30706 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 108 / Friday, June 5, 1998 / Notices

2. The action will not have a severe

economic impact on current contractors

for the services.

3. The action will result in

authorizing small entities to furnish the

services to the Government.

4. There are no known regulatory

alternatives which would accomplish

the objectives of the Javits-WagnerO’Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46–48c) in

connection with the services proposed

for addition to the Procurement List.

Accordingly, the following services

are hereby added to the Procurement

List:

Administrative Services

Chicago Cooperative Administrative Support

Unit (CASU)

Philadelphia Operations Center, Wanamaker

Building, 100 Penn Square East,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Base Supply Center, Marine Corps Air

Station, Cherry Point, North Carolina

Grounds Maintenance, Department of the

Navy, Engineering Field Activity, West,

San Bruno, California

Recycling Service, Offutt Air Force Base,

Nebraska

This action does not affect current

contracts awarded prior to the effective

date of this addition or options that may

be exercised under those contracts.

Deletions

I certify that the following action will

not have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

The major factors considered for this

certification were:

1. The action will not result in any

additional reporting, recordkeeping or

other compliance requirements for small

entities.

2. The action will not have a severe

economic impact on future contractors

for the commodities and services.

3. The action will result in

authorizing small entities to furnish the

commodities and services to the

Government.

4. There are no known regulatory

alternatives which would accomplish

the objectives of the Javits-WagnerO’Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46–48c) in

connection with the commodies and

services deleted from to the

Procurement List.

After consideration of the relevant

matter presented, the Committee has

determined that the commodities and

services listed below are no longer

suitable for procurement by the Federal

Government under 41 U.S.C. 46–48c

and 41 CFR 51–2.4.

Accordingly, the following

commodities and services are hereby

deleted from the Procurement List:

Commodities

Ladder, Extension (Wood)

5440–00–223–6027

5440–00–223–6026

5440–00–242–0998

Ladder, Straight (Wood)

5440–00–242–0995

5440–00–816–2575

5440–00–223–6029

5440–00–223–6030

Apron, Construction Worker’s

8415–00–257–4290

Services

Grounds Maintenance, McClellan Air Force

Base, California

Janitorial/Custodial, U.S. Army Reserve

Center, 1001 & 1005 Lakecrest Drive,

Grand Prairie, Texas

Painting Service, McClellan Air Force Base,

California

Beverly L. Milkman,

Executive Director.

[FR Doc. 98–14999 Filed 6–4–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6353–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–588–823]

Professional Electric Cutting Tools

From Japan; 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

Black & Decker Inc., the petitioner in

this case, and Makita Corporation,

respondent, the Department of

Commerce (the Department) is

conducting an administrative review of

the antidumping duty order on

professional electric cutting tools

(PECTs) from Japan. The period of

review (POR) covers sales of the subject

merchandise to the United States during

the period July 1, 1996 through June 30,

1997.

We have preliminarily determined

that the respondent has not sold subject

merchandise at less than normal value

(NV) during the POR. If these

preliminary results are adopted in our

final results of this administrative

review, we will instruct U.S. Customs

not to assess antidumping duties based

on the difference between the

constructed export price (CEP) and the

NV.

We invite interested parties to

comment on these preliminary results.

Parties who submit argument in this

proceeding should also submit with the

argument (1) a statement of the issue,

and (2) a brief summary of the

argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 5, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lyn

Baranowski or Stephen Jacques, AD/

CVD Enforcement Group III, Office 9,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington,

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–1385 or

(202) 482–1391, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute

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

by the Uruguay Rounds 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 27296; May 19, 1997).

Background

On July 12, 1993, the Department

published in the Federal Register the

antidumping duty order on PECTs from

Japan (58 FR 37461). On July 21, 1997,

the Department published in the

Federal Register a notice of opportunity

to request an administrative review of

this antidumping duty order (62 FR

38973). On July 29 and 31, respectively,

respondent and petitioner requested

that we conduct an administrative

review in accordance with 19 CFR

351.213(b). We published the notice of

initiation of this antidumping duty

administrative review on August 28,

1997 (62 FR 45622).

The Department is conducting this

review in accordance with section 751

of the Act.

Scope of the Review

Imports covered by this review are

shipments of PECTs from Japan. PECTs

may be assembled or unassembled, and

corded or cordless.

The term ‘‘electric’’ encompasses

electromechanical devices, including

tools with electronic variable speed

features. The term ‘‘assembled’’

includes unfinished or incomplete

articles, which have the essential

characteristics of the finished or

complete tool. The term ‘‘unassembled’’

means components which, when taken

as a whole, can be converted into the

finished or unfinished or incomplete

tool through simple assembly operations

(e.g., kits).

PECTs have blades or other cutting

devices used for cutting wood, metal,
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 108 / Friday, June 5, 1998 / Notices 30707

and other materials. PECTs include

chop saws, circular saws, jig saws,

reciprocating saws, miter saws, portable

bank saws, cut-off machines, shears,

nibblers, planers, routers, joiners,

jointers, metal cutting saws, and similar

cutting tools.

The products subject to this order

include all hand-held PECTs and certain

bench-top, hand-operated PECTs. Handoperated tools are designed so that only

the functional or moving part is held

and moved by hand while in use, the

whole being designed to rest on a table

top, bench, or other surface. Bench-top

tools are small stationary tools that can

be mounted or placed on a table or

bench. The are generally distinguishable

from other stationary tools by size and

ease of movement.

The scope of the PECT order includes

only the following bench-top, handoperated tools: cut-off saws; PVC saws;

chop saws; cut-off machines, currently

classifiable under subheading 8461 of

the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (HTSUS); all types of

miter saws, including slide compound

miter saws and compound miter saws,

currently classifiable under subheading

8465 of the HTSUS; and portable band

saws with detachable bases, also

currently classifiable under subheading

8465 of the HTSUS.

This order does not include:

professional sanding/grinding tools;

professional electric drilling/fastening

tools; lawn and garden tools; heat guns;

paint and wallpaper strippers; and

chain saws, currently classifiable under

subheading 8508 of the HTSUS.

Parts or components of PECTs when

they are imported as kits, or as

accessories imported together with

covered tools, are included within the

scope of this order.

‘‘Corded’’ and ‘‘cordless’’ PECTs are

included within the scope of this order.

‘‘Corded’’ PECTs, which are driven by

electric current passed through a power

cord, are, for purposes of this order,

defined as power tools which have at

least five of the following seven

characteristics:

1. The predominate use of ball,

needle, or roller bearings (i.e., a majority

or greater number of the bearings in the

tool are ball, needle, or roller bearings;

2. Helical, spiral bevel, or worm

gearing;

3. Rubber (or some equivalent

material which meets UL’s

specifications S or SJ) jacketed power

supply cord with a length of 8 feet or

more;

4. Power supply cord with a separate

cord protector;

5. Externally accessible motor

brushes;

6. The predominate use of heat treated

transmission parts (i.e., a majority or

greater number of the transmission parts

in the tool are heat treated); and

7. The presence of more than one coil

per slot armature.

If only six of the above seven

characteristics are applicable to a

particular ‘‘corded’’ tool, then that tool

must have at least four of the six

characteristics to be considered a

‘‘corded’’ PECT.

‘‘Cordless’’ PECTs, for the purposes of

this order, consist of those cordless

electric power tools having a voltage

greater than 7.2 volts and a battery

recharge time of one hour or less.

PECTs are currently classifiable under

the following subheadings of the

HTSUS: 8508.20.00.20, 8508.20.00.70,

8508.20.00.90, 8461.50.00.20,

8465.91.00.35, 85.80.00.55,

8508.80.00.65 and 8508.80.00.90.

Although the HTSUS subheading is

provided for convenience and customs

purposes, the written description of the

merchandise under review is

dispositive.

This review covers one company,

Makita Corporation (Makita), and the

period July 1, 1996 through June 30,

1997.

Verification

As provided in section 782(i) of the

Act, we verified information provided

by Makita (sales and cost), using

standard verification procedures,

including on-site inspection of the

manufacturer’s facilities, the

examination of relevant sales and

financial records, and selection of

original documentation containing

relevant information. Our verification

results are outlined in the public

version of the verification reports.

Fair Value Comparisons

To determine whether sales of subject

merchandise to the United States were

made at less than fair value, we

compared the CEP to the NV, as

described in the ‘‘Constructed Export

Price’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of

this notice. In accordance with section

777A(d)(2), we calculated monthly

weighted-average prices for NV and

compared these to individual U.S.

transactions.

Constructed Export Price

For Makita, we used CEP as defined

in section 772(b) of the Act because the

subject merchandise was first sold in

the United States after importation into

the United States by Makita U.S.A., a

seller affiliated with Makita. We

calculated CEP based on packed,

delivered prices to the first unaffiliated

purchaser in the United States. We

made deductions for discounts and

rebates.

We deducted Japanese and U.S.

inland freight, ocean freight, insurance,

brokerage and handling pursuant to

section 772(c)(2) of the Act. We also

deducted an amount from the price for

the following expenses in accordance

with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, which

related to economic activities in the

United States: commissions, direct

selling expenses, including credit

expenses, and indirect selling expenses,

including inventory carrying costs.

Finally, we made an adjustment for

profit allocated to these expenses in

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

Act.

We found at verification that Makita

could not provide documentation to

support its contention concerning the

company’s calculation of spare parts

cost for warranty services.

Consequently, as facts available, we

calculated a value using Makita’s Parts

List Price and Cost documents. As this

issue involves proprietary information,

please see the analysis memorandum for

a more complete explanation.

We also found at verification that

Makita improperly included

antidumping duty legal fees in the

calculation of indirect selling expenses

incurred in the United States. See

Daewoo Elec. Co., Ltd. et al. v. United

States, 13 CIT 253, 269 (1989), Federal

Mogul Corp. v. United States, 17 CIT 88,

l, vacated in part, on other grounds, 18

CIT 1027 (1994), Zenith Elec. Corp. v.

United States, 15 CIT 394 (1991), Final

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review: AFBs and parts

from France, 57 FR 28360, 28413 (June

24, 1992). As such, we have recalculated

U.S. indirect selling expenses to exclude

antidumping duty legal fees. As this

issue involves business proprietary

information, please see the analysis

memorandum for a more complete

explanation.

Normal Value

We compared the aggregate volume of

Makita’s home-market sales of the

foreign like product and U.S. sales of

the subject merchandise to determine

whether the volume of the foreign like

product Makita sold in Japan was

sufficient, pursuant to section

773(a)(1)(C) of the Act, to form a basis

for NV. Because Makita’s volume of

home-market sales of foreign like

product was greater than five percent of

its U.S. sales of subject merchandise, 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 Japan.
30708 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 108 / Friday, June 5, 1998 / Notices

In calculating NV, we disregarded

sales of the foreign like product to

affiliated customers in the home market

where we determined that such sales

were not made at arm’s length. To test

whether these sales were made at arm’s

length, we compared the prices, net of

all movement charges, direct selling

expenses, discounts and packing, of

sales of the foreign like product to

affiliated and unaffiliated customers.

Where the price to the affiliated party

was on average 99.5 percent or more of

the price to unaffiliated parties, we

determined that the sales made to the

affiliated party was at arm’s-length.

Where no affiliated customer ratio could

be constructed because identical

merchandise was not sold to

unaffiliated customers, we were unable

to determine that these sales were made

at arm’s length and, therefore, excluded

them from our analysis. See Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon

Steel Flat Products from Argentina, (58

FR 37062, 37077 (July 9, 1993)). Where

the exclusion of such sales eliminated

all sales of the most appropriate

comparison product based on our

model-matching hierarchy, we made

comparisons to the next most similar

model.

We based home-market prices on the

packed, delivered prices to affiliated or

unaffiliated purchasers in the home

market. We made adjustments for

discounts and rebates. Where

applicable, we made adjustments for

differences in packing and for

movement expenses in accordance with

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

In accordance with section

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

351.410, if appropriate, we made

circumstance of sale adjustments by

deducting home-market direct selling

expenses and adding U.S. direct selling

expenses, except those deducted from

the starting price in calculating CEP

pursuant to section 772(d) of the Act.

For the reasons stated in the ‘‘Level of

Trade’’ section below, we have allowed

a CEP offset for comparisons made at

different levels of trade. To calculate the

CEP offset, we deducted from normal

value the indirect selling expenses on

home market sales which were

compared to CEP sales. We limited the

home market indirect selling expense

deduction by the amount of the indirect

selling expenses deducted in calculating

the CEP under section 772(d)(1)(D) of

the Act.

Level of Trade/CEP Offset

In accordance with section 773(a)(7)

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 CEP

transaction. The NV LOT is that of the

starting-price sales in the comparison

market or, when NV is based on CV, that

of the sales from which we derive

selling, general, and administrative

(SG&A) expenses and profit. For EP

sales, the U.S. level of trade is also the

level of the starting-price sale, which is

usually from exporter to importer. For

CEP sales, 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

sales, we examine the stages in the

marketing process and selling functions

along the chain of distribution between

the producer and the unaffiliated

customer. If the comparison-market

sales are at a different level of trade, 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

level of trade 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).

In order to determine whether a LOT

adjustment or CEP offset was warranted

for Makita, we compared the CEP sales

to the HM sales in accordance with the

principles discussed above. For

purposes of our analysis, we examined

information regarding the distribution

systems in both the United States and

Japanese markets, including the selling

functions, classes of customer, and

selling expenses for the company.

In this review, Makita reported two

levels of trade in the home market: (1)

Sales made at the wholesale/distributor

price level; and (2) sales made at the

retail level. Makita also reported twelve

channels of distribution covering the

two levels of trade in the home market.

Makita based the channels of

distribution on which entity (i.e.,

wholesaler, subwholesaler or retailers)

in the distribution chain Makita had

billed or shipped the merchandise to.

Although Makita described twelve

channels of distribution, upon review

we found that channels 1 through 7

were sales to the wholesale LOT, and

channels 8 through 12 were at the retail

LOT.

Makita reported only CEP sales in the

U.S. market. The CEP sales were based

on sales made by Makita to its whollyowned U.S. subsidiary, Makita U.S.A.

(MUSA). We determined that these sales

constitute a single level of trade in the

United States. Because Makita’s sales to

the United States were all CEP sales

made by an affiliated company, we

considered only the parent company’s

selling activities reflected in the price

after the deduction of expenses and

profit, pursuant to section 772(d) of the

Act.

To determine whether sales in the

comparison market were at a different

level of trade than CEP sales, we first

compare the relevant selling functions

made at both home market levels of

trade and we then examine the relevant

selling functions made at the CEP level

and compare them to the selling

functions performed in each home

market level of trade.

Overall, Makita listed fourteen

separate selling functions which it

performed in making sales in both

markets in its chart in Addendum 1 to

Section A of Makita’s October 27, 1997

questionnaire response. Based on our

analysis of the reported selling

functions (see sales verification report

dated April 10, 1998), we have

determined that there is no qualitative

difference between the functions listed

as freight/delivery arrangement and

arranging freight to customers.

Therefore, in our level of trade analysis,

we have treated these two reported

selling functions as one, freight/delivery

arrangement to customers.

In comparing the two home market

levels of trade to each other, we note

that there are nine selling functions that

are identical in both function and

intensity. These functions are market

research, after sales service and

warranties, technical advice,

advertising, R&D/product development,

procurement and sourcing, competitive

pricing (offering discounts, rebates, and

other price incentives), pricing

negotiations with customers, and

processing daily order updates. The

following 4 selling activities only have

different levels of intensity between the

two home market levels of trade:

Inventory maintenance, freight/delivery

arrangement to customers, sales calls

and demonstrations, and interaction

with end-users. There are no instances

where the functions are entirely

different between the two home market

levels of trade.

Based on the analysis of the selling

functions and corresponding levels of

intensity, we determine that the home
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 108 / Friday, June 5, 1998 / Notices 30709

market retail level of trade is at a more

advanced stage of marketing, and hence

a different level of trade, than the

wholesale home market level of trade.

When we compare the CEP level of

trade to the home market wholesale

level of trade, we note that there is only

one selling function which is identical

in both function and intensity: R&D/

product development. There are 4

instances in which the selling functions

differ only in intensity: Inventory

maintenance, technical advice,

procurement and sourcing, and

processing daily order updates. There

are 8 selling functions which exist in

the home market but which either are

not performed for CEP transactions or

are negligible: Market research, aftersales service and warranties,

advertising, freight/delivery

arrangement to customer, competitive

pricing, pricing negotiations with

customers, sales calls and

demonstrations, and interaction with

end-users.

When we compare the CEP level of

trade to the home market retail level of

trade, we again note that there is only

one selling function which is identical

in both function and intensity: R&D/

product development. Similarly, there

are 4 instances in which the selling

functions differ only in intensity:

Inventory maintenance, technical

advice, procurement and sourcing, and

processing daily order updates. There

are 8 selling functions which exist in

the home market retail level but which

either are not performed for CEP sales

or are negligible. These functions are:

Market research, after-sales service and

warranties, advertising, freight/delivery

arrangement to customer, competitive

pricing, pricing negotiations with

customers, sales calls and

demonstrations, and interaction with

end-users.

Based on our analysis of the selling

functions, which include differences in

levels of intensities, we find that both

home market levels of trade are at a

more advanced stage of distribution

than that of the CEP level. Therefore, we

agree with Makita’s assertion that there

is no home market level equivalent to

the CEP level of trade.

Therefore, the Department determines

for the preliminary results that (1)

significant differences exist in the

selling functions associated with each of

the two home market levels of trade and

the CEP level of trade, (2) the CEP level

of trade is at a less advanced stage of

distribution than either home market

level of trade; and (3) the data available

do not provide an appropriate basis for

a level-of-trade adjustment for any

comparisons to CEP. Consequently, we

have granted Makita’s request for a CEP

offset for this review.

We therefore made a CEP offset in our

calculation of NV. We applied the CEP

offset to normal value or constructed

value, where appropriate.

Cost of Production Analysis

On January 3, 1997, the Department

published the final results of the second

administrative review on Professional

Electric Cutting Tools from Japan (62 FR

386). In that most recently completed

review of Makita, the Department

disregarded sales by Makita at prices

below cost, pursuant to section 773(b)(1)

of the Act. Because the Department

disregarded sales below the COP in the

last completed review, we have

reasonable grounds to believe or suspect

that sales of the foreign like product

under consideration for the

determination of NV in this review may

have been made at prices below the COP

as provided by section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of

the Act. Therefore, pursuant to section

773(b)(1) of the Act, we initiated an

investigation to determine whether

Makita made home market sales during

the POR at prices below its COP.

A. Calculation of COP

We calculated the COP based on the

sum of the costs of materials and

fabrication employed in producing the

foreign like product, plus amounts for

home market selling, general and

administrative (SG&A) expenses and

packing costs in accordance with

section 773(b)(3) of the Act. We relied

on the home market sales and COP

information provided by Makita in their

questionnaire responses.

We found at verification that Makita

had incorrectly reported the amount for

fixed factory overhead. Makita had

incorrectly reclassified certain costs that

resulted in the fixed factory overhead

being overstated. As facts available, we

have used the costs reported by Makita.

As this issue involves proprietary

information, please see the analysis

memorandum and the verification

report dated April 10, 1998 for a more

complete explanation.

B. Test of Home Market Prices

After calculating COP, we tested

whether home market sales of the

subject merchandise were made at

prices below COP within an extended

period of time in substantial quantities

and whether such prices permitted

recovery of all costs within a reasonable

period of time. We compared modelspecific COPs to the reported home

market prices less any applicable

movement charges, discounts, rebates

and direct selling expenses.

C. Results of COP Test

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

the Act, where less than 20 percent of

a respondent’s sales of a given product

are at prices less than COP, we do not

disregard any below-cost sales of that

product because we determine that the

below-cost sales are not made in

substantial quantities within an

extended period of time. Where 20

percent or more of a respondent’s sales

of a given product during the POR are

at prices less than the COP, we

disregard the below-cost sales because

we find such sales to be made in

substantial quantities within an

extended period and were at prices

which would not permit the recovery of

all costs within a reasonable period of

time (see section 773(b)(2)(D) of the

Act). Based on this test, for these

preliminary results, we disregarded all

below-cost sales made by Makita (see

the Analysis Memorandum dated June

1, 1998).

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

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
30710 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 108 / Friday, June 5, 1998 / Notices

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 Makita 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.

Constructed Value

In accordance with section 773(a)(4)

of the Act, we used CV as the basis for

NV when there were no usable sales of

the foreign like product in Japan. We

calculated CV in accordance with

section 773(e) of the Act. We included

the cost of materials and fabrication,

SG&A expenses, and profit. In

accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of

the Act, we based SG&A expenses and

profit on the actual amounts incurred

and realized by Makita in connection

with the production and sale of the

foreign like product in the ordinary

course of trade for consumption in

Japan. We used the weighted-average

home market selling expenses.

Where appropriate, we made

adjustments to CV in accordance with

section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act for

differences in the circumstances of sale

(COS). We made COS adjustments by

deducting home direct selling expenses

and adding U.S. direct selling expenses,

except those deducted from the starting

price in calculating CEP pursuant to

section 772(d) of the Act.

Preliminary Results of Review

As a result of our review, we

preliminarily determine that the

following weighted-average dumping

margin exists for the period June 30,

1996, through July 1, 1997:

Manufacturer/exporter Margin

(percent)

Makita Corporation ................... 0.09

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 business day thereafter. Issues

raised in the hearing will be limited to

those raised in the case briefs. Case

briefs from interested parties may be

submitted not later than 30 days after

the date of publication of this notice in

the Federal Register; rebuttal briefs may

be submitted not later than 5 days

thereafter. The Department will publish

the final results of this 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.

The Department shall determine, and

the U.S. Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. If these preliminary results are

adopted in our final results, we will

instruct the Customs Service not to

assess antidumping duties on the

merchandise subject to review. Upon

completion of this review, the

Department will issue appraisement

instructions directly to the Customs

Service.

Upon issuance of the final results of

this review, the Department shall

determine, and the U.S. Customs

Service shall assess antidumping duties

on all appropriate entries. We will

calculate an importer-specific ad

valorem duty assessment rate 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 CEP, by the total statutory 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.

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

these administrative reviews, as

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

(1) The cash deposit rate for Makita will

be the rate established in the final

results of this review, except that no

deposit will be required for Makita if we

find zero or de minimis margins, i.e.,

margins less than 0.5 percent; (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 LTFV

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) the cash deposit

rate for all other manufacturers or

exporters will continue to be 54.52

percent, the ‘‘All Others’’ rate made

effective by the LTFV investigation.

These deposit requirements, 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 administrative review and notice

are in accordance with section 751(a)(1)

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

351.213, and 19 CFR 351.221. This

determination is issued and published

in accordance with sections 751(a)(1)

and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Dated: June 1, 1998.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–15040 Filed 6–4–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–583–816]

Certain Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe

Fittings From Taiwan: 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 from

respondent Ta Chen Stainless Pipe Co.,

Ltd. (Ta Chen), the Department of

Commerce (the Department) is

conducting an administrative review of

the antidumping duty order on certain

stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings

from Taiwan. This review covers one

manufacturer and exporter of the subject

merchandise. The period of review

(POR) is June 1, 1996, through May 31,

1997.

We preliminarily determine that sales

have been made below normal value

(NV). If these preliminary results are

adopted in our final results of

administrative review, we will instruct

the U.S. Customs Service to assess