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