Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 66 / Monday, April 7, 1997 / Notices 16541

Contact: David Dirstine at (202) 482–

4033

Greece

Electrolytic Manganese Dioxide

A–484–801

54 FR 15243

April 17, 1989

Contact: Thomas Barlow at (202) 482–

0410

Japan

Aspheric Opthalmoscopy Lenses

A–588–819

57 FR 13075

April 15, 1992

Contact: Jack Dulberger at (202) 482–

5505

Kenya

Standard Carnations

A–779–602

52 FR 13490

April 23, 1987

Contact: Michael Panfeld at (202) 482–

0168

If no interested party requests an

administrative review in accordance

with the Department’s notice of

opportunity to request administrative

review, and no domestic interested

party objects to the Department’s intent

to revoke or terminate pursuant to this

notice, we shall conclude that the

antidumping duty orders, findings, and

suspended investigations are no longer

of interest to interested parties and shall

proceed with the revocation or

termination.

Opportunity To Object

Domestic interested parties, as

defined in § 353.2(k) (3), (4), (5), and (6)

of the Department’s regulations, may

object to the Department’s intent to

revoke these antidumping duty orders

and findings or to terminate the

suspended investigations by the last day

of April 1997. Any submission to the

Department must contain the name and

case number of the proceeding and a

statement that explains how the

objecting party qualifies as a domestic

interested party under § 353.2(k) (3), (4),

(5), and (6) of the Department’s

regulations.

Seven copies of such objections

should be submitted to the Assistant

Secretary for Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Room B–099, U.S. Department of

Commerce, Washington, D.C. 20230.

You must also include the pertinent

certification(s) in accordance with

§ 353.31(g) and § 353.31(i) of the

Department’s regulations. In addition,

the Department requests that a copy of

the objection be sent to Michael F.

Panfeld in Room 4203.

This notice is in accordance with 19

CFR 353.25(d)(4)(i).

Dated: March 25, 1997.

Richard W. Moreland,

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for AD/

CVD Enforcement.

[FR Doc. 97–8844 Filed 4–4–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–549–807]

Certain Carbon Steel Butt-Weld Pipe

Fittings From Thailand; Preliminary

Results of Antidumpting Duty

Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of

antidumping duty administrative

review.

SUMMARY: In response to a request by

Tube Forgings of America, Inc., and

Mills Iron Works, Inc., (hereafter

petitioner) who were the members of the

petitioning group of companies in the

less-than-fair-value (LTFV)

investigation, the Department of

Commerce (the Department) is

conducting an administrative review of

the antidumping duty order on certain

carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings from

Thailand. This review covers TTU

Industrial Corp., Ltd. (TTU), a

manufacturer/exporter of this

merchandise to the United States, and

the period July 1, 1995, through June 30,

1996. The firm failed to submit a

response to our questionnaire. As a

result, we have preliminarily

determined to sue the facts otherwise

available for cash deposit and

appraisement purposes.

Interested parties are invited to

comment on these preliminary results.

Parties who submit arguments in this

proceeding are requested to submit with

the arguments: (1) A statement of the

issues and (2) a brief summary of the

arguments.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 7, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Daniel Manzoni or James Terpstra,

Office of Antidumping and

Countervailing Duty Enforcement Group

II, Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202)

482–4737.

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

(URAA).

Background

On July 30, 1996, the petitioner

requested, in accordance with section

353.22(a) of the Department’s

regulations (19 CFR 353.22(a)), an

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order (57 FR 29702,

July 6, 1992) on certain carbon steel

butt-weld pipe fittings from Thailand,

with respect to TTU, a manufacturer/

exporter of this merchandise to the

United States, and covering the period

July 1, 1995, through June 30, 1996. We

published a notice of initiation of the

review on August 15, 1996 (61 FR

42416). On September 19, 1996, the

Department sent an antidumping

questionnaire to TTU. The response to

the questionnaire was due on November

3, 1996. To date, we have not received

any response from TTU. The

Department is now conducting this

review in accordance with section 751

of the Act.

Scope of the Review

The product covered by this order is

certain carbon steel but-weld pipe

fitting, having an inside diameter of less

than 14 inches, imported in either

finished or unfinished form. These

formed or forged pipe fittings are used

to join sections in piping systems where

conditions require permanent, welded

connections, as distinguished from

fittings based on other fastening

methods (e.g., threaded, grooved, or

bolted fittings). Carbon steel butt-weld

pipe fittings are currently classified

under subheading 7307.93.30 of the

harmonized tariff schedule (HTS).

Although the HTS subheadings are

provided for convenience and customs

purposes, our written description of the

scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

The review covers TTU and the

period July 1, 1995, through June 30,

1996 (POR).

Use of Facts Otherwise Available

We preliminarily determine, in

accordance with section 776(a) of the

Act, that the use of facts available (FA)

is appropriate for TTU because it did

not respond to our antidumping

questionnaire. We find that this firm has

withheld ‘‘information that has been

requested by the administering
16542 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 66 / Monday, April 7, 1997 / Notices

authority.’’ Furthermore, we determine

that, pursuant to section 776(b) of the

Act, it is appropriate to make an

inference adverse to the interests of this

company because it failed to cooperate

by not responding to our questionnaire.

Where the Department must base the

entire dumping margin for a respondent

in an administrative review on facts

otherwise available because that

respondent failed to cooperate, section

776(b) of the Act authorizes the use of

an inference adverse to the interests of

that respondent in choosing the facts

available. Section 776(b) of the Act also

authorizes the Department to use as

adverse facts available information

derived from the petition, the final

determination, a previous

administrative review, or other

information placed on the record.

Section 776(c) of the Act provides that

the Department shall, to the extent

practicable, corroborate that secondary

information from independent sources

reasonably at its disposal. The

Statement of Administrative Action

(SAA) provides that ‘‘corroborate’’

means simply that the Department will

satisfy itself that the secondary

information to be used has probative

value. (See H.R. Doc. 316, Vol. 1, 103d

Cong., 2d sess. 870 (1994).)

In this case, for total adverse FA we

have used the best information available

(BIA) rate from the LTFV investigation

(50.84 percent), which was based on the

highest alleged margin in the

antidumping petition (52.60 percent),

adjusted to exclude the export subsidies

found during the period of investigation

(1.76 percent). To corroborate the LTFV

BIA rate of 50.84 percent, we examined

the basis of the rates contained in the

petition. The US prices in the petition

were based on publicly known prices

from a Thai manufacturer selling in the

United States. The foreign market value

was based on constructed value. We

reviewed the data submitted by the

petitioner and the assumptions that

petitioner made when calculating CV.

The methodology was reasonable and

was based on the data reasonably

available to petitioner at the time.

We preliminarily find that, in this

case, there are no circumstances that

indicate that the selected margin is not

appropriate as adverse facts available.

Preliminary Results of the Review

As a result of our review, we

preliminarily determine that a margin of

50.84 percent exists for TTU for the

period July 1, 1995, through June 30,

1996.

Any interested party may request a

hearing within 10 days of publication.

Any hearing, if requested, will be held

44 days after the date of publication, or

the first workday thereafter. Case briefs

and/or written comments from

interested parties may be submitted not

later than 30 days after the date of

publication of this notice. Rebuttal

briefs and rebuttals to written

comments, limited to issues raised in

the case briefs and comments, may be

filed not later than 37 days after the date

of publication. Parties who submit

arguments in this proceeding are

requested to submit with the arguments:

(1) A statement of the issues and (2) a

brief summary of the arguments. The

Department will publish the final

results of the administrative review,

including the results of its analysis of

issues raised in any such written

comments or at a hearing.

Upon completion of this

administrative review, the Department

will issue appraisement instructions

directly to the Customs Service.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective upon

completion of the final results of this

administrative review for all shipments

of carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings

from Thailand entered, or withdrawn

from warehouse, for consumption on or

after the publication date of the final

results of this administrative review, as

provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:

(1) The cash deposit rate for the

reviewed company will be the rate

established in the final results of

administrative review; (2) for

merchandise exported by manufacturers

or exporters not covered in this review

but covered in the original LTFV

investigation or a previous review, the

cash deposit will continue to be the

most recent rate published in the final

determination or final results for which

the manufacturer or exporter received

an individual rate; (3) if the exporter is

not a firm covered in this review, the

previous 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) if neither the

exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm

covered in this or any previous reviews,

the cash deposit rate will be 39.10

percent, the ‘‘all others’’ rate established

in the LTFV investigation (57 FR 29702,

July 6, 1992).

This notice serves as a preliminary

reminder to importers of their

responsibility 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 administrative review and notice

are in accordance with sections

751(a)(1) and 751(d) of the Act (19

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

19 CFR 353.25.

Dated: April 1, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–8845 Filed 4–4–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–821–807]

Ferrovanadium and Nitrided Vanadium

From the Russian Federation; Notice

of Extension of Time Limit for

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 7, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David Goldberger at (202) 482–4136, or

Erik Warga at (202) 482–0922, Office of

AD/CVD Enforcement, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

(the Department) is extending the time

limit for the preliminary results of the

first administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on

ferrovanadium and nitrided vanadium

from the Russian Federation. This

extension is made pursuant to the Tariff

Act of 1930, as amended by the Uruguay

Round Agreements Act (hereinafter,

‘‘the Act’’).

Postponement

Under the Act, the Department may

extend the deadline for completion of

an administrative review if it

determines it is not practicable to

complete the review within the

statutory time limit of 365 days. The

Department finds that it is not

practicable to complete the first

administrative review of ferrovanadium

and nitrided vanadium from the Russian

Federation within this time limit.

In accordance with section

752(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department

will extend the time for completion for

the preliminary results of this review