Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 15, 1997 / Notices 2131

1The Department has determined that Pacific

Pipe Company had no U.S. sales during the period

of review.

Singapore, and the United Kingdom,

which has not yet been published in the

Federal Register.

The classes or kinds of merchandise

covered by these reviews are ball

bearings and parts thereof, cylindrical

roller bearings and parts thereof, and

spherical plain bearings and parts

thereof. The reviews cover 27

manufacturers/exporters. The review

period is May 1, 1994 through April 30,

1995. We are correcting a margin-rate

error with respect to ball bearings from

Germany manufactured/exported by

FAG KGS.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 15, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thomas Schauer or Richard Rimlinger,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue NW., Washington,

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–4733.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On January 6, 1997, the Department of

Commerce (The Department) issued the

notice of final results of administrative

review of the antidumping duty orders

on Antifriction Bearings (Other Than

Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts

Thereof from France, Germany, Italy,

Japan, Singapore, and the United

Kingdom, which has not yet been

published in the Federal Register. The

classes or kinds of merchandise covered

by these reviews are ball bearings and

parts thereof, cylindrical roller bearings

and parts thereof, and spherical plain

bearings and parts thereof. The reviews

cover 27 manufacturers/exporters. The

review period is May 1, 1994 through

April 30, 1995.

After issuance of our final results, we

realized that we did not publish the

correct margin we calculated for the

final results with respect to ball bearings

from Germany manufactured and

exported by FAG.

Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute and to the

Department’s regulations are references

to the provisions effective January 1,

1995, the effective date of the

amendments made to the Tariff Act of

1930 (as amended) by the Uruguay

Round Agreements Act (URAA). In

addition, 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 of Review

We have determined the following

weighted-average margin to exist for the

period May 1, 1994 through April 30,

1995:

Country Company Class or kind Rate

Germany ..................................................... FAG ............................................................. Ball Bearings ............................................... 13.48%

A cash deposit of estimated

antidumping duties based on the above

margin shall be effective upon

publication of this notice of amended

final results of administrative review for

all shipments entered, or withdrawn

from warehouse, for consumption on or

after the date of publication, as provided

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

1930 (as amended). This deposit

requirement shall remain in effect until

publication of the final results of the

next administrative review.

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 the only

reminder to parties subject to

administrative protective orders (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 this

notice are in accordance with section

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

1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 353.22.

Dated: January 10, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–994 Filed 1–14–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[A–549–502]

Certain Circular Welded Carbon Steel

Pipes and Tubes from Thailand:

Amended Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: On November 1, 1996, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) published the final results

of the administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on certain

circular welded carbon steel pipes and

tubes from Thailand (61 FR 56515). This

review covers Saha Thai Steel Pipe

Company, SAF Steel Pipe Export

Company, and Pacific Pipe Company.1

The period of review (POR) is March 1,

1994 through February 28, 1995.

On October 31, 1996, counsel for the

petitioning companies Allied Tube &

Conduit Corporation, Sawhill Tubular

Division of Armco, Inc., American Tube

Company, Inc., Laclede Steel Company,

Sharon Tube Company, Wheatland

Tube Company, and Eagle Pipe

(‘‘petitioners’’) 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 certain

circular welded carbon steel pipes and

tubes from Thailand. Petitioners’’

allegations were limited to alleged

errors in calculating the dumping

margin for subject merchandise

manufactured by Saha Thai. On

November 20, 1996, Saha Thai also

submitted timely allegations of clerical

errors. Saha Thai did not comment on

the allegations submitted by petitioners.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 15, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James Rice or Jean Kemp, AD/CVD

Enforcement Group III, Office 9, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230;

telephone: (202) 482–0162 or (202) 482–

4037, respectively.

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.

In addition, unless otherwise indicated,
2132 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 15, 1997 / Notices

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).

Scope of the Review

The products covered by this

administrative review are certain

circular welded carbon steel pipes and

tubes from Thailand. The subject

merchandise has an outside diameter

0.375 inches or more, but not exceeding

16 inches. These products, which are

commonly referred to in the industry as

‘‘standard pipe’’ or ‘‘structural tubing,’’

are hereinafter designated as ‘‘pipe and

tube.’’ The merchandise is classifiable

under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule

(HTS) item numbers 7306.30.1000,

7306.30.5025, 7306.30.5032,

7306.30.5040, 7306.30.5055,

7306.30.5085 and 7306.30.5090.

Although the HTSUS subheadings are

provided for convenience and Customs

purposes, our written description of the

scope of the order is dispositive.

Ministerial and Clerical Errors in the

Final Results of Review

Petitioners alleged that the

Department made four ministerial errors

in the final results. First, petitioners

contend that the Department

inadvertently added indirect selling

expenses to the calculation of export

price. Second, petitioners contend that

the Department failed to include a

difference in merchandise adjustment in

its calculation of FUPDOL. Third,

petitioners argued that the Department

failed to include direct selling expenses

in the calculation of normal value for

constructed value. For these three

allegations, the Department agrees that

these are ministerial errors, and we have

amended our final results to correct

these errors. Fourth, petitioners alleged

that the Department failed to include

straightening labor and overhead

expenses for black pipe produced by

Saha. The Department disagrees with

petitioners’’ assertion that this

represents a ministerial error. As stated

in the verification report, the

straightening costs identified by

petitioners relate to the straightening

which is required following the

deformation that occurs during the

galvanization process. In the final

results of administrative review, the

Department calculated COP and CV for

black pipe exclusive of these

straightening costs because they are not

incurred in the production of black

pipe.

Respondents did not object to

petitioners’ ministerial allegations, but

on November 20, 1996, alleged that a

clerical error occurs in the Department’s

calculation of COP. Saha Thai alleges

that the Department double counted its

inventory carrying costs in calculating

COP. The Department agrees that this is

a clerical error, and in accordance with

19 CFR 353.28, we have amended the

final results to correct this error.

Saha Thai also contends that the

Department’s model match program

departed from prior practice in that the

program searched only for what the

Department considered best match

rather than for subsequent next-best

matches before resorting to CV. We

disagree with respondents that this is a

ministerial error. The issue of the model

match program used in this review is a

methodological issue. Consequently, it

is inappropriate to change the model

match program because of an alleged

ministerial error. See 19 CFR 353.28(d).

(For further information, see the

Decision Memorandum from Joseph A.

Spetrini to Robert S. LaRussa, Acting

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration, dated December 20,

1996, which is on file in the Central

Records Unit, room B–099 of the main

Commerce building.)

Amended Final Results of Review

Upon correction of the ministerial

errors, we have determined that the

following margin exists for the period

indicated:

Manufacturer/

exporter Time period Margin (percent)

Saha Thai/

SAF ............ 3/1/94–2/28/95 7.27

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

pipes and tubes from Thailand 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 rates for the reviewed

companies 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 this

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) the cash

deposit rate for all other manufacturers

or exporters will continue to be 15.67

percent for circular welded carbon steel

pipes and tubes, the all others rate

established in the LTFV investigations.

See Final Determination and

Antidumping Duty Order: Certain

Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes

from Thailand, (51 FR 8341, March 11,

1986).

These deposit requirements, when

imposed, shall remain in effect until

publication of the final results of the

next administrative review.

This notice also 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 section 353.34(d) of the

Department’s regulations. Timely

written notification of the 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. 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 CFR

353.28(c).

Dated: January 7, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–995 Filed 1–14–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

The College of New Jersey; 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 AM and 5:00 PM in Room 4211,