurring subsidies based on the

AUL of non-renewable physical assets.

This remand determination was

affirmed by the Court on June 4, 1996.

British Steel, 929 F. Supp. 426, 439 (CIT

1996).

The Department has decided to

acquiesce to the Court’s decision and, as

such, we intend to determine the

allocation period for nonrecurring

subsidies using company-specific AUL

data where reasonable and practicable.

In the preliminary results (61 FR 64062),

the Department preliminarily

determined that it is reasonable and

practicable to allocate all new

nonrecurring subsidies (i.e., subsidies

that have not yet been assigned an

allocation period) based on a companyspecific AUL. However, if a subsidy has

already been countervailed based on an

allocation period established in an

earlier segment of the proceeding, it

does not appear reasonable or