19712 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 76 /Tuesday, April 21, 1998 / Notices

1Al Tech Specialty Steel Corp., Carpenter

Technology Corp., Crucible Specialty Metals

Division, Crucible Materials Corp., Electralloy

Corp., Republic Engineered Steels, Slater Steels

Corp., Talley Metals Technology, Inc. and the

United Steelworkers of America (AFL-CIO/CLC).

Flores la Colmena Ltda.

Rosas Sabanilla Ltda.

Inversiones la Serena

Agricola la Capilla

Rosas y Jardines

Rose

Rosex Ltda.

Sabana Group

Flores de la Sabana S.A.

Roselandia S.A.

San Ernesto

San Valentine

Sansa Flowers

Santa Rosa Group

Flores Santa Rosa Ltda.

Floricola la Ramada Ltda.

Santana Flowers Group

Santana Flowers

Hacienda Curibital Ltda.

Inversiones Istra Ltda.

Sarena

Select Pro

Senda Brava Ltda.

Shasta Flowers y Compania Ltda.

Shila

Siempreviva

Soagro Group

Agricola el Mortino Ltda.

Flores Aguaclara Ltda.

Flores del Monte Ltda.

Flores la Estancia

Jaramillo y Daza

Solor Flores Ltda.

Starlight

Sunbelt Florals

Superflora Ltda.

Susca

Sweet Farms

Tag Ltda.

The Beall Company

The Rose

Tikiya Flowers

Tinzuque Group

Tinzuque Ltda.

Catu S.A.

Tomino

Tropical Garden

Tuchany Group

Tuchany S.A.

Flores Sibate

Flores Tikaya

Flores Munya

Uniflor Ltda.

Vegaflor

Velez de Monchaux Group

Velez de Monchaux e Hijos y Cia S. en C.

Agroteusa

Victoria Flowers

Villa Cultivos Ltda.

Villa Diana

Vuelven Ltda.

Zipa Flowers

The following exporters/growers have

requested revocation from the

antidumping duty order:

Floricola la Gaitana S.A.

Clavecol Group

Claveles Colombianos Ltda.

Elegant Flowers Ltda.

Fantasia Flowers Ltda.

Splendid Flowers Ltda.

Sun Flowers Ltda.

The Department has also received a

request to review and determine

whether there has been absorption of

antidumping duties within the meaning

of section 751(a)(4) of the Tariff Act of

1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)).

Interested parties must submit

applications for disclosure under

administrative protective orders in

accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(b).

This initiation and this notice are in

accordance with section 751(a) of the

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19

U.S.C. 1675(a)) and 19 CFR

351.221(c)(1)(i).

Dated: April 15, 1998.

Gary Taverman,

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–10574 Filed 4–20–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–533–810]

Stainless Steel Bar from India: Final

Results of New Shipper Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of new

shipper antidumping duty

administrative review.

SUMMARY: On January 23, 1998, the

Department of Commerce published the

preliminary results of the new shipper

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on stainless

steel bar from India. We gave interested

parties an opportunity to comment on

the preliminary results. Based on our

analysis of the comments received, we

have made certain changes for the final

results.

This review covers two producers/

exporters of stainless steel bar to the

United States during the period

February 1, 1996, through January 31,

1997. The review indicates no dumping

margins during the review period.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 21, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Zak

Smith or James Breeden, Import

Administration, AD/CVD Enforcement

Group I, Office 1, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230;

telephone (202) 482–1279 or 482–1174,

respectively.

Applicable Statute and Regulations

The Department of Commerce (‘‘the

Department’’) is conducting this

administrative review in accordance

with section 751 of the Tariff Act of

1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’). 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 Act

by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act.

In addition, unless otherwise indicated,

all citations to the Department’s

regulations are to those codified at 19

CFR Part 353 (April 1997).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On January 23, 1998, the Department

of Commerce published the preliminary

results of the new shipper

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on stainless

steel bar from India (63 FR 3536)

(‘‘preliminary results’’). The

manufacturers/exporters in this review

are Panchmahal Steel Limited

(‘‘Panchmahal’’) and Ferro Alloys

Corporation Limited (‘‘Facor’’). We

received comments from Panchmahal

and rebuttal comments from the

petitioners 1 (see, Interested Party

Comments, below).

Scope of the Review

Imports covered by this review are

shipments of stainless steel bar. The

term ‘‘stainless steel bar’’ means articles

of stainless steel in straight lengths that

have been either hot-rolled, forged,

turned, cold-drawn, cold-rolled or

otherwise cold-finished, or ground,

having a uniform solid cross section

along their whole length in the shape of

circles, segments of circles, ovals,

rectangles (including squares), triangles,

hexagons, octagons, or other convex

polygons. Stainless steel bar includes

cold-finished stainless steel bars that are

turned or ground in straight lengths,

whether produced from hot-rolled bar or

from straightened and cut rod or wire,

and reinforcing bars that have

indentations, ribs, grooves, or other

deformations produced during the

rolling process.

Except as specified above, the term

does not include stainless steel semifinished products, cut length flat-rolled

products (i.e., cut length rolled products

which if less than 4.75 mm in thickness

have a width measuring at least 10 times

the thickness or if 4.75 mm or more in

thickness have a width which exceeds

150 mm and measures at least twice the

thickness), wire (i.e., cold-formed

products in coils, of any uniform solid
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 76 /Tuesday, April 21, 1998 / Notices 19713

cross section along their whole length,

which do not conform to the definition

of flat-rolled products), and angles,

shapes and sections.

The stainless steel bar subject to these

orders is currently classifiable under

subheadings 7222.10.0005,

7222.10.0050, 7222.20.0005,

7222.20.0045, 7222.20.0075, and

7222.30.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States

(‘‘HTSUS’’). Although the HTSUS

subheadings are provided for

convenience and customs purposes, our

written description of the scope of this

order is dispositive.

Interested Party Comments

In accordance with 19 CFR 353.38, we

invited interested parties to comment on

our preliminary results. We received

written comments from Panchmahal

and rebuttal comments from the

petitioners.

Comment 1: Model Matches

Panchmahal disagrees with the

Department’s preliminary decision to

compare its U.S. sales of 304L grade bar

to its home market sales of 316 grade

bar. Rather, Panchmahal argues that the

Department should compare the U.S.

sales of 304L grade bar to its home

market sales of 304 grade bar.

The petitioners rebut that hot-rolled

304 grade bar and cold-finished 304L

grade bar are not comparable because of

differences in these grades’ production

costs. Furthermore, the petitioners

assert that the differences in variable

costs between 304 grade bar and 304L

grade bar reported by Panchmahal are

too low and thus must be flawed, given

the different production processes of the

two grades. Accordingly, the

Department should use constructed

value (‘‘CV’’) as the basis for normal

value.

Department’s Position

We agree with Panchmahal. Based on

its chemical composition, we have

determined that grade 304L bar is more

appropriately matched to grade 304 bar

than grade 316 bar. Specifically, grade

304L bar and 304 bar are more

comparable based on their chrome and

nickel content. Moreover, grade 316 bar

contains molybdenum, while grades

304L and 304 bar do not.

In regard to petitioners’ argument to

use CV as a basis of normal value, it is

the Department’s normal practice to use

contemporaneous home market sales of

the foreign like product, before resorting

to CV, as a basis for normal value unless

those sales fail the difference in

merchandise test. Because the home

market bar sales are sales of foreign like

product that do not fail the difference in

merchandise test and that match to U.S.

sales, use of constructed value would be

inappropriate. Based on our general

knowledge of the production processes

involved, the reported differences in

variable costs are not unreasonable.

Comment 2: Duty Drawback

Panchmahal asserts that the

Department, in Certain Welded Carbon

Standard Steel Pipes and Tubes from

India (62 FR 47632 (September 10,

1997)) (‘‘Pipes and Tubes’’), has found

that the Indian Passbook Scheme is a

proper duty drawback program. Thus, in

this case, the Department should allow

an upward adjustment to U.S. price in

the amount of the duty drawback

received on exports of the subject

merchandise. The respondent also states

that it fully answered the Department’s

supplemental questions regarding the

duty drawback benefit under this

scheme; therefore, the Department’s

rejection of the adjustment in the

preliminary results is groundless. In

particular, Panchmahal argues that the

Indian Passbook Scheme meets the

criteria used by the Department when

analyzing duty drawback programs

because the duty drawback is based on

duties paid with respect to imported

inputs actually used in the production

of the subject merchandise.

The petitioners maintain that the

Panchmahal’s use of the Indian

Passbook Scheme fails the Department’s

two-part test for drawback claims

because the respondent did not provide

documentation establishing: (1) A direct

link between the duties imposed and

those rebated, and (2) that the company

imported a sufficient amount of raw

materials to account for the drawback

received. The petitioners assert that the

evidence on the record supports the

Department’s decision to reject

Panchmahal’s claimed duty drawback

adjustment. Specifically, petitioners

argue that Panchmahal’s claim for a

duty drawback adjustment is based

merely on the existence of the Indian

Passbook Scheme. They state that the

existence of a drawback program does

not guarantee acceptance of the

adjustment by the Department; rather,

the company’s specific utilization of the

scheme must be examined. According to

the petitioners, the lack of a direct link

between duties paid on imported inputs

and duties rebated on exported finished

products under the program, and the

failure by Panchmahal to provide any

details on its imports should compel the

Department to reject the company’s

request for an upward adjustment to

U.S. price.

Department’s Position

When evaluating a duty drawback

program, the Department considers

whether the import duty and duty

drawback are directly linked to, and

dependent upon, one another and

whether the company claiming the

adjustment can show that there were

sufficient imports of the imported raw

materials to account for the drawback

received on the exported product (see,

Pipes and Tubes, at 47634).

Panchmahal has not provided

adequate documentation establishing a

sufficient link between import duties

paid and duty drawbacks generally

received under the program. Moreover,

there is no indication that Panchmahal

imported inputs in sufficient quantities

to account for rebates received under

the program. Accordingly, as in the

preliminary results, no adjustment to

the U.S. price for duty drawback has

been made.

Comment 3: Duty Drawback Adjustment

to Material Costs

Panchmahal argues that its material

costs should be reduced by the amount

of reported duty drawback. Panchmahal

refers to Stainless Steel Bar from India

(62 FR 60482 (November 10, 1997)), in

support of its position.

Petitioners contend that since the

Passbook Scheme does not require

direct linkage between import duties

paid and rebates received on exported

products, the rebates cannot be linked to

the material costs incurred. Petitioners

further argue that since Panchmahal has

failed to report the actual amount of

import duties paid, the Department is

unable to ensure that the claimed

adjustment to material input costs does

not exceed the amount of import duties

paid.

Petitioners also assert that

Panchmahal mischaracterized the

Department’s determination in Stainless

Steel Bar from India (62 FR 60482

(November 10, 1997)) (‘‘Bar from

India’’), which states that the

Department offset the per unit direct

materials cost to account for the rebates

received only on those sales where

constructed value was the basis for

normal value. The petitioners maintain

that since normal value was not based

on constructed value for Panchmahal,

no adjustment should be made to the

reported materials costs.

Department’s Position

Respondent’s comment is moot

because we did not use constructed

value as the basis for normal value.
19714 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 76 /Tuesday, April 21, 1998 / Notices

Final Results of Review

As a result of this review, we find that

the following margins exist for the

period February 1, 1996, through

January 31, 1997:

Manufacturer/

exporter Period Margin(percent)

Panchmahal .. 2/1/96–1/31/97 0

Facor ............. 2/1/96–1/31/97 0

Parties to the proceeding may request

disclosure within five days of the date

of publication of this notice. The results

of this review shall be the basis for the

assessment of antidumping duties on

entries of merchandise covered by the

review and for future deposits of

estimated duties for the manufacturers/

exporters subject to this review. We

have calculated an importer-specific

duty assessment rate based on the ratio

of the total amount of antidumping

duties calculated for the examined sales

made during the period of review

(‘‘POR’’) to the total value of subject

merchandise entered during the POR.

The Department will issue appraisement

instructions directly to the Customs

Service.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective for all

shipments of the subject merchandise

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after the

publication date of these final results of

this new shipper administrative review,

as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the

Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the

reviewed companies will be the rates

established in the final results of this

new shipper review; (2) for companies

not covered in this review, but covered

in previous reviews or the original lessthan-fair-value investigation, 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, a prior

review, or the original investigation, but

the manufacturer is, the cash deposit

rate will be the most recent rate

established for the manufacturer of the

merchandise; and (4) if neither the

exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm

covered in this or any previous review

or the original investigation, the cash

deposit rate will be the ‘‘all others’’ rate

of 12.45 percent established in the final

determination of sales at less than fair

value (59 FR 66915, December 28,

1994).

These deposit requirements will

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 orders (‘‘APOs’’) of their

responsibility concerning the

disposition of proprietary information

disclosed under APO in accordance

with 19 CFR 353.34(d)(1). 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 new shipper review and notice

are in accordance with sections

751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act (19

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

Dated: April 13, 1998.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–10415 Filed 4–20–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

The Ohio State University, et al.; Notice

of Consolidated Decision on

Applications for Duty-Free Entry of

Electron Microscopes

This is a decision consolidated

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: 97–103. Applicant:

The Ohio State University, Columbus,

OH 43210. Instrument: Electron

Microscope, Model CM200.

Manufacturer: Philips, The Netherlands.

Intended Use: See notice at 63 FR 5364,

February 2, 1998. Order Date: July 10,

1997.

Docket Number: 98–005. Applicant:

University of California, Davis, Davis,

CA 95618. Instrument: Electron

Microscope, Model LEEM III.

Manufacturer: Elmitec

Elektronenmikroskopie GmbH,

Germany. Intended Use: See notice at 63

FR 11870, March 11, 1998. Order Date:

December 3, 1996.

Docket Number: 98–012. Applicant:

University of New Orleans, New

Orleans, LA 70148. Instrument: Electron

Microscope, Model JEM–2010.

Manufacturer: JEOL, Ltd., Japan.

Intended Use: See notice at 63 FR

12451, March 13, 1998. Order Date:

January 8, 1998.

Docket Number: 98–014. Applicant:

University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire, Eau

Claire, WI 54702–4004. Instrument:

Electron Microscope, Model JEM–2010.

Manufacturer: JEOL, Ltd., Japan.

Intended Use: See notice at 63 FR

12452, March 13, 1998. Order Date:

December 1, 1997.

Comments: None received. Decision:

Approved. No instrument of equivalent

scientific value to the foreign

instrument, for such purposes as these

instruments are intended to be used,

was being manufactured in the United

States at the time the instruments were

ordered. Reasons: Each foreign

instrument is a conventional

transmission electron microscope

(CTEM) and is intended for research or

scientific educational uses requiring a

CTEM. We know of no CTEM, or any

other instrument suited to these

purposes, which was being

manufactured in the United States

either at the time of order of each

instrument or at the time of receipt of

application by the U.S. Customs

Service.

Frank W. Creel,

Director, Statutory Import Programs Staff.

[FR Doc. 98–10412 Filed 4–20–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

University of Nebraska-Lincoln; Notice

of Decision on Application for DutyFree 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: 97–102. Applicant:

University of Nebraska-Lincoln,

Lincoln, NE 68588–0347. Instrument:

Scanning Acoustic Microscope, Model

KSI SAM 2000. Manufacturer: Kramer

Scientific Instruments, Germany.