25828 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 1998 / Notices

currencies into U.S. dollars, unless the

daily rate involves a fluctuation. In

accordance with our practice, we have

determined as a general matter that a

fluctuation exists when the daily

exchange rate differs from a benchmark

by 2.25 percent. The benchmark is

defined as the rolling average of rates for

the past 40 business days. When we

determine a fluctuation exists, we

substitute the benchmark for the daily

rate. See Policy Bulletin 96–1 Currency

Conversions, 61 FR 9434 (March 8,

1996).

Preliminary Results of Review

As a result of this review, we

preliminarily determine that the

following weighted-average dumping

margin exists:

Manufacturer/exporter Period Margin

(percent)

Ausimont S.p.A .................................................................................................................................................. 08/01/96–07/31/97 40.90

Parties to the proceeding may request

disclosure within five days of the date

of publication of this notice. Any

interested party may request a hearing

within 30 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.

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 each

argument: (1) A statement of the issue

and (2) a brief summary of the

argument. The Department will issue

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,

within 120 days of issuance of these

preliminary results.

The Department shall determine, and

Customs shall assess, antidumping

duties on all appropriate entries.

Because the inability to link sales with

specific entries prevents calculation of

duties on an entry-by-entry basis, we

have calculated an importer-specific ad

valorem duty assessment rate for the

merchandise based on the ratio of the

total amount of antidumping duties

calculated for the examined sales made

during the POR to the total customs

value of the sales used to calculate these

duties. This rate will be assessed

uniformly on all entries of that

particular importer made during the

POR. (This is equivalent to dividing the

total amount of antidumping duties,

which are calculated by taking the

difference between NV and CEP, by the

total CEP value of the sales compared,

and adjusting the result by the average

difference between CEP and customs

value for all merchandise examined

during the POR.) Individual differences

between CEP and NV may vary from the

percentage stated above. Upon

completion of this review, the

Department will issue appraisement

instructions directly to Customs. The

final results of this review shall be the

basis for the assessment of antidumping

dumping duties on entries of

merchandise covered by the

determination and for future deposits of

estimated duties.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective upon

completion of the final results of this

administrative review for all shipments

of PTFE resin from Italy 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 Ausimont 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 less than fair

value (LTFV) investigations 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 a company-specific

rate; (3) if the exporter is not a firm

covered in this review, a previous

review, or the original investigation, but

the manufacturer is, the cash deposit

rate will be that established for the

manufacturer of the merchandise in the

final results of this review or the LTFV

investigation; and (4) if neither the

exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm

covered in this or any previous review,

the cash deposit rate will be 46.46

percent, the ‘‘all others’’ rate established

in the LTFV investigation (50 FR 26019,

June 24, 1985).

This notice also 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

the 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 section 751(a)(1)

of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1) and 19

CFR 353.22(1996).

Dated: May 4, 1998.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–12318 Filed 5–8–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–427–009]

Industrial Nitrocellulose from France:

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 the

petitioner, Hercules Incorporated, the

Department of Commerce is conducting

an administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on industrial

nitrocellulose from France. The review

covers Bergerac, N.C. (formerly

identified by the name of its parent

company, Societe Nationale des Poudres

et Explosifs), and its affiliates for the

period August 1, 1996, through July 31,

1997.

We have preliminarily determined

that sales for Bergerac, N.C., have been

made below normal value. If these

preliminary results are adopted in our

final results of administrative review,

we will instruct U.S. Customs to assess

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries.

We invite interested parties to

comment on these preliminary results.

Parties who submit comments in this

proceeding are requested to submit with

each argument (1) a statement of the
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 1998 / Notices 25829

issue and (2) a brief summary of the

argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 11, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bill

Zapf, Lyn Johnson, or David Dirstine,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, Washington, D.C. 20230;

telephone: (202) 482–4733.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

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’s regulations are to

the regulations codified at 19 CFR Part

351 (62 FR 27295).

Background

On August 10, 1983, the Department

of Commerce (the Department)

published in the Federal Register (48

FR 36303) the antidumping duty order

on industrial nitrocellulose (INC) from

France. On September 25, 1997, in

accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(c), we

published a notice of initiation of

administrative review of this order for

the period August 1, 1996, through July

31, 1997 (the POR) (62 FR 50292). The

Department is conducting this

administrative review in accordance

with section 751 of the Act.

Scope of Review

The product covered by this review is

INC containing between 10.8 and 12.2

percent nitrogen. INC is a dry, white,

amorphous synthetic chemical

produced by the action of nitric acid on

cellulose. The product comes in several

viscosities and is used to form films in

lacquers, coatings, furniture finishes

and printing inks. Imports of this

product are classified under the HTS

subheadings 3912.20.00 and 3912.90.00.

The HTS item numbers are provided for

convenience and customs purposes. The

written descriptions of the scope of this

proceeding remain dispositive.

Export Price and Constructed Export

Price

For the price to the United States, we

used export price (EP) or constructed

export price (CEP) as defined in sections

772(a) and (b) of the Act, as appropriate.

We calculated EP and CEP based on the

packed f.o.b., c.i.f., or delivered price to

unaffiliated purchasers in, or for

exportation to, the United States. We

made deductions, as appropriate, for

rebates. We also made deductions for

any movement expenses in accordance

with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.

In accordance with section 772(d)(1)

of the Act and the Statement of

Administrative Action (SAA) (at 823–

824) to the URAA, we calculated the

CEP by deducting selling expenses

associated with economic activities

occurring in the United States,

including commissions, direct selling

expenses, and indirect selling expenses

in the United States. For sales without

payment dates, we calculated credit

expenses using the date of the

supplemental response. Finally, we

made an adjustment to CEP for profit

allocated to these expenses in

accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the

Act.

With respect to subject merchandise

to which value was added in the United

States prior to sale to unaffiliated U.S.

customers, we determined that the

special rule for merchandise with value

added after importation under section

772(e) of the Act applied. Section 772(e)

of the Act provides that, where the

subject merchandise is imported by a

person affiliated with the producer or

exporter and the value added in the

United States by the affiliated person is

likely to exceed substantially the value

of the subject merchandise, we shall

determine the CEP for such

merchandise using the price of identical

or other subject merchandise if there is

a sufficient quantity of sales to provide

a reasonable basis for comparison and

we determine that the use of such sales

is appropriate. If there is not a sufficient

quantity of such sales or if we determine

that using the price of identical or other

subject merchandise is not appropriate,

we may use any other reasonable basis

to determine the CEP.

To determine whether the value

added is likely to exceed substantially

the value of the subject merchandise, we

estimated the value added based on the

difference between the averages of the

prices charged to the first unaffiliated

purchaser for the merchandise as sold in

the United States and the averages of the

prices paid for the subject merchandise

by the affiliated person. Based on this

analysis, we determined that the

estimated value added in the United

States accounted for at least 65 percent

of the price charged to the first

unaffiliated customer for the

merchandise as sold in the United

States. Therefore, we determined that

the value added is likely to exceed

substantially the value of the subject

merchandise. Also, we determined that

there was a sufficient quantity of sales

remaining to provide a reasonable basis

for comparison and that the use of such

sales is appropriate. Accordingly, for

purposes of determining dumping

margins for these sales, we have used

the weighted-average dumping margins

calculated on sales of identical or other

subject merchandise sold to unaffiliated

persons. No other adjustments to EP or

CEP were claimed or allowed.

Normal Value

In calculating normal value (NV), we

determined that the quantity of foreign

like product sold by the respondent 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)(1) of the Act because the quantity

of sales in the home market was greater

than five percent of the sales to the U.S.

market. Therefore, in accordance with

section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we

based NV on the prices at which the

foreign like products were first sold for

consumption in the exporting country.

We used sales to affiliated customers

only where we determined such sales

were made at arm’s-length prices, i.e., at

prices comparable to prices at which the

firm sold identical merchandise to

unrelated customers.

We calculated monthly, weightedaverage NVs. Where possible, we

compared U.S. sales to sales of identical

merchandise in France. When identical

merchandise was not sold during the

relevant contemporaneous period, we

compared U.S. sales to sales of the most

similar foreign like product in

accordance with sections 771(16)(B) and

(C) of the Act.

(See the Matching Methodology section

of our analysis memorandum to the file,

dated April 17, 1998.)

Home-market prices were based on

the packed, ex-factory or delivered

prices to the affiliated and unaffiliated

purchasers in the home market. We

made deductions, where appropriate,

for discounts, rebates, price adjustments

and home market movement charges.

Where applicable, we made adjustments

for differences in packing and for

movement expenses in accordance with

sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act.

We also made adjustments for

differences in cost attributable to

differences in physical characteristics of

the merchandise pursuant to section

773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and for

differences in circumstances of sale

(COS) in accordance with section

773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR

353.56. For comparison to EP, we made

COS adjustments by deducting homemarket direct selling expenses from and

adding U.S. direct selling expenses to

NV. For comparisons to CEP, we made

COS adjustments by deducting home-
25830 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 1998 / Notices

market direct selling expenses from NV.

We also made adjustments, where

applicable, for home-market indirect

selling expenses to offset U.S.

commissions in CEP calculations.

Level of Trade

To the extent practicable, we

determine NV for sales at the same level

of trade as the U.S. sales (either EP or

CEP). When there are no sales at the

same level of trade, we compare U.S.

sales to home-market sales at a different

level of trade. The NV level of trade is

that of the starting-price sales in the

home market.

To determine whether home-market

sales were at a different level of trade

than U.S. sales for this review, we

examined stages in the marketing

process and selling functions along the

chain of distribution between the

producer and the unaffiliated customer.

Based on the record evidence, we found

that there were significant differences

between the selling activities associated

with the home-market level of trade and

those associated with both EP and CEP.

Therefore, we determined that EP and

CEP sales are at a different level of trade

than the home-market sales.

Consequently, we could not match U.S.

sales to sales at the same level of trade

in the home market. Moreover, data

necessary to determine a level-of-trade

adjustment was not available. Therefore,

when we matched EP sales to sales in

the home market, we made no level-oftrade adjustment. However, because

home-market sales were made at a more

advanced stage of distribution than that

of the CEP level, we made a CEP-offset

adjustment when comparing CEP and

home-market sales, in accordance with

section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. For a

more detailed description of our

analysis, see the Level-of-Trade section

of our analysis memorandum dated

April 17, 1998.

Preliminary Results of Review

As a result of our review, we

preliminarily determine the weightedaverage dumping margin for the period

August 1, 1996, through July 31, 1997 to

be as follows:

Company Margin

(percent)

Bergerac, N.C. .......................... 9.24

Any interested party may request a

hearing within 30 days of the date of

publication of this notice. A hearing, if

requested, will be held 2 days after

submission of rebuttal briefs at the main

Commerce Department building.

Issues raised in the hearing will be

limited to those raised in briefs and

rebuttal briefs. Briefs from interested

parties may be filed no later than 30

days after the date of publication.

Rebuttal briefs, limited to the issues

raised in case briefs, may be filed no

later than five days after the deadline for

filing case briefs.

Parties who submit briefs or rebuttal

briefs in this proceeding are requested

to submit with each argument: (1) A

statement of the issue, and (2) a brief

summary of the argument.

The Department will publish the final

results of this administrative review,

including the results of its analysis of

issues raised in any such written briefs

or hearing. The Department will issue

final results of this review within 120

days of publication of these preliminary

results.

The Department shall determine, and

the U.S. Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. Because the inability to link

sales with specific entries prevents

calculation of duties on an entry-byentry basis, we have calculated

importer-specific ad valorem dutyassessment rates based on the ratio of

the total amount of antidumping duties

calculated for the examined sales made

during the POR to the total customs

value of the sales used to calculate those

duties. This rate will be assessed

uniformly on all entries of that

particular importer made during the

POR. (This is equivalent to dividing the

total amount of antidumping duties,

which are calculated by taking the

difference between statutory NV and

statutory EP or CEP, by the total

statutory EP or CEP value of the sales

compared and adjusting the result by

the average difference between EP or

CEP and customs value for all

merchandise examined during the POR.)

Bergerac, N.C., could not identify the

importer of record for certain sales to

unaffiliated customers. Therefore, we

have calculated a single, per-unit duty

assessment rate by dividing the total

dumping margins by the total quantity

sold for these importers.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective for all

shipments of the subject merchandise

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 rates for Bergerac, N.C.,

will be the rate established in the final

results of this review (except that no

deposit will be required if the firm has

a zero or de minimis margin, i.e., a

margin less than 0.5 percent); (2) for

previously reviewed or investigated

companies not listed above, the cashdeposit 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-fairvalue investigation (LTFV), 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) the cashdeposit rate for all other manufacturers

or exporters will be 1.38. This is the ‘‘all

others’’ rate from the LTFV investigation

which we are reinstating in accordance

with the decisions by the Court of

International Trade in Floral Trade

Council v. United States, Slip Op. 93–

79 (May 25, 1993), and Federal-Mogul

Corporation and The Torrington

Company v. United States, Slip Op. 93–

83 (May 25, 1993). These cash-deposit

rates, when imposed, shall remain in

effect until publication of the final

results of the next administrative

review.

This notice also serves as a

preliminary reminder to importers of

their responsibility under 19 CFR

351.402(f)(2) 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 determination is issued and

published in accordance with sections

751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act.

Dated: May 4, 1998.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–12315 Filed 5–8–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–423–602]

Industrial Phosphoric Acid From

Belgium; 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

of industrial phosphoric acid from

Belgium.

SUMMARY: In response to requests from

one respondent, petitioner and one