26144 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 91 /Tuesday, May 12, 1998 / Notices

Period

Taiwan: Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipe & Tubes, A–583–008 ................................................................................. 5/1/97–4/30/98

Taiwan: Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings, Other Than Grooved, A–583–507 ............................................................... 5/1/97–4/30/98

Taiwan: Polyvinyl Alcohol, A–583–824 ............................................................................................................................ 5/1/97–4/30/98

The People’s Republic of China: Construction Castings, A–570–502 ............................................................................. 5/1/97–4/30/98

The People’s Republic of China: Polyvinyl Alcohol, A–570–842 ..................................................................................... 5/1/97–4/30/98

The People’s Republic of China: Pure Magnesium, A–570–832 ..................................................................................... 5/1/97–4/30/98

The Ukraine: Pure Magnesium, A–823–806 .................................................................................................................... 5/1/97–4/30/98

The United Kingdom: Ball Bearings, A–412–801 ............................................................................................................. 5/1/97–4/30/98

The United Kingdom: Cylindrical Roller Bearings, A–412–801 ....................................................................................... 5/1/97–4/30/98

Turkey: Pipes and Tubes, A–489–501 ............................................................................................................................. 5/1/97–4/30/98

Countervailing Duty Proceedings:

Brazil: Certain Iron Construction Castings, C–351–504 .................................................................................................. 1/1/97–12/31/97

Sweden: Viscose Rayon Staple Fiber, C–401–056 ......................................................................................................... 1/1/97–12/31/97

Venezuela: Ferrosilicon, C–307–808 ............................................................................................................................... 1/1/97–12/31/97

Suspension Agreements: None.

In accordance with 351.213 of the

regulations, an interested party as

defined by section 771(9) of the Act may

request in writing that the Secretary

conduct an administrative review. In

recent revisions to its regulations, the

Department has changed its

requirements for requesting reviews for

countervailing duty orders. Pursuant to

771(9) of the Act, an interested party

must specify the individual producers

or exporters covered by the order or

suspension agreement for which they

are requesting a review (Department of

Commerce Regulations, 62 FR 27295,

27424 (May 19, 1997)). Therefore, for

both antidumping and countervailing

duty reviews, the interested party must

specify for which individual producers

or exporters covered by an antidumping

finding or an antidumping or

countervailing duty order it is

requesting a review, and the requesting

party must state why it desires the

Secretary to review those particular

producers or exporters. If the interested

party intends for the Secretary to review

sales of merchandise by an exporter (or

a producer if that producer also exports

merchandise from other suppliers)

which were produced in more than one

country of origin and each country of

origin is subject to a separate order, then

the interested party must state

specifically, on an order-by-order basis,

which exporter(s) the request is

intended to cover.

Seven copies of the request should be

submitted to the Assistant Secretary for

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, Room 1870, U.S.

Department of Commerce, 14th Street &

Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230. The

Department also asks parties to serve a

copy of their requests to the Office of

Antidumping/Countervailing

Enforcement, Attention: Sheila Forbes,

in room 3065 of the main Commerce

Building. Further, in accordance with

§ 351.303(f)(1)(i) of the regulations, a

copy of each request must be served on

every party on the Department’s service

list.

The Department will publish in the

Federal Register a notice of ‘‘Initiation

of Administrative Review of

Antidumping or Countervailing Duty

Order, Finding, or Suspended

Investigation’’ for requests received by

the last day of May 1998. If the

Department does not receive, by the last

day of May 1998, a request for review

of entries covered by an order, finding,

or suspended investigation listed in this

notice and for the period identified

above, the Department will instruct the

Customs Service to assess antidumping

or countervailing duties on those entries

at a rate equal to the cash deposit of (or

bond for) estimated antidumping or

countervailing duties required on those

entries at the time of entry, or

withdrawal from warehouse, for

consumption and to continue to collect

the cash deposit previously ordered.

This notice is not required by statute

but is published as a service to the

international trading community.

Dated: May 5, 1998.

Maria Harris Tildon,

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–12442 Filed 5–11–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–588–824]

Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon

Steel Flat Products From Japan:

Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary

Results of the Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of extension of time limit

for preliminary results of antidumping

duty administrative review.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

(‘‘the Department’’) is extending the

time limit for the preliminary results of

the review of certain corrosion-resistant

carbon steel flat products from Japan.

This review covers the period August 1,

1996 through July 31, 1997.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 12, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Doreen Chen, Robert Bolling or Stephen

Jacques at 202 482–0413, 482–3434 or

482–1391, respectively; Office of AD/

CVD Enforcement, Group III, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20230.

The Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Tariff Act of 1930 (‘‘the

Act’’) are references to the provisions

effective January 1, 1995, the effective

date of the amendments made to the Act

by the Uruguay Rounds Agreements

Act.

Extension of Preliminary Results

The Department has determined that

it is not practicable to issue its

preliminary results within the original

time limit. (See Decision Memorandum

from Joseph A. Spetrini, Deputy

Assistant Secretary, Enforcement Group

III to Robert LaRussa, Assistant

Secretary for Import Administration,

May 5, 1998.) The Department is

extending the time limit for completion

of the preliminary results until August

31, 1998 in accordance with Section

751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

The deadline for the final results of

this review will continue to be 120 days

after publication of the preliminary

results.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 91 /Tuesday, May 12, 1998 / Notices 26145

1 During the period of review, the minimum

export price was a floor price set by the Carteira do

Comercio Exterior de Banco do Brasil (CACEX), the

export department of the Bank of Brazil. Minimum

export prices were based on the price of FCOJ on

the New York Cotton Exchange. Because the price

movements of FCOJ on the futures market are

irregular, the minimum export price may have

remained the same or may have changed several

times within a month.

Dated: May 6, 1998.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement

Group III.

[FR Doc. 98–12594 Filed 5–11–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–351–605]

Frozen Concentrated Orange Juice

From Brazil; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: On January 14, 1998, the

Department of Commerce published in

the Federal Register the preliminary

results of the administrative review of

the antidumping duty order on frozen

concentrated orange juice from Brazil.

This review covers two producers/

exporters, Branco Peres Citrus, S.A. and

CTM Citrus, S.A. (formerly Citropectina). The Department terminated

the review with respect to another firm,

Citrovita S.A. See Frozen Concentrated

Orange Juice from Brazil: Preliminary

Results of Administrative Review;

Termination in Part; and Intent Not to

Revoke in Part, 63 FR 2202 (January 14,

1998). This review covers the period

May 1, 1993, through April 30, 1994.

We gave interested parties an

opportunity to comment on our

preliminary results. We have based our

analysis on the comments received and

have changed the results from those

presented in the preliminary results of

review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 12, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Fabian Rivelis or Irina Itkin, Office 5,

AD/CVD Enforcement, Group II, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230;

telephone: (202) 482–3853 or (202) 482–

0656, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On January 14, 1998, the Department

of Commerce (the Department)

published in the Federal Register its

preliminary results of the 1993–1994

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on frozen

concentrated orange juice (FCOJ) from

Brazil (62 FR 2202). The Department has

now completed this administrative

review, in accordance with section

751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended (the Act).

Applicable Statute and Regulations

The Department is conducting this

administrative review in accordance

with section 751 of the Act. Unless

otherwise indicated, all citations to the

statute and to the Department’s

regulations are in reference to the

provisions as they existed on December

31, 1994.

Scope of the Review

The merchandise covered by this

review is frozen concentrated orange

juice from Brazil. The merchandise is

currently classifiable under subheading

2009.11.00 of the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).

The HTSUS subheading is provided for

convenience and for customs purposes.

The written description remains

dispositive.

Analysis of Comments Received

We gave interested parties an

opportunity to comment on the

preliminary results. We received

comments only from Branco Peres

Citrus S.A. (Branco Peres).

Comment 1: Calculation of

Comparison Market Commissions.

For the preliminary results, the

Department based foreign market value

(FMV) on the applicable minimum

export price 1 (MEP) as a third-country

offer for sale where no

contemporaneous third-country sale

existed. In cases where FMV was based

on the MEP, we used the weighted

average of the charges and adjustments

reported for actual third-country sales.

According to Branco Peres, the

Department erred in calculating a single

average commission amount and

applying it to four separate MEPs when

calculating FMV. Branco Peres asserts

that this methodology understated the

amount of the commission that it would

have paid if the merchandise had

actually been sold at the MEP.

Specifically, Branco Peres maintains

that the commission amount would

have been based on a fixed commission

percentage and would have been higher

than the average commission used by

the Department.

Branco Peres asserts that the

calculation of the single average

commission amount is inconsistent with

the calculation of U.S. commissions,

which was based on the fixed

commission percentage for each U.S.

sale. Branco Peres maintains that the

amount of both the third country and

U.S. commissions should be exactly the

same because, in every comparison, the

U.S. price was exactly the same as the

MEP. According to Branco Peres, the

Department’s use of inconsistent

methodologies not only results in an

unfair comparison, but also generates a

dumping margin greater than de

minimis. Branco Peres asserts that the

Department should correct this error by

deducting from FMV a commission

amount based on the fixed commission

percentage.

Branco Peres also argues that the

Department’s use of a single average

commission amount for the period of

review (POR) violated long-standing

Department policy. Branco Peres states

that the Department’s practice in the

1993–1994 period for cases from Brazil,

as illustrated in Notice of Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair

Value: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel

Flat Products from Brazil, 58 FR 37091,

37093 (July 9, 1993), was to determine

expenses on a monthly basis because

Brazil’s economy experienced hyperinflation during that period. Therefore,

Branco Peres asserts that the

Department must calculate expenses

based on the actual monthly expenses in

effect for each MEP period.

Nonetheless, Branco Peres argues that

if the Department continues to use a

single average commission, it should

revise its calculation to include only

those commissions related to sales

which were contemporaneous with its

U.S. sales, under the Department’s usual

price-to-price methodology for

administrative reviews. Branco Peres

notes that the Department calculated a

single average commission based on the

average commission expenses related to

all third-country sales to the

Netherlands, even though only four of

those sales were contemporaneous with

the U.S. sales in question.

DOC Position: We agree. Our review

of the record of this case shows that a

fixed commission rate was in effect for

all of Branco Peres’ export sales during

the POR and that the payment of a

commission based on this rate is Branco

Peres’ normal business practice. Our

calculation of the average POR

commissions understated the

commissions Branco Peres would have

paid if it had made the sale at the MEP.

Accordingly, we have calculated

commissions by applying the