Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 74 / Thursday, April 17, 1997 / Notices 18747

programming language accordingly for

these final results.

Comment 10: Petitioner argues that

the Department inadvertently used the

field MONTHU to establish the year for

a concordance entry.

Department’s Position: We agree with

petitioner. Accordingly, for these final

results, we have revised our computer

programming language to make the

appropriate clerical error correction.

Correction of Clerical Error

For the preliminary results, we failed

to include direct selling expenses,

indirect selling expenses, and U.S.

packing expenses in the amount by

which the profit ratio was multiplied in

calculating CV profit. For these final

results, we have included these

expenses in the calculation of CV profit.

Final Results of Review

As a result of our review, we

determine that the following weightedaverage margin exists:

Manufacturer/exporter Period of review

Margin

(percent)

British Steel Engineering Steels Limited (BSES)(formerly United Engineering Steels Limited) ................................. 3/1/95–2/29/96 4.56

The Department shall determine, and

the Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. Individual differences between

export price and normal value may vary

from the percentage stated above.

Because there is a concurrent review of

the countervailing duty order on the

subject merchandise, final assessments

for BSES will reflect the final results of

the countervailing duty administrative

review in accordance with 19 CFR

353.41(d)(iv). 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 final results

of review for all shipments of certain

hot-rolled lead and bismuth carbon steel

products from the United Kingdom

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after the

publication date, as provided by section

751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit

rate for the reviewed company will be

the rate listed above; (2) for previously

reviewed or 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, a prior review, or the

original less-than-fair-value (LTFV)

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) for all other

producers and/or exporters of this

merchandise, the cash deposit rate shall

be 25.82 percent, the ‘‘all others’’ rate

established in the LTFV investigation

(58 FR 6207, January 27, 1993). These

deposit requirements 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 subsequent assessment of

double antidumping duties.

Notification to Interested Parties

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 19 CFR 353.34(d). Timely written

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.

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 353.22.

Dated: April 9, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–9971 Filed 4–16–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–357–810]

Oil Country Tubular Goods From

Argentina; Rescission of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of rescission of

antidumping duty administrative

review.

SUMMARY: On September 17, 1996, the

Department of Commerce (‘‘the

Department’’) published in the Federal

Register (61 FR 48882) a notice

announcing the initiation of an

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on oil country

tubular goods (‘‘OCTG’’) from

Argentina. This review covered the

period June 29, 1995 through July 31,

1996 (for OCTG other than drill pipe)

and August 11, 1995 through July 31,

1996 (for drill pipe). This review has

now been rescinded as a result of the

absence of entries into the United States

of subject merchandise during the

period of review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 17, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Alain Letort or John Kugelman, AD/CVD

Enforcement Group III—Office 8, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

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

telephone (202) 482–4243 or (202) 482–

0649, respectively, or fax (202) 482–

1388.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August

30, 1996, petitioners requested an

administrative review of Siderca

S.A.I.C., an Argentine producer and

exporter of OCTG, and Siderca

Corporation, a U.S. importer and

reseller of such merchandise

(collectively, ‘‘Siderca’’), with respect to

the antidumping duty order published

in the Federal Register on August 11,

1995 (60 FR 41055). We initiated this

review on September 17, 1996 (61 FR

48882).

On October 4, 1996, Siderca filed a

letter with the Department certifying

that it did not export, directly or

indirectly, subject merchandise that was

entered for consumption into the United

States during the period of review

(‘‘POR’’). Siderca also certified that its

U.S. affiliate, Siderca Corporation, did

not import for U.S. consumption any of

the subject merchandise during the

POR.
18748 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 74 / Thursday, April 17, 1997 / Notices

On October 25, 1996, petitioners

claimed that publicly available import

data contradicted Siderca’s claims.

Petitioners contended these data

showed that Siderca was the shipper of

a substantial quantity of OCTG (drill

pipe and green tubing) during the

period August through December, 1995,

and that Siderca was listed as the

consignee of each entry. Petitioners

noted that none of these entries

appeared in official U.S. import

statistics. Petitioners also claimed those

statistics showed that a very small

quantity of seamless casing entered the

United States from Argentina in

December 1995, and requested that

Siderca be asked to explain the exact

nature, timing, and details of this

shipment.

On October 30, 1996, we sent a noshipment inquiry regarding Siderca to

the U.S. Customs Service (‘‘Customs’’).

Customs did not indicate that there

were records of any consumption

entries of OCTG by Siderca during the

POR. On November 13, 1996, Siderca

asserted in a letter to the Department

that none of the six entries of drill pipe

and green tubing referenced by

petitioners was a consumption entry;

rather, Siderca claimed, two of these

entries were temporary importation inbond (‘‘TIB’’) entries and four were

entries into a foreign-trade zone

(‘‘FTZ’’). Siderca argued that none of

these entries could serve as the basis for

an administrative review since they

were not imported into the United

States for consumption. Siderca also

stated that it had no knowledge of, or

involvement with, the very small

shipment of seamless casing that

allegedly entered the United States in

December 1995. Siderca surmised that

this shipment involved parties other

than itself. There is no evidence on the

record that would lead us to question

this claim by Siderca.

On April 8, 1997, we received official

confirmation from Customs that two of

the entries of drill pipe and green tubing

in question were TIB entries and that

the remaining four were FTZ entries.

Customs also confirmed that none of

these six entries entered the customs

territory of the United States during the

POR for consumption.

Because the only firm for which a

review was requested made no entries

into the customs territory of the United

States during the POR, we are

rescinding this review in accordance

with the Department’s practice. See

Antidumping Duties; Countervailing

Duties; Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,

61 FR 7308, 7317, 7365 (February 27,

1996) (section 351.213(d)(3)). The cash

deposit rate for this firm will continue

to be the rate established in the most

recently completed segment of this

proceeding.

This notice is published in

accordance with section 751 of the

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19

U.S.C. § 1675 (1995)), and section

353.22 of the Department’s regulations

(19 CFR § 353.22 (1996)).

Dated: April 10, 1997.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Enforcement

Group III, Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–9967 Filed 4–16–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A489–807]

Antidumpting Duty Order: Certain

Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From

Turkey

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 17, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Shawn Thompson, Cameron Werker, or

Fabian Rivelis, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202)

482–1776, (202) 482–3874, or (202) 482–

3853; respectively.

Scope of Order

The merchandise covered by this

order is all stock deformed steel

concrete reinforcing bars sold in straight

lengths and coils. This includes all hotrolled deformed rebar rolled from billet

steel, rail steel, axle steel, or low-alloy

steel. It excludes (i) plain round rebar,

(ii) rebar that a processor has further

worked or fabricated, and (iii) all coated

rebar. Deformed rebar is currently

classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)

under item numbers 7213.10.000 and

7214.20.000. The HTSUS subheadings

are provided for convenience and

customs purposes. The written

description of the scope of this order is

dispositive.

Antidumping Duty Order

In accordance with section 735(a) of

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the

Act), the Department made its final

determination that rebar from Turkey is

being sold at less than fair value (62 FR

9737, March 4, 1997). On April 10,

1997, the International Trade

Commission (ITC) notified the

Department of its final determination,

pursuant to section 735(b)(1)(A)(i) of the

Act, that a regional industry in the

United States is materially injured by

reason of imports of the subject

merchandise from Turkey.

In accordance with section 736(a)(1)

of the Act, the Department will direct

Customs officers to assess, upon further

advice by the administering authority,

antidumping duties equal to the amount

by which the normal value of the

merchandise exceeds the export price

(or the constructed export price) of the

merchandise for all entries of rebar from

Turkey. These antidumping duties will

be assessed on all unliquidated entries

of rebar from Turkey entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after October 10,

1996, the date on which the Department

published its preliminary determination

in the Federal Register (61 FR 53203).

On or after the date of publication of

this notice in the Federal Register,

Customs officers must require, at the

same time as importers would normally

deposit estimated duties on this

merchandise, a cash deposit equal to the

estimated weighted-average

antidumping duty margins as noted

below. The ‘‘All Others’’ rate applies to

all exporters of rebar not specifically

listed below.

The ad valorem weighted-average

dumping margins are as follows:

Producer/manufacturer/exporterMargin

percentage

Colakoglu Metalurji A.S. or

Colakoglu Dis Ticaret

(Colakoglu) ........................ 9.84

Ekinciler Demir Celik or

Ekinciler Dis Ticaret

(Ekinciler) .......................... 18.68

Habas Sinai Ve Tibbi Gazlar

Istihsal Endustrisi A.S.

(Habas) .............................. 18.54

Izmir Demir Celik Sanayi

A.S. (IDC) .......................... 41.80

Izmir Metalurji Fabrikasi Turk

A.S. (Metas) ...................... 30.16

All Others .............................. 16.06

In the final determination, the

Department found that critical

circumstances exist with respect to

exports of rebar from Turkey by all

exporters except Colakoglu. However,

on April 10, 1997, the ITC notified the

Department of its negative

determination regarding critical

circumstances. As a result of the ITC’s

determination, pursuant to section

735(c)(3) of the Act, we shall order

Customs to terminate the retroactive

suspension of liquidation and to release

any bond or other security and refund