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.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 1998 / Notices 25825

(Panchmahal), during the period

February 1, 1996 through January 31,

1997.

We gave interested parties an

opportunity to comment on our

preliminary results. We received no

comments. There was no dumping

margin for Panchmahal for this review

period.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 11, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thomas Killiam or John Kugelman,

Office of 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; telephone:

(202) 482–2704 or 482–0649,

respectively.

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 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’s regulations are to the

current regulations, as amended by the

interim regulations published in the

Federal Register on May 11, 1995 (60

FR 25130).

Background

The antidumping duty order on SSF

from India was published February 9,

1994 (59 FR 5994). On February 3, 1998,

the Department published in the

Federal Register the preliminary results

of this new shipper review of the

antidumping duty order on SSF from

India (63 FR 5501). The Department has

now completed this new shipper review

in accordance with section 751 of the

Act.

Scope of the Review

The products covered by this order

are certain forged stainless steel flanges,

both finished and not finished,

generally manufactured to specification

ASTM A–182, and made in alloys such

as 304, 304L, 316, and 316L. The scope

includes five general types of flanges.

They are weld neck, used for butt-weld

line connection; threaded, used for

threaded line connections; slip-on and

lap joint, used with stub-ends/butt-weld

line connections; socket weld, used to

fit pipe into a machined recession; and

blind, used to seal off a line. The sizes

of the flanges within the scope range

generally from one to six inches;

however, all sizes of the abovedescribed merchandise are included in

the scope. Specifically excluded from

the scope of this order are cast stainless

steel flanges. Cast stainless steel flanges

generally are manufactured to

specification ASTM A–351. The flanges

subject to this order are currently

classifiable under subheadings

7307.21.1000 and 7307.21.5000 of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (HTSUS). The HTSUS

subheadings are provided for

convenience and customs purposes. The

written description of the scope of this

order remains dispositive.

The review covers one Indian

manufacturer/exporter, Panchmahal,

and the period February 1, 1996 through

January 31, 1997.

Comments From Interested Parties

We gave interested parties an

opportunity to comment on our

preliminary results. We received no

comments.

Final Results of Review

As a result of our analysis, which is

unchanged from the preliminary results

of review, we have determined that the

following weighted-average dumping

margin exists for Panchmahal:

Manufacturer/Exporter Period Margin

(percent)

Panchmahal ....................................................................................................................................................... 2/1/96–1/31/97 0.00

The Department shall instruct the

Customs Service to liquidate all

appropriate entries, and to assess no

antidumping duties on Panchmahal’s

entries.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective for all

shipments of subject merchandise

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after the

publication date of these final results, as

provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the

Act:

(1) The rate for the reviewed firm will

be as 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 that rate established for the

manufacturer of the merchandise in the

earlier review or the original

investigation, whichever is the most

recent; or

(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 162.14 percent, the ‘‘all others’’ rate

established in the LTFV investigation.

These deposit requirements will

remain in effect until publication of the

final results of the next administrative

review.

This notice also 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 the 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 notice also serves as a reminder

to parties subject to administrative

protective order (APOs) of their

responsibility concerning the

disposition of proprietary information

disclosed under APO in accordance

with 19 CFR 353.34(d). Timely written

notification of the return/destruction of

APO materials or conversion to judicial

protective order is hereby requested.

Failure to comply with the regulations

and terms of an APO is a violation

which is subject to sanction.

This administrative review and this

notice are in accordance with section

751(a)(2)(B) of the Act (19 U.S.C.

1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 353.22(h).

Dated: May 1, 1998.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–12335 Filed 5–8–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P