17170 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 68 / Wednesday, April 9, 1997 / Notices

affiliated parties is insufficient to

establish the reimbursement of

antidumping duties, absent other

evidence. CEMEX also cites Torrington

Co. v. United States, in which the Court

of International Trade ruled that the

Department properly decided not to

make a deduction to U.S. price, absent

any evidence of a link between intracorporate transfers and the

reimbursement of antidumping duties.

Second, CEMEX claims that petitioners’

argument is without merit on factual

grounds. CEMEX, in their rebuttal brief,

provides a detailed analysis of Sunbelt’s

cash flow (or earnings before income

taxes, depreciation, and amortization),

which it claims is more than sufficient

to cover antidumping duty liabilities.

Department’s Position: We agree with

CEMEX. At verification, the Department

inquired into Sunbelt’s financial

situation and its antidumping duty

liability, and found no evidence that

Sunbelt was reimbursed by CEMEX for

the payment of dumping duties (see

verification report dated July 22, 1996).

Therefore, we are not assessing double

the amount of antidumping duty for

purposes of this final results of review.

Other Issues

Comment 36: Respondents claim that

the Department made the following

errors in the computer program: 1) The

Department should convert U.S. sales

information, which was reported per

short ton of cement, should be

converted to the same unit of measure

as the home market sales reported in

metric tons; 2) the semicolon at line

1505 should be removed so that

USOTREU and INDIRS2U are included

in the calculation of USMOVEU and

INDEXUS; and 3) the Department

should correct the arm’s length test such

that sales are assigned the appropriate

customer code. In addition, DIFMER

should be converted to the same unit of

measure as the normal value.

Department’s Position: The

Department has corrected these errors in

the final results.

Final Results of Review

As a result of this review, we have

determined that the following margins

exist for the period August 1, 1994,

through July 31, 1995:

Company

Margin

percentage

CEMEX, S.A. .................................. 103.82

All Other .......................................... 61.85

The Department shall determine, and

the U.S. Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. The Department shall issue

appraisement instructions directly to

the Customs Service.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements shall be effective upon

publication of this notice of final results

of review for all shipments of gray

portland cement and clinker from

Mexico, entered, or withdrawn from

warehouse, for consumption on or after

the publication date, as provided for by

section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act: (1)

The cash deposit rates for the reviewed

companies named above which have

separate rates will be the rates for those

firms as stated above; (2) for previously

investigated companies not listed above,

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 these

reviews, or the original LTFV

investigations, 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 these reviews, the cash

deposit rate for this case will continue

to be 61.85 percent, which was the ‘‘all

others’’ rates in the LTFV investigations.

See Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value: Gray Portland Cement

and Clinker from Mexico, 55 FR 29244,

(1990).

The deposit requirements, when

imposed, shall remain in effect until

publication of the final results of the

next administrative reviews.

This notice 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 order (‘‘APO’’) of their

responsibility concerning the

disposition of proprietary information

disclosed under APO in accordance

with § 353.34(d) of the Department’s

regulations. Timely notification of

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.

These administrative reviews and

notice are in accordance with section

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

1675(a)(1)) and § 353.22 of the

Department’s regulations.

Dated: April 2, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–9123 Filed 4–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–429–601]

Notice of Extension of Time Limit for

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review of Solid Urea From the Former

German Democratic Republic

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 9, 1997.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

(the Department) is extending the time

limit for the preliminary results of the

antidumping duty administrative review

of the antidumping order on Solid Urea

from the Former German Democratic

Republic, pursuant to the Tariff Act of

1930, as amended by the Uruguay

Round Agreements Act (hereinafter,

‘‘the Act’’).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Steven Presing, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20230, telephone (202)

482–0194.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under

section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the

Department may extend the deadline for

completion of an administrative review

if it determines that it is not practicable

to complete the review within the

statutory time limit of 365 days. In the

instant case, the Department has

determined that it is not practicable to

complete this review within the

statutory time limit. See Memorandum

from Joseph A. Spetrini to Robert S.

LaRussa (March 24, 1997).

Because it is not practicable to

complete this review within the time

limits mandated by the Act (245 days

from the last day of the anniversary

month for preliminary results, 120 days

after publication of the preliminary

determination for final results), in

accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of

the Act, the Department is extending the

time limits as follows:
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 68 / Wednesday, April 9, 1997 / Notices 17171

Product Country Review period Initiation date Prelm due

date

Final due

date*

Solid Urea (A–429–601) ................... Germany ........................................... 95/96 08/15/96 06/02/97 09/30/97

*The Department shall issue the final determination 120 days after the publication of the preliminary determination. This final due date is estimated based on publication of the preliminary notice five business days after signature.

Dated: April 2, 1997.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Deputy Assistant Secretary, AD/CVD

Enforcement Group III.

[FR Doc. 97–9115 Filed 4–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–580–811]

Steel Wire Rope From the Republic of

Korea; Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review and

Revocation in Part of Antidumping

Duty Order

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review and Revocation in Part of

Antidumping Duty Order.

SUMMARY: On December 3, 1996, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) published the preliminary

results of its 1995–96 administrative

review of the antidumping duty order

on steel wire rope from the Republic of

Korea and intent to revoke in part (61

FR 64058). The review covers 12

manufacturers/exporters for the period

March 1, 1995, through February 29,

1996 (the POR). We have analyzed the

comments received on our preliminary

results and have determined that no

changes in the margin calculations are

required. The final weighted-average

dumping margins for each of the

reviewed firms are listed below in the

section entitled ‘‘Final Results of

Review.’’

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 9, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Matthew Rosenbaum or Thomas O.

Barlow, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue,

Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone:

(202) 482–4733.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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 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 December 12, 1996, the

Department published in the Federal

Register the preliminary results of its

1995–96 administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on steel wire

rope from the Republic of Korea and

intent to revoke in part (61 FR 64058)

(Preliminary Results). We gave

interested parties an opportunity to

comment on our preliminary results. We

received case briefs from the petitioner,

the Committee of Domestic Steel Wire

Rope and Specialty Cable Manufacturers

(the Committee), and rebuttal briefs

from six respondents, including ChungWoo Rope Co., Ltd. (Chung Woo), Chun

Kee Steel & Wire Rope Co., Ltd. (Chun

Kee), Manho Rope & Wire Ltd. (Manho),

Kumho Wire Rope Mfg. Co., Ltd.

(Kumho), Ssang Yong Steel Wire Co.,

Inc. (Ssang Yong), and Sungjin

Company (Sungjin). There was no

request for a hearing.

We have conducted this

administrative review in accordance

with section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act

of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19

CFR 353.22.

Revocation In Part

We are revoking the order for Chun

Kee and Manho. Chun Kee and Manho

have sold the subject merchandise at not

less than normal value (NV) for three

consecutive review periods, including

this review. Further, on the basis of no

sales at less than NV for these periods

and the lack of any indication that such

sales are likely in the future, we have

determined that Chun Kee and Manho

are not likely to sell the merchandise at

less than NV in the future. Chun Kee

and Manho have also submitted

certifications that they will not sell at

less than NV in the future, along with

an agreement for immediate

reinstatement of the order if such sales

occur. See our discussion in response to

Comment 1 below.

Scope of Review

The product covered by this review is

steel wire rope. Steel wire rope

encompasses ropes, cables, and cordage

of iron or carbon steel, other than

stranded wire, not fitted with fittings or

made up into articles, and not made up

of brass-plated wire. Imports of these

products are currently classifiable under

the following Harmonized Tariff

Schedule (HTS) subheadings:

7312.10.9030, 7312.10.9060, and

7312.10.9090. Excluded from this

review is stainless steel wire rope, i.e.,

ropes, cables and cordage other than

stranded wire, of stainless steel, not

fitted with fittings or made up into

articles, which is classifiable under HTS

subheading 7312.10.6000. Although

HTS subheadings are provided for

convenience and Customs purposes, our

own written description of the scope of

this review is dispositive.

Use of Facts Otherwise Available

We have determined, in accordance

with section 776(a) of the Act, that the

use of facts available is appropriate for

Boo Kook Corporation (Boo Kook),

Dong-Il Steel Mfg. Co., Ltd. (Dong-Il),

and Yeonsin Metal (Yeonsin) because

they did not respond to our

antidumping questionnaire. We find

that these firms have not provided

‘‘information that has been requested by

the administering 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 these

companies because they 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.