Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 1998 / Notices 25821

1The six new shippers are China National

Industrial Machinery Import & Export Company,

Lai Zhou Auto Brake Equipments Factory, Longkou

Haimeng Machinery Co., Ltd., Qingdao Gren Co.,

Yantai Winhere Auto-Part Manufacturing Co., Ltd.,

and Zibo Luzhou Automobile Parts Co., Ltd.

the United States, to expedite and

encourage foreign commerce, and for

other purposes,’’ as amended (19 U.S.C.

81a–81u) (the Act), the Foreign-Trade

Zones Board (the Board) is authorized to

grant to qualified corporations the

privilege of establishing foreign-trade

zones in or adjacent to U.S. Customs

ports of entry;

Whereas, the Board’s regulations (15

CFR Part 400) provide for the

establishment of special-purpose

subzones when existing zone facilities

cannot serve the specific use involved;

Whereas, an application from the Port

of Houston Authority, grantee of

Foreign-Trade Zone 84, for authority to

establish special-purpose subzone status

at the petrochemical complex of

Equistar Chemicals LP, located in Harris

County, Texas, was filed by the Board

on June 16, 1997, and notice inviting

public comment was given in the

Federal Register (FTZ Docket 50–97, 62

FR 355152, 6/30/97); and,

Whereas, the Board adopts the

findings and recommendations of the

examiner’s report, and finds that the

requirements of the FTZ Act and

Board’s regulations would be satisfied,

and that approval of the application

would be in the public interest if

approval is subject to the conditions

listed below;

Now, therefore, the Board hereby

authorizes the establishment of a

subzone (Subzone 84Q) at the

petrochemical complex of Equistar

Chemicals LP, located in Harris County,

Texas, at the location described in the

application, subject to the FTZ Act and

the Board’s regulations, including

§ 400.28, and subject to the following

conditions:

1. Foreign status (19 CFR 146.41,

146.42) products consumed as fuel for

the refinery shall be subject to the

applicable duty rate.

2. Privileged foreign status (19 CFR

146.41) shall be elected on all foreign

merchandise admitted to the subzone,

except that non-privileged foreign (NPF)

status (19 CFR 146.42) may be elected

on refinery inputs covered under

HTSUS Subheadings #2710.00.0505–

#2710.00.2500, and #2710.00.45 which

are used in the production of:

—petrochemical feedstocks (examiners

report, Appendix C);

—products for export; and,

—products eligible for entry under

HTSUS # 9808.00.30 and 9808.00.40

(U.S. Government purchases).

3. The authority with regard to the

NPF option is initially granted until

September 30, 2000, subject to

extension.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 28th day of

April 1998.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import

Administration, Alternate Chairman, ForeignTrade Zones Board.

Dennis Puccinelli,

Acting Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–12331 Filed 5–8–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–570–846]

Brake Rotors From the People’s

Republic of China: Postponement of

Preliminary Results of Antidumping

Duty New Shipper Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of extension of time limit

for preliminary results in antidumping

duty new shipper administrative review

of brake rotors from the People’s

Republic of China.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

(the Department) is extending the time

limit for the preliminary results of the

antidumping duty new shipper

administrative reviews of brake rotors

from the People’s Republic of China

(PRC). This review covers the period

April 1, 1997, through September 30,

1997.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 11, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Brian Smith or Sunkyu Kim, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

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

telephone: (202) 482–1766 or (202) 482–

2613, respectively.

Postponement of Preliminary Results of

Review

On November 28, 1997, the

Department initiated this new shipper

review of the antidumping duty order

on brake rotors from the PRC (62 FR

64206, December 4, 1997). The current

deadline for the preliminary results is

May 27, 1998. We determine that it is

not practicable to complete this review

within the original time frame because

of the large number of respondents. 1 In

accordance with Section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv)

of the Trade and Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended by the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act of 1994 (19 U.S.C.

1675(a)(3)(A)), the Department finds this

new shipper review extraordinarily

complicated and is extending the time

limit for completion of the preliminary

results until September 24, 1998, which

is 300 days after the date on which the

new shipper review was initiated.

Dated: April 30, 1998.

Maria Harris Tildon,

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–12334 Filed 5–8–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–421–701]

Brass Sheet and Strip From the

Netherlands: Notice of Preliminary

Results of Antidumping 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

respondent Outokumpu Copper Strip

B.V. (OBV) and its United States affiliate

Outokumpu Copper (USA), Inc.

(OCUSA), the Department of Commerce

(the Department) is conducting an

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on brass sheet

and strip (BSS) from the Netherlands

(A–421–701). This review covers one

producer/manufacturer/exporter of the

subject merchandise to the United

States during the period August 1, 1996

through July 31, 1997.

We preliminarily determine that sales

of BSS from the Netherlands have not

been made below Normal Value (NV). If

the preliminary results are adopted in

our final results of administrative

review, we will instruct the U.S.

Customs Service not to assess

antidumping duties on entries of the

subject merchandise made during

period of review.

Interested parties are invited to

comment on these preliminary results.

Parties who submit comments are

requested to submit with the argument:

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

brief summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 11, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Karla Whalen at 202/482–1386 or
25822 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 1998 / Notices

1Hussey Copper, Ltd.; The Miller Company; Olin

Corporation; Revere Copper Products, Inc.;

International Association of Machinists and

Aerospace Workers; International Union; Allied

Industrial Workers of America (AFL–CIO);

Mechanics Educational Society of America (Local

56) and United Steelworkers of America (AFL–CIO/

CLC).

2A ‘‘fabrication price’’ is the price charged by

companies such as OBV to transform raw materials

into finished BSS. A ‘‘metal price’’ is the price OBV

charges for the necessary raw materials.

Lisette Lach at 202/482–0190, AD/CVD

Enforcement Group III, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute and Regulations

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). In addition, unless otherwise

indicated, all citations to the

Department of Commerce’s (the

Department’s) regulations are to the

regulations last codified at 19 FR Part

351 (May 19, 1997).

Background

On August 12, 1988, the Department

published in the Federal Register the

antidumping duty order on BSS from

the Netherlands (53 FR 30455). On

August 4, 1997, the Department

published in the Federal Register a

notice announcing the opportunity to

request an administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on BSS from

the Netherlands for the period August 1,

1996, through July 31, 1997 (62 FR

41925). On August 29, 1997, in

accordance with 19 CFR 353.213 (b),

OBV filed a letter requesting an

administrative review of its sales in this

period of review. On September 25,

1997, we published in the Federal

Register a notice of initiation of this

administrative review (62 FR 50292). On

October 23, 1997, petitioners in this

proceeding 1 entered a notice of

appearance in this administrative

review.

Scope of the Review

Imports covered by this review are

brass sheet and strip, other than leaded

and tin brass sheet and strip, from the

Netherlands. The chemical composition

of the products under review is

currently defined in the Copper

Development Association (CDA) 200

Series or the Unified Numbering System

(UNS) C20000 series. This review does

not cover products the chemical

compositions of which are defined by

other CDA or UNS series. The physical

dimensions of the products covered by

this review are brass sheet and strip of

solid rectangular cross section over

0.006 inch (0.15 millimeter) through

0.188 inch (4.8 millimeters) in gauge,

regardless of width. Coiled, wound-onreels (traverse wound), and cut-to-length

products are included. The merchandise

under investigation is currently

classifiable under item 7409.21.00 and

7409.29.20 of the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).

Although the HTSUS subheading is

provided for convenience and customs

purposes, the written description of the

merchandise under investigation is

dispositive.

Product Comparisons

In accordance with section 771(16) of

the Act, we considered all BSS, covered

by the descriptions in the ‘‘Scope of the

Review’’ section of this notice, supra,

and sold in the home market during the

POR, to be foreign like products for the

purpose of determining appropriate

product comparisons to U.S. sales of

BSS. Where there were no sales of

identical merchandise in the home

market to compare to U.S. sales, we

compared U.S. sales to the next most

similar foreign like product on the basis

of the characteristics listed in Appendix

V of the Department’s October 24, 1997

antidumping questionnaire. In making

the product comparisons, we matched

foreign like products based on the

following hierarchy of physical

characteristics: (1) Type (alloy); (2)

gauge (thickness); (3) width; (4) temper;

(5) coating; and (6) packed form.

For purposes of the preliminary

results, we have used differences in

merchandise adjustments based on the

difference in the variable cost of

manufacturing between each U.S. model

and its most similar home market

model.

Date of Sale

On December 11, 1997, petitioners

submitted a letter, objecting to OBV’s

use of the invoice date as the date of sale

for the period of review. Citing a

questionnaire response dated November

8, 1991, wherein OBV stated that sales

in the United States were based

primarily on long-term contracts

generally negotiated on an annual basis

and that all material terms of sale were

established in these long-term contracts,

petitioners urged the Department to use

the frame agreement date, rather than

the invoice date, as the date of sale.

On December 22, 1997, OBV

responded to petitioners’ date of sale

comment. Citing 19 CFR 351.401(i),

respondent asserted that petitioners’

objection to the use of the invoice date

as the date of sale ignores recent

Department practice. OBV further

argued that using the frame agreement

date as the date of sale would be

incorrect because frame agreements do

not firmly establish the material terms

of sale. Rather, they contain an estimate

by the customer of the type and

approximate quantity of the

merchandise the customer expects to

order over the period of time covered by

the frame agreements. OBV asserted that

although frame agreements do contain a

fabrication price, they do not contain a

metal price; 2 therefore, OBV contended

that such agreements do not establish

the total price to be paid by the

customer. Furthermore, respondent

stated that frame agreements are nonbinding since the quantity will vary

from the quantity stated in the frame

agreement. Finally, OBV stated that

since the Department determined the

use of the invoice date as the date of sale

in the immediately preceding review, it

should continue to find that the invoice

date constitutes the date of sale.

In the immediately preceding review,

the Department used the invoice date as

the date of sale because we found that

it was the first date on which all terms

of sale (i.e., quantity, metal price and

fabrication price) were established. The

record in this review supports the same

conclusion. Therefore, in accordance

with 19 CFR 351.401(i) and Department

practice, we have preliminarily

determined that the invoice date is the

appropriate date of sale for OBV.

Differences in Level of Trade

In accordance with section

773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent

practicable, we determine NV based on

sales in the comparison market at the

same level of trade (LOT) as the EP or

constructed export price (CEP)

transaction. The NV LOT is that of the

starting-price sales in the comparison

market or, when NV is based on

constructed value (CV), that of the sales

from which we derive selling, general

and administrative expenses (SG&A)

expenses and profit. For EP, the U.S.

LOT is also the level of the startingprice sale, which is usually from the

exporter to the importer. For CEP, it is

the level of the constructed sale from

the exporter to the importer.

To determine whether NV sales are at

a different level of trade than EP or CEP,

we examine stages in the marketing

process and selling functions along the

chain of distribution between the

producer and the unaffiliated customer.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 1998 / Notices 25823

If the comparison market sales are at a

different LOT, and the difference affects

price comparability, as manifested in a

pattern of consistent price differences

between the sales on which NV is based

and comparison market sales at the LOT

of the export transaction, we make a

LOT adjustment under section

773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, for CEP

sales, if the NV level is more remote

from the factory than the CEP level and

there is no basis for determining

whether the difference in the levels

between NV and CEP affects price

comparability, we adjust NV under

section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEP

offset provision). See Notice of Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair

Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon

Steel Plate from South Africa, 62 FR

61731 (November 19, 1997).

OBV did not request an adjustment

for LOT for this POR. To ensure that no

such adjustment was necessary, we

examined OBV’s questionnaire

responses with regard to its distribution

system, including selling functions,

class of customer and selling expenses.

We noted that OBV had the same type

of channel of distribution and class of

customer for all sales in both markets.

We also noted that its selling expenses

for the POR were the same for all

customers. In addition, we examined

information concerning OBV’s different

payment terms (including discounts)

and any possible selling agents with

which OBV works. Based on the

available information on the record, it

appears OBV did not have a formal or

official policy for providing payment

terms, including discounts, to different

customers, nor did OBV have selling

agents. Finally, employees of OBV or a

sister company, OAB (Outokumpu

Copper Radiator Strip A.B.), appear to

have handled all sales of the foreign like

product. Accordingly, we preliminarily

find that all sales in the home market

and the U.S. market were made at the

same level of trade. Therefore, all price

comparisons are at the same level of

trade and an adjustment pursuant to

section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act is

unwarranted.

Fair Value Comparisons

To determine whether OBV’s sales of

BSS to the United States were made at

less than fair value, we compared EP to

NV, as described in the ‘‘Export Price’’

and ‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this

notice. In accordance with section

771A(d)(2) of the Act, we calculated

monthly weighted-average prices for NV

and compared these to individual U.S.

transactions.

Export Price

We calculated the price of U.S. sales

based on EP, in accordance with section

772(a) of the Act, because the subject

merchandise was sold to an unaffiliated

U.S. purchaser prior to the date of

importation.

We calculated EP based on the

packed, delivered prices to unaffiliated

purchasers in the United States. In

accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the

Tariff Act, where appropriate, we

deducted from the starting price postsale warehousing expense, international

freight expense, inland and marine

insurance, U.S. brokerage and handling

expenses and U.S. Customs duties.

Normal Value

Based on a comparison of the

aggregate quantity of home market and

U.S. sales, we determined that the

quantity of the foreign like product sold

in the exporting country was sufficient

to permit a proper comparison with the

sales of the subject merchandise to the

United States pursuant to section 773(a)

of the Act. Therefore, in accordance

with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i)of the Tariff

Act, we based NV on the price at which

the foreign like products were first sold

for consumption in the home market, in

the usual commercial quantities and in

the ordinary course of trade.

Where appropriate, we deducted

discounts, post-sale warehousing

expense, inland freight expense, marine

and inland insurance and packing

expense. We made adjustments, where

appropriate, for differences in credit

expenses.

We increased NV by U.S. packing

expenses in accordance with section

773(a)(6)(A) of the Act. To the extent

there were comparisons of U.S.

merchandise to home market

merchandise which were not identical

but similar, we made adjustments to NV

for differences in cost attributable to

differences in physical characteristics of

the merchandise pursuant to section

773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act.

Cost-of-Production Analysis

Because we disregarded sales below

the cost of production in the most

recently completed review, we had

reasonable grounds to believe or suspect

that sales of the foreign like product

under consideration for determining NV

in this review may have been at prices

below the cost of production (COP), as

provided in section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of

the Tariff Act. See Brass Sheet and Strip

From the Netherlands; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Reviews, 62 FR 51449 (October 1, 1997).

Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(1)

of the Tariff Act, we initiated a COP

investigation of sales by OBV.

A. Calculation of COP

In accordance with section 773(b)(3)

of the Tariff Act, we calculated COP

based on the sum of the respondent’s

cost of materials and fabrication

employed in producing the foreign like

product, plus the costs for selling,

general, and administrative expenses

(SG&A), interest expense and packing

costs. We relied on the home market

sales and COP information OBV

provided in its questionnaire responses.

B. Test of Home Market Prices

After calculating COP, we tested

whether home market sales of subject

BSS were made at prices below COP

within an extended period of time in

substantial quantities and whether such

prices permitted the recovery of all costs

within a reasonable period of time. We

compared model-specific COP to the

reported home market prices less any

applicable movement charges and

discounts, where appropriate.

C. Results of COP Test

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the

Tariff Act, where less than 20 percent of

OBV’s home market sales for a model

were at prices less than the COP, we did

not disregard any below-cost sales of

that model because we determined that

the below cost sales were not made

within an extended period of time in

‘‘substantial quantities.’’ Where 20

percent or more of OBV’s home market

sales of a given product were at prices

less than the COP, we determined that

such sales were made within an

extended period of time in substantial

quantities in accordance with section

773(b)(2)(C) of the Tariff Act. To

determine whether such sales were at

prices which would not permit the full

recovery of all costs within a reasonable

period of time, in accordance with

section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Tariff Act, we

compared home market prices to the

weighted-average COP for the POR.

When we found that below-cost sales

had been made in ‘‘substantial

quantities’’ and were not at prices

which would permit recovery of all

costs within a reasonable period of time,

we disregarded the below-cost sales in

accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the

Act.

On January 8, 1998, the U.S. Court of

Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a

decision in Cemex v. United States, WL

3626 (Fed. Cir.). In that case, based on

the pre-URAA version of the Act, the

Court discussed the appropriateness of

using CV as the basis for foreign market

value when the Department finds
25824 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 1998 / Notices

foreign market sales to be outside ‘‘the

ordinary course of trade.’’ This issue

was not raised by any party in this

proceeding. However, the URAA

amended the definition of sales outside

the ‘‘ordinary course of trade’’ to

include sales below cost. See section

771(15) of the Act. Consequently, the

Department has reconsidered its

practice in accordance with this court

decision and has determined that it

would be inappropriate to resort

directly to CV, in lieu of foreign market

sales, as the basis for NV if the

Department finds foreign market sales of

merchandise identical or most similar to

that sold in the United States to be

outside the ‘‘ordinary course of trade.’’

Instead, the Department will use sales of

similar merchandise, if such sales exist.

The Department will use CV as the basis

for NV only when there are no abovecost sales that are otherwise suitable for

comparison. Therefore, in this

proceeding, when making comparisons

in accordance with section 771(16) of

the Act, we considered all products sold

in the home market as described in the

‘‘Scope of the Review’’ section of this

notice, above, that were in the ordinary

course of trade for purposes of

determining appropriate product

comparisons to U.S. sales. Where there

were no sales of identical merchandise

in the home market made in the

ordinary course of trade to compare to

U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to

sales of the most similar foreign like

product made in the ordinary course of

trade, based on the information

provided by OBV in response to our

antidumping questionnaire. We have

implemented the Court’s decision in

this case to the extent that the data on

the record permitted. Since there were

sufficient sales above cost, it was

unnecessary to calculate CV in this case.

Currency Conversion

For purposes of the preliminary

results, we made currency conversions

based on the official exchange rates in

effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as

certified by the Federal Reserve Bank of

New York. Section 773A(a) of the Act

directs the Department to use a daily

exchange rate in order to convert foreign

currencies into U.S. dollars, unless the

daily rate involves a ‘‘fluctuation.’’

There were no significant fluctuations

during the POR.

Preliminary Results of Review

As a result of our comparison of EP

to NV, we preliminarily determine that

the weighted-average dumping margin

for OBV for this administrative review

period is as follows:

BRASS SHEET AND STRIP FROM THE

NETHERLANDS

Producer/manufacturer/exporter

Weightedaverage

margin

(percent)

Outokumpu Copper Strip B.V.

(OBV) .................................... 0.00

Parties to this proceeding may request

disclosure within five days of the date

of publication of this notice and any

interested party may request a hearing

within ten days of publication. Any

hearing, if requested, will be held 44

days after the date of publication, or the

first business day thereafter. Interested

parties may submit case briefs and/or

written comments no later than 30 days

after the date of publication. Rebuttal

briefs and rebuttals to written

comments, limited to issues raised in

the case briefs and comments, may be

submitted no later than 37 days after the

date of publication of this notice. The

Department will publish a notice of the

final results of the administrative

review, including its analysis of issues

raised in any written comments or at a

hearing, not later than 120 days after the

date of publication of this notice.

Cash Deposit

The following deposit requirements

will be effective upon completion of the

final results of this administrative

review for all shipments of BSS from the

Netherlands entered, or withdrawn from

warehouse, for consumption on or after

the publication of the final results of

this administrative review, as provided

in section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act: (1)

The cash deposit rate for OBV will be

the rate established in the final results

of this administrative review (no deposit

will be required for a zero or de minimis

margin, i.e., margin lower than 0.5

percent); (2) For merchandise exported

by manufacturers or exporters not

covered in this review but covered in a

previous segment of the proceeding, the

cash deposit rate will be the companyspecific rate published for the most

recent segment; (3) If the exporter is not

a firm covered in this review, a prior

review, or the less-than-fair-value

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 review

conducted by the Department, the cash

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

of 16.99 percent established in the lessthan-fair-value investigation. See

Antidumping Duty Order of Sales at

Less-Than-Fair Value; Brass Sheet and

Strip From the Netherlands, 53 FR

30455 (August 12, 1988). These deposit

requirements, when imposed, shall

remain in effect until publication of the

final results of the next administrative

review.

All U.S. sales by the respondent OBV

will be subject to one deposit rate

according to the proceeding. The cash

deposit rate has been determined on the

basis of the selling price to the first

unrelated customer in the United States.

For appraisement purposes, where

information is available, we will use the

entered value of the subject

merchandise to determine the

appraisement rate.

This notice serves as 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 the antidumping

duties occurred and the subsequent

assessment of double antidumping

duties. This administrative review and

this notice are in accordance with

section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act (19

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

Dated: May 4, 1988.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–12316 Filed 5–8–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–533–809]

Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges

From India: Final Results of

Antidumping Duty New Shipper

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of

antidumping duty new shipper review.

SUMMARY: On February 3, 1998, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) published the preliminary

results of its new shipper review of the

antidumping duty order on certain

stainless steel flanges (SSF) from India

(63 FR 5501). This review covers

exports of this merchandise to the

United States by one manufacturer/

exporter, Panchmahal Steel Ltd.