Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 73 /Thursday, April 16, 1998 / Notices 18879

Background

On October 31, 1997, Nornir Group

A/S (Nornir) requested a new shipper

review of its U.S. sales of subject

merchandise. On December 15, 1997, in

accordance with 19 CFR Sec.

351.214(b), we initiated the new shipper

review of this order for the period April

1, 1996, through September 30, 1997.

On January 16, 1998, the respondent,

Nornir, withdrew its request for review.

Rescission of Review

The respondent withdrew its request

within the time limit provided by the

Department’s regulations at 19 CFR

351.214(f)(1). Therefore the Department

is terminating this review. We note,

however, that this is the second

consecutive request for termination

made by Nornir. Pursuant to the

agency’s inherent authority to prevent

the abuse of its administrative

procedures, we will carefully evaluate

any future requests for a new shipper

review by this party to ensure that it is

not attempting to manipulate the

requirements of the new shipper review

process.

This notice serves as a reminder to

parties subject to administrative

protective orders (APOs) of their

responsibility concerning disposition of

proprietary information disclosed under

APO in accordance with section

354.34(d) of the Department’s

regulations. Timely written notification

of the return or destruction of APO

materials, or conversation to judicial

protective order is hereby requested.

Failure to comply with regulations and

terms of an APO is a sanctionable

violation.

This determination is published in

accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and

777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR

351.214(f)(3).

Dated: April 10, 1998.

Maria Harris Tildon,

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–10169 Filed 4–15–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–05–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–412–810]

Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth

Carbon Steel Products From the

United Kingdom; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of

antidumping duty administrative

review; certain hot-rolled lead and

bismuth carbon steel products from the

United Kingdom.

SUMMARY: On December 9, 1997, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) published the preliminary

results of its administrative review of

the antidumping duty order on certain

hot-rolled lead and bismuth steel

products from the United Kingdom. The

review covers two manufacturers/

exporters, British Steel Engineering

Steels Limited (BSES) and Glynwed

Metal Processing Limited (Glynwed),

and the period March 1, 1996 through

February 28, 1997.

We gave interested parties an

opportunity to comment on our

preliminary results. Based on our

analysis of the comments received, we

have changed the results from those

presented in the preliminary results of

review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 16, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gideon Katz or Maureen Flannery,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone:

(202) 482–4733.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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,

all citations to the Department’s

regulations are to the regulations as

codified at 19 CFR part 353 (April 1,

1996).

Background

On December 9, 1997, the Department

published in the Federal Register (62

FR 64803) the preliminary results of its

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on certain hotrolled lead and bismuth steel products

from the United Kingdom (58 FR 15324,

March 22, 1993). On January 13, 1998,

petitioner, Inland Steel Bar Company,

submitted comments on the

Department’s preliminary results. On

January 20, 1998, BSES submitted

rebuttal comments. We held a hearing

on January 22, 1998. The Department

has now completed the review in

accordance with section 751 of the Act.

Scope of the Review

The products covered by this review

are hot-rolled bars and rods of nonalloy

or other alloy steel, whether or not

descaled, containing by weight 0.03

percent or more of lead or 0.05 percent

or more of bismuth, in coils or cut

lengths, and in numerous shapes and

sizes. Excluded from the scope of this

review are other alloy steels (as defined

by the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of

the United States (HTSUS) Chapter 72,

note 1(f)), except steels classified as

other alloy steels by reason of

containing by weight 0.4 percent or

more of lead, or 0.1 percent of more of

bismuth, tellurium, or selenium. Also

excluded are semi-finished steels and

flat-rolled products. Most of the

products covered in this review are

provided for under subheadings

7213.20.00.00 and 7214.30.00.00 of the

HTSUS. Small quantities of these

products may also enter the United

States under the following HTSUS

subheadings: 7213.31.30.00, 60.00;

7213.39.00.30, 00.60, 00.90;

7214.40.00.10, 00.30, 00.50;

7214.50.00.10, 00.30, 00.50; 7214.60.10,

00.30, 00.50; and 7228.30.80.00. HTSUS

subheadings are provided for

convenience and Customs purposes.

The written description of the scope of

this order remains dispositive.

This review covers two

manufacturers/exporters of certain hotrolled lead and bismuth steel products,

BSES and Glynwed, and the period

March 1, 1996 through February 28,

1997.

Analysis of the Comments

We gave interested parties an

opportunity to comment on the

preliminary results of review. We

received comments from the petitioner,

Inland Steel Bar Company, and rebuttal

comments from BSES.

Comment 1: Petitioner alleges that the

Department erred in applying the arm’slength test after incorporating BSES’s

model matching concordance into the

margin calculation program. Citing the

September 26, 1997 ‘‘Antidumping Duty

Investigation on Steel Wire Rod from
18880 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 73 /Thursday, April 16, 1998 / Notices

Canada Analysis Memorandum for

Preliminary Results of Sidbec-Dosco

(Ispat) Inc. (SDI) and Walker Wire,’’

petitioner asserts that the Department

should follow standard practice and

apply the arm’s-length test prior to

incorporating the model matching

concordance for BSES.

Petitioner further asserts that applying

the arm’s-length test prior to

incorporating the model matching

concordance is consistent with the

intent of the Statement of

Administrative Action (SAA). Petitioner

concludes that non-arms’s-length sales

cannot be used in the concordance

because the SAA, in reference to the

starting point for calculating normal

value, states that the Department will

‘‘ignore sales to affiliated parties which

cannot be demonstrated to be at arm’s

length prices for purposes of calculating

normal value.’’ See Uruguay Round

Agreements Act, Statement of

Administrative Action, H.R. Doc. No.

316, Vol. 1, 103d Cong., 2d Sess. 827

(1994).

Petitioner also asserts that for

Glynwed, the other respondent in this

review, the Department generated a

product concordance after completing

the arm’s-length test. Petitioner states

that the Department may use different

methodologies for different respondents

only if it (1) offers a reasonable and

rational explanation for doing so, and

(2) demonstrates that the practice is in

accordance with the applicable statute.

Petitioner asserts that the Department

offered no reasonable and rational

explanation for using a different

methodology for BSES.

Petitioner also claims that BSES’s

allegedly improper model matching

concordance has a substantial impact on

the Department’s analysis. Petitioner

claims that it generated a model

matching concordance according to the

Department’s standard methodology,

and claims that it produced a vastly

different model match concordance.

Petitioner claims that the Department’s

standard concordance methodology is

consistent with the statutory preference

for computing dumping margins on

price-to-price comparisons rather than

constructed value. Petitioner also claims

that the Department has the authority to

revise the concordance, as it did with

Glynwed for the preliminary results.

BSES argues that the Department

should continue to perform the arm’slength test after incorporating the model

matching concordance supplied by

BSES. BSES argues that the Department

has the discretion to decide the timing

of the concordance and that, while the

Department’s practice has been mixed

with respect to whether to perform the

arm’s-length test before or after applying

the model matching concordance, in

this proceeding the Department’s

practice has been consistent; the

Department has always performed the

arm’s-length test after incorporating the

model matching concordance provided

by BSES. BSES maintains that the

Department made a determination that

this methodology works and should

maintain that determination unless

there are good reasons to change.

BSES suggests that petitioner is

objecting to the Department’s

established model matching

concordance methodology for the first

time in this review because, in the

circumstances of this fourth review,

constructed value actually yields a

lower margin for BSES than price-toprice matching. BSES agrees that the

methodology has an impact, but asserts

that the correct methodology should not

be chosen based on which alternative

results in the higher dumping margin.

BSES further asserts that it is not

appropriate for the Department to

change methodology now because BSES

has not had an opportunity to develop

a factual record, discuss at verification,

or defend the point because the

concordance methodology was not an

issue raised or challenged by the

Department. BSES also claims that the

products petitioner proposes to match

are so dissimilar that normal value (NV)

would be based on constructed value

anyway or on very strange matches. If,

however, the arm’s length test is run

after the creation of the concordance,

there are better matches made.

Department’s Position: We agree with

petitioner. Although in prior segments

of this proceeding we have run the

arm’s-length test after the creation of the

concordance, the United States Court of

Appeals for the Federal Circuit has

since ruled that [T]he initial

consideration for Commerce is whether,

under section 1677b(a)(1), the sales are

‘‘in the usual commercial quantities and

in the ordinary course of trade.’’ 19

U.S.C. 1677b(a)(1). If the sales are not in

the ordinary course of trade, then

Commerce should exclude that specific

class of merchandise * * * because a

determination of the antidumping duty

cannot be made.’’ CEMEX, S.A. v.

United States, slip op. 97–1151 at 15

(Fed. Cir. 1998). It is clear from this

ruling that sales made outside the

ordinary course of trade, which include

those sales failing the arm’s-length and

cost tests, must not be considered in the

antidumping margin calculation. We

have therefore treated the arm’s-length

and cost tests the same way and have

run both tests prior to creating the

product concordance.

We are making this change to the

preliminary results regardless of

whether the dumping margins would be

affected positively or negatively. The

methodology has not been chosen based

on which alternative results in a higher

margin, but rather on the court’s

decision.

BSES’s claim that it did not have an

opportunity to defend its concordance

methodology is erroneous, because it

had just such an opportunity in its

rebuttal to petitioner’s comments.

Furthermore, except for the elimination

of sales that failed the arm’s-length and

costs tests, as described above, our

concordance methodology is identical to

that used by respondent.

Comment 2: Petitioner asserts that the

Department should redefine BSES’s

CONNUMs (control numbers assigned

by respondent to identify each unique

product by its physical characteristics),

aggregating the CONNUMs to

correspond to residual codes in BSES’s

cost accounting system. Petitioner

points out that, for the preliminary

results, the Department used CONNUMs

which BSES segregated to the residual

level, stating that ‘‘residuals are an

essential part of the product.’’ See

Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth

Carbon Steel Products from the United

Kingdom; Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Administrative Review, 62

FR 64803 (December 9, 1997)

(Preliminary Results). Petitioner

contends that not all residual or other

chemical differences are sufficiently

different to constitute separate products

for the Department’s purposes, citing to

Notice of Preliminary Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and

Postponement of Final Determination:

Steel Wire Rod from Canada, 62 FR

51572, 51572 (October 1, 1997) (Steel

Wire Rod). Petitioner claims that BSES’s

reported CONNUMs, defined to the

residual level, over-segregate the

merchandise and that this produces

fewer valid price-to-price comparisons

and distorts the margin due to

overtechnical product differences.

Petitioner contends that BSES’s

residual levels can only be relevant to

the extent that BSES actually tracks

these residual costs in its own cost

accounting system, and, to the extent it

does not, it has improperly subdivided

products that should be considered

identical. Petitioner states that at

verification, the Department found that

BSES failed to report product-specific

costs, as requested by the Department in

the questionnaire. Petitioner claims that

the Department has rejected the

proposition that identical products must

be identical for all purposes. Petitioner

concludes that any merchandise with
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 73 /Thursday, April 16, 1998 / Notices 18881

the same production cost is sufficiently

identical to be considered identical for

model matching comparison purposes,

even though customers request different

residual levels and even if all products

in a CONNUM are not fully

interchangeable commercially.

Petitioner states that in a separate case

the Department has created residual

baskets despite the fact that customers

order by residual levels. See the

Department’s April 21, 1997

questionnaire for the Sales at Less Than

Fair Value Investigation of Steel Wire

Rod from Trinidad and Tobago, page B–

9. Furthermore, petitioner claims that

BSES obscured its cost reporting

methodology to hide the fact that it was

using aggregate costs for reporting its

CONNUMs. Petitioner concludes that

the Department should aggregate BSES’s

CONNUMs to correspond to BSES’s cost

accounting system because 1) these cost

codes define the limits at which

products can be considered different,

and 2) they must serve as facts available,

due to what petitioner says is BSES’s

misreporting of its costs.

Petitioner also points out that in

respondent’s concordance, GRADE (a

code used to identify chemical

composition and tolerance in the

desired chemical composition) and

PRODCOD (the chemical composition

code used internally by the company to

define the chemical makeup of its

products) are out of sequence in one

instance, and that there is one instance

of an unexplained gap in GRADE.

BSES argues that its product codes,

defined to the residual level, designate

the relevant physical characteristics and

should thus be used for model

matching. BSES states that its product

codes specify the exact levels of various

required chemical elements in the steel

and also the highest permissible levels

of the undesirable residual elements.

BSES contends that these codes are used

in the ordinary course of trade and that

the product code is an essential part of

the product’s identity, from order to

invoicing, as confirmed by the

Department at verification. See the

January 7, 1998 Memorandum to the

File from Rebecca Trainor and Gideon

Katz through Maureen Flannery and

Edward Yang: ‘‘Report on the Sales and

Cost Verification of British Steel

Engineering Steels (BSES) in the Fourth

Administrative Review of the

Antidumping Duty Order on Certain

Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon

Steel Products from the United

Kingdom’’ (Verification Report), page 5.

BSES states that, in other segments of

this proceeding, the Department rejected

petitioner’s arguments to ignore any

differences in the chemical

compositions of the two products, and

match using a CONNUM that ignores

residuals, or trace elements. In support

of its argument, BSES cites Certain HotRolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel

Products from the United Kingdom;

Final Determination of Sales at Less

than Fair Value (LTFV Investigation

Final Determination), 58 FR 6207, 6209

(January 27, 1993) and Certain HotRolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel

Products from the United Kingdom;

Final Results of Antidumping

Administrative Review (First Review

Final Results), 60 FR 44009, 44011

(August 24, 1995). BSES states that the

Department determined, in both

instances, that it is appropriate to

perform the model match concordance

using CONNUMs defined to the residual

level because ‘‘the product differences

claimed by [BSES] due to residuals are

commercially significant and not

incidental—they are designed into the

product.’’

BSES also argues that redefining the

model matching concordance to

correspond to BSES’s cost accounting

system is not appropriate because the

cost accounting system groups product

codes only for administrative

convenience since BSES does not

individually track the costs of certain

similar products. BSES claims that the

cost accounting groupings of product

codes do not suggest lack of product

individuality within the group, product

substitutability, or equal product costs.

BSES maintains that it is the product

code, not the cost grouping, that

describes the characteristics of steel

needed to meet customer specifications.

BSES further contends that the

Department bases its model matching

methodology on similarity of physical

characteristics, not similarity of costs.

BSES argues that petitioner’s

references to the Department’s treatment

of residuals in the questionnaire and

preliminary notice in other cases cannot

be considered relevant here because

these cases involve plain carbon wire

rod, an entirely different product, and

producers that have absolutely nothing

in common with BSES. BSES further

argues that BSES’ products are highly

sophisticated engineering steels used in

high-performance applications, in

which slight variations in chemical

composition can result in greatly

differing performance. BSES claims that

fine-tuned residuals levels may not be

vital in plain carbon wire rod, but they

are absolutely vital in BSES’ engineering

steels.

BSES further asserts that redefining

the model matching concordance would

have no practical effect on the margin

analysis. BSES claims that if the

Department implements petitioner’s

methodology, only three pairs of

product codes (out of many hundreds)

would be affected, and that any effect on

the margin may be minuscule. Finally,

BSES claims that it has reported product

costs just as instructed, and that this is

not a facts available situation. BSES

contends that the Department should

reject petitioner’s request because it is

both unjustified and inconsequential.

Department’s Position: The

Department disagrees with petitioner.

The creation of a product concordance

inherently relies upon the matching of

significant physical characteristics, not

on cost groupings in a company’s cost

accounting system. As noted by

respondent, the Department stated in

the LTFV Investigation Final

Determination that ‘‘in order for

merchandise to be considered identical,

all physical characteristics * * * must

be the same.’’ 58 FR at 6207, 6209

(January 27, 1993).

Throughout each segment of this

proceeding the Department has

determined that residual content is an

essential physical characteristic in the

creation of the model match product

concordance. For example, we

determined that ‘‘[p]roduct differences

due to residuals are commercially

significant and not incidental, as they

are designed into the product.

Therefore, CONNUM is the appropriate

variable to be used for model

matching.’’ See First Review Final

Results, 60 FR at 44009, 44011 (August

24, 1995). Petitioner has not placed on

the record evidence that residual or

other chemical differences are not

significant enough to create separate

products for model matching purposes.

In this review, the Department once

again verified the importance of

residuals. We found that residual levels

are critical to BSES and to its customers.

See Sales Verification Report at 5. Thus,

we are making no change in the use of

residuals in model matching.

We have corrected one instance in

which the GRADEs assigned to certain

PRODCODs were not consistent with

the overall sequence of such

assignments in the key to matching

criteria. There is no evidence that there

were incorrect matches because of any

gap in GRADE.

Comment 3: Petitioner asserts that the

Department should increase BSES’s

general and administrative expenses

(G&A) to include the costs of a mill

closure incurred during the period of

review (POR). Petitioner states that

BSES accrued these costs in the year it

announced the closure, later setting the

1997 costs off against this earlier

accrual. Petitioner contends that BSES
18882 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 73 /Thursday, April 16, 1998 / Notices

did not include these actual costs of

closure in the reported amounts for the

POR G&A.

Petitioner claims that BSES’s

accounting technique artificially and

improperly eliminated the actual costs

incurred by BSES during the POR.

Petitioner claims that BSES concedes as

much in its supplemental response by

merely stating that the mill closure ‘‘had

no effect on the FY 1997 profit and loss

account.’’ See BSES’s October 17, 1997

Supplemental Response, pages 22–23.

Petitioner maintains that the

Department should include these costs

in BSES’s G&A expenses because BSES

incurred actual costs associated with the

mill closure during the POR.

BSES argues that the Department

should not increase G&A expenses to

include the mill closure costs because

BSES reported these expenses in its

financial accounts for FY 1995 in

accordance with British Generally

Accepted Accounting Principles and,

therefore, they do not appear in BSES’s

financial accounts for 1997, the year

used as the basis of the cost analysis in

this review. BSES maintains that the

Department’s practice is to include costs

as they appear on a company’s audited

financial statement, and cites to Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Sweaters Wholly or in Chief

Weight of Man-Made Fiber from Taiwan,

55 FR 34585 (August 23, 1990). BSES

claims that, because the entire closure

costs were accrued and reported in

BSES’s FY 1995 financial statements,

these costs should have no impact on

the 1997 costs used for analysis in this

review. BSES further notes that the

Department verified the reported G&A

expenses.

Department’s Position: The

Department agrees with petitioner. We

are including the actual closure costs for

this mill in BSES’s G&A for this POR.

It is the Department’s general practice to

include accruals which are recognized

in the respondent’s audited financial

statements in the COP/constructed

value calculations. See Certain Cut-ToLength Carbon Steel Plate from

Germany: Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR

13836 (March 28, 1996). However, the

Department has not in any prior review

included the closure costs for this mill.

See the March 31, 1998 Memorandum to

the file from Gideon Katz: ‘‘Phone

conversation with BSES regarding mill

closure costs.’’ Since it is necessary to

account for these costs, and since the

actual costs were incurred in the 1996–

1997 period of review, we are including

these actual costs in BSES’s G&A for

this POR.

Comment 4: Petitioner asserts that the

Department should reject BSES’s

reported U.S. packing expenses because

the Department found these expenses to

be inaccurate at verification. Petitioner

further asserts that the Department

should set all U.S. packing costs to the

highest packing cost calculated for any

U.S. sale, and then increase all home

market prices by this highest reported

packing cost.

BSES argues that the Department

should not make the changes to packing

costs that petitioner requested because

the Department already made a slight

adjustment to packing costs in the

preliminary results to reflect small

discrepancies found at verification.

BSES claims that the Department would

have to make any packing adjustment to

both the U.S. and home market products

because BSES packs all its products in

the exact same manner. BSES claims

that there could thus be no impact on

the margin. BSES asserts that additional

changes would be unnecessary and

improper.

Department’s Position: The

Department disagrees with petitioner.

The discrepancy in packing costs

discovered at verification was minor

and the verifiers were easily able to

derive the correct figures for actual

packing costs. Thus, it is appropriate to

use corrected packing costs for both

markets, which we did in the

preliminary results and are continuing

to do for these final results.

Final Results of Review

We determine that the following

weighted-average dumping margins

exist:

Manufacturer/exporter Time period Margin

(percent)

British Steel Engineering Steels Limited (BSES)(formerly United Engineering Steels Limited) ....................... 03/01/96–02/28/97 18.18

Glynwed Metal Processing Limited (Glynwed) .................................................................................................. 03/01/96–02/28/97 7.69

The Department shall determine, and

the Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. Individual differences between

export price and NV may vary from the

percentages stated above. Because there

is a concurrent review of the

countervailing duty order on the subject

merchandise, final assessments for

BSES and Glynwed 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. For assessment purposes, we

intend to calculate importer-specific

assessment rates.

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 for by

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

cash deposit rate for the reviewed

companies 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 of Interested Parties

This notice also serves as a reminder

to parties subject to administrative

protective order (APO) of their

responsibility concerning the
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 73 /Thursday, April 16, 1998 / Notices 18883

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 sections

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

U.S.C. 1675 (a)(1) and 19 U.S.C.

1677f(i)(1)) and 19 CFR 353.22.

Dated: April 7, 1998.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–10038 Filed 4–15–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–583–806]

Certain Small Business Telephone

Systems and Subassemblies Thereof

From Taiwan; Notice of Court Decision

AGENCY: International Trade

Administration, Import Administration,

Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: On February 25, 1998, the

Court of International Trade affirmed

the Department of Commerce’s remand

determination in Taiwan International

Standard Electronics, Ltd. v. United

States, Court No. 92–08–00532, and

Tecom Co., Ltd. v. United States, Court

No. 92–08–00538. These cases involve

litigation challenging the Department of

Commerce’s final results of the August

3, 1989, through November 30, 1990,

antidumping duty administrative review

of certain small business telephone

systems and subassemblies from

Taiwan. This Court decision was not in

harmony with the Department’s original

determination in this review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 16, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Charles Riggle, Office 2, Group 1, AD/

CVD Enforcement, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230,

telephone: (202) 482–0650.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On July 1, 1992, the Department

published notice of its final results of

antidumping duty administrative review

of certain small business telephone

systems and subassemblies from

Taiwan, covering the period August 3,

1989, through November 30, 1990.

Certain Small Business Telephone

Systems and Subassemblies Thereof

From Taiwan; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 57 FR 29283 (July 1, 1992). In

these final results, the Department

determined dumping margins of 129.73

percent ad valorem for Taiwan

International Standard Electronics, Ltd.

(TAISEL) and 18.10 percent ad valorem

for Tecom Co., Ltd. (Tecom) for the

period of review (POR). Following

publication of the Department’s final

results, TAISEL and Tecom filed

lawsuits with the Court of International

Trade (CIT) challenging the

Department’s final results.

In TAISEL v. United States, Slip-Op.

97–40 (April 4, 1997), the CIT directed

the Department to: (1) Reconsider

TAISEL’s response to determine

whether the Department can exclude

returned entries of SBTs covered by

canceled sales from assessment of

antidumping duties; and (2) assign to

TAISEL a best information available

(BIA) rate consistent with the Federal

Circuit’s decision in Allied-Signal

Aerospace Co. v. United States, 996

F.2d 1185 (Fed. Cir. 1993). On July 3,

1997, in its remand determination, the

Department: (1) Excluded from

assessment of duties certain entries for

which TAISEL provided documentation

showing that such entries were returned

as a result of canceled sales; and (2)

assigned TAISEL a BIA margin based on

the margin recalculated for Tecom in

the same remand. As a result of this

redetermination, the Department

assigned a BIA margin of 8.24 percent

to TAISEL for the POR.

In Tecom Co. v. United States, SlipOp. 97–42 (April 4, 1997), the CIT

directed the Department to: (1) Use

Tecom’s data contained on a computer

tape submitted on July 29, 1991; (2)

reconsider Tecom’s claims for

circumstance-of-sales adjustments, as

well as its claim for an adjustment to

foreign market value (FMV) for the

provision of free gifts; and (3) reconsider

Tecom’s claim for a level-of-trade

adjustment. In its July 3, 1997, remand

determination, the Department: (1) Used

the data contained on the July 29, 1991,

computer tape; (2) disallowed Tecom’s

claimed circumstance-of-sale

adjustments as well as its claimed

adjustment to FMV for free gifts; and (3)

granted a level-of-trade adjustment. As a

result of this redetermination, the

Department calculated a dumping

margin of 8.24 percent for Tecom for the

POR.

On February 25, 1998, the CIT

affirmed these redeterminations.

In its decision in Timken Co. v.

United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir.

1990) (Timken), the Court of Appeals for

the Federal Circuit (CAFC) held that the

Department must publish notice of a

decision of the CIT or the CAFC which

is not in harmony with the Department’s

determination. Publication of this notice

fulfills that obligation. The CAFC also

held that the Department must suspend

liquidation of the subject merchandise

until there is a ‘‘conclusive’’ decision in

the case. Therefore, pursuant to Timken,

Commerce must suspend liquidation

pending the expiration of the period to

appeal the CIT’s February 25, 1998

ruling or, if that ruling is appealed,

pending a final decision by the CAFC.

Dated: April 7, 1998.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–10167 Filed 4–15–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–583–827]

Notice of Amended Final

Determination and Antidumping Duty

Order of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:

Static Random Access Memory

Semiconductors From Taiwan

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 16, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Shawn Thompson or David Genovese,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington,

DC. 20230; telephone: (202) 482–1776 or

(202) 482–0498, respectively.

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 of Commerce’s (the

Department’s) regulations are to the

regulations codified at 19 CFR part 353

(April 1, 1996).

Amended Final Determination

In accordance with section 735(a) of

the Act, on February 23, 1998, the

Department made its final