Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 /Wednesday, June 10, 1998 / Notices 31719

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: June 3, 1998.

Louis Apple,

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–15468 Filed 6–9–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–427–098]

Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate from

France; Notice of Recission of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of recission of

antidumping duty administrative

review.

SUMMARY: On February 27, 1998, the

Department of Commerce published in

the Federal Register (63 FR 10002) a

notice announcing the initiation of an

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on anhydrous

sodium metasilicate from France. This

review covered the period from January

1, 1997 through December 31, 1997. The

Department of Commerce has now

rescinded this review as a result of the

absence of shipments and entries into

the United States of subject

merchandise during the period of

review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 10, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mark Ross or Richard Rimlinger, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230;

telephone (202) 482–4733.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Department of Commerce (the

Department) published in the Federal

Register on January 12, 1998 (63 FR

1820) a ‘‘Notice of Opportunity to

Request Administrative Review’’ of the

antidumping duty order on anhydrous

sodium metasilicate (ASM) from France

(46 FR 1667, January 7, 1981). On

January 22, 1998, the PQ Corporation,

the petitioner, requested an

administrative review of RhonePoulenc, a manufacturer/exporter of

ASM. The Department initiated the

review on February 27, 1998 (63 FR

10002). On March 16, 1998, Rhodia

Chimie, a wholly-owned subsidiary of

Rhone-Poulenc that is responsible for

Rhone-Poulenc’s speciality chemical,

fiber, and polymer businesses,

submitted a letter explaining that the

company did not export the subject

merchandise to the United States during

the period of review (POR). On April 3,

1998, the Department sent a noshipment inquiry regarding RhonePoulenc to the Customs Service. The

purpose of this inquiry was to

determine whether the Customs Service

suspended liquidation of entry

summaries of this merchandise during

the POR. The Customs Service did not

identify any suspended entry

summaries of ASM manufactured and/

or exported by Rhone-Poulenc during

the POR. Therefore, we have determined

that there were no entries of subject

merchandise into the customs territory

of the United States during the POR and

we are rescinding this review in

accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3).

The cash-deposit rate for Rhone-Poulenc

will remain at 60 percent, the rate

established in the most recently

completed segment of this proceeding

(61 FR 44038, August 27, 1996). This

notice is being published in accordance

with section 777(i) of the Tariff Act of

1930, as amended.

Dated: June 4, 1998.

Richard W. Moreland,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–15475 Filed 6–9–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–570–808]

Chrome-Plated Lug Nuts From the

People’s Republic of China;

Preliminary Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of

the antidumping duty administrative

review of chrome-plated lug nuts from

the People’s Republic of China.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

(the Department) is conducting an

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on chromeplated lug nuts (lug nuts) from the

People’s Republic of China (PRC) in

response to a request by petitioner,

Consolidated International Automotive,

Inc. (Consolidated). This review covers

shipments of this merchandise to the

United States during the period of

September 1, 1996 through August 31,

1997.

We have preliminarily determined

that sales have been made below normal

value (NV). If these preliminary results

are adopted in our final results, we will

instruct the U.S. Customs Service to

assess antidumping duties based on the

difference between export price and NV.

Interested parties are invited to

comment on these preliminary results.

Parties who submit argument are

requested to submit with each argument

(1) a statement of the issue and (2) a

brief summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 10, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric

Scheier or Maureen Flannery,

Antidumping/Countervailing Duty

Enforcement, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington D.C. 20230; telephone (202)

482–4733.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute

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.

In addition, unless otherwise indicated,

all citations to the Department’s

regulations are references to the

regulations as codified at 19 CFR Part

351 (62 FR 27379, May 19, 1997).

Background

The Department published in the

Federal Register an antidumping duty

order on lug nuts from the PRC on April

24, 1992 (57 FR 15052). On August 29,

1997, the Department published in the

Federal Register (62 FR 45794) a notice

of opportunity to request an

administrative review of the

antidumping order on lug nuts from the

PRC covering the period September 1,

1996 through August 31, 1997.

On September 29, 1997, in accordance

with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), Consolidated

requested that we conduct an

administrative review of the following

PRC firms:

China National Automotive Industry I/E

Corp.

China National Machinery & Equipment I/E

Corp., Jiangsu Branch
31720 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 /Wednesday, June 10, 1998 / Notices

Shanghai Automobile Import & Export Corp.

Tianjin Automobile Import & Export Co.

Ningbo Knives & Scissors Factory

China National Automobile Import & Export

Corp., Yangzhou Branch

Jiangsu Rudong Grease Gun Factory

China National Automotive Industry I/E

Corp., Nantong Branch

We published a notice of initiation of

this antidumping duty administrative

review on November 26, 1997 (62 FR

63069). The Department is conducting

this administrative review in

accordance with section 751 of the Act.

Scope of Review

The products covered by the order

and this review are one-piece and twopiece chrome-plated and nickel-plated

lug nuts from the PRC. The subject

merchandise includes chrome-plated

and nickel-plated lug nuts, finished or

unfinished, which are more than 11⁄16

inches (17.45 millimeters) in height and

which have a hexagonal (hx) size of at

least 3⁄4 inches (19.05 millimeters) but

not over one inch (25.4 millimeters),

plus or minus 1⁄16 of an inch (1.59

millimeters). The term ‘‘unfinished’’

refers to unplated and/or unassembled

chrome-plated lug nuts. The subject

merchandise is used for securing wheels

to cars, vans, trucks, utility vehicles,

and trailers. Excluded from the order are

zinc-plated lug nuts, finished or

unfinished, stainless-steel capped lug

nuts, and chrome-plated lock nuts.

The merchandise under review is

currently classifiable under item

7318.16.00 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 is dispositive.

This review covers the period

September 1, 1996 through August 31,

1997.

Facts Available

We preliminarily determine that, in

accordance with section 776(a) of the

Act, the use of facts available is

appropriate for the following firms:

China National Automotive Industry I/E

Corp.

China National Machinery & Equipment I/E

Corp., Jiangsu Branch

Tianjin Automobile Import & Export Co.

Ningbo Knives & Scissors Factory

China National Automobile Import & Export

Corp., Yangzhou Branch

China National Automotive Industry I/E

Corp. Nantong Branch

Two of the above firms, the Tianjin

Automobile Import & Export Co. and the

Ningbo Knives & Scissors Factory, had

mailing addresses that were

undeliverable. See memorandum to the

file dated December 9, 1997, ‘‘ChromePlated Lug Nuts from the People’s

Republic of China.’’

Neither the PRC Ministry of Foreign

Trade and Economic Cooperation

(MOFTEC) nor the Embassy of the PRC

in Washington, DC gave us any

indication that any of the addresses for

the eight firms listed above was

incorrect. See Letter to MOFTEC dated

November 11, 1997 and Letter to the

Embassy of the PRC dated November 11,

1997. In the letter to the Embassy of the

PRC we requested that the Embassy of

the PRC provide the names, addresses,

phone numbers, and appropriate contact

persons for each company in the PRC

that produced and/or exported the

subject merchandise during the POR,

and that they include the names of any

foreign corporations engaged in joint

ventures and/or partnerships with each

company. We included in the letter to

the Embassy of the PRC a copy of the

letters and questionnaire sent to each of

the firms. We included all of the above

in the letter to MOFTEC, including the

letter to the Embassy of the PRC, and

requested, if MOFTEC believed that the

Embassy of the PRC was not the proper

party to respond to this questionnaire,

or wished to have another person or

organization act as the Department’s

contact for this review, that MOFTEC

provide the name and address of that

person or organization. Neither

MOFTEC nor the Embassy of the PRC

responded to these letters.

Furthermore, the addresses to which

we sent the questionnaires were

identical to the addresses to which the

questionnaires were sent in the most

recent review, with the exception of the

China National Automotive Industry I/

E Corp. Nantong Branch (Nantong). In

the 1994–95 administrative review of

lug nuts, we addressed the

questionnaire to Nantong’s counsel.

Because Nantong does not have counsel

in this current review, we mailed the

questionnaire to Nantong’s business

address as reported in the public

version of their February 13, 1995

questionnaire response for the 1994–95

review. We were unable to find any

more recent information regarding the

two undeliverable addresses. See

Memoranda to the File dated November

25, 1997 and June 1, 1998. Because

necessary information is not available

on the record with regard to sales by six

firms during the period of review, the

use of facts available for these six firms

is warranted.

Where a respondent has failed to

cooperate to the best of its ability,

section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the

Department to use facts available that

are adverse to the interests of that

respondent, which include information

derived from the petition, the final

determination, a previous

administrative review, or other

information placed on the record.

Because information from prior

proceedings constitutes secondary

information, section 776(c) of the Act

provides that the Department shall, to

the extent practicable, corroborate that

secondary information from

independent sources reasonably at its

disposal. The Statement of

Administrative Action (SAA) notes that

‘‘corroborate’’ means simply that the

Department will satisfy itself that the

secondary information to be used has

probative value. H.#Doc. No. 316, Vol. 1,

103d Cong., 2d Sess. 870 (1994).

To corroborate secondary information,

the Department will, to the extent

practicable, examine the reliability and

relevance of the information to be used.

However, unlike other types of

information, such as surrogate values,

there are no independent sources for

calculated dumping margins. The only

source for calculated margins is

administrative determinations. Thus, in

an administrative review, if the

Department chooses as total adverse

facts available a calculated dumping

margin from a prior segment of the

proceeding, it is not necessary to

question the reliability of the margin for

that time period. With respect to the

relevance aspect of corroboration,

however, the Department will consider

information reasonably at its disposal as

to whether there are circumstances that

would render a margin not relevant.

Where circumstances indicate that the

selected margin is not appropriate as

adverse facts available, the Department

will disregard the margin and determine

an appropriate margin. (See, e.g., Fresh

Cut Flowers from Mexico; Final Results

of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 61 FR 6812 (February 22, 1996),

where the Department disregarded the

highest margin as best information

available because that margin was based

on an uncharacteristic business

expense, which resulted in the high

margin.) In this case, we have used the

highest rate from this or any prior

segment of the proceeding, 44.99

percent, which was the rate calculated

for Nantong in the 1992–93 review, and

which is the PRC-wide rate currently in

effect. See Chrome-Plated Lug Nuts

From the People’s Republic of China;

Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 61 FR 58519

(November 15, 1996). There is no

information on the record that indicates

that this rate is not appropriate. Because

these firms are part of the PRC entity,

this rate remains the PRC rate.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 /Wednesday, June 10, 1998 / Notices 31721

The Shanghai Automobile Import &

Export Co. (Shanghai), which was not

assigned a separate rate in any previous

review, reported in its letter of

December 3, 1997 that it did not export

subject merchandise to the United

States during the period of review.

Because Shanghai has not been given a

separate rate in any previous segment of

this proceeding, and because there is no

information on the record by which we

might determine whether Shanghai

should be considered for a separate rate

in this review, we are considering

Shanghai part of the PRC entity, and

assigning it the PRC-wide rate of 44.99

percent.

Separate Rates

Of the firms named in the initiation

of the administrative review, the only

one to respond to the separate rate

section of the Department’s

antidumping questionnaire was the

Jiangsu Rudong Grease Gun Factory

(Rudong). Therefore, only Rudong was

considered for a separate rate.

To establish whether a company

operating in a state-controlled economy

is sufficiently independent to be

entitled to a separate rate, the

Department analyzes each exporting

entity under the test established in the

Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the

People’s Republic of China, 56 FR 20588

(May 6, 1991), as amplified by the Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the

People’s Republic of China, 59 FR 22585

(May 2, 1994). Under this policy,

exporters in non-market economies

(NMEs) are entitled to separate,

company-specific margins when they

can demonstrate an absence of

government control, both in law and in

fact, with respect to export activities.

Evidence supporting, though not

requiring, a finding of de jure absence

of government control over export

activities includes: (1) An absence of

restrictive stipulations associated with

an individual exporter’s business and

export licenses; (2) any legislative

enactments decentralizing control of

companies; and (3) any other formal

measures by the government

decentralizing control of companies. De

facto absence of government control

over exports is based on four factors: (1)

Whether each exporter sets its own

export prices independently of the

government and without the approval of

a government authority; (2) whether

each exporter retains the proceeds from

its sales and makes independent

decisions regarding the disposition of

profits or financing of losses; (3)

whether each exporter has the authority

to negotiate and sign contracts and other

agreements; and (4) whether each

exporter has autonomy from the

government regarding the selection of

management.

With respect to the absence of de jure

government control over export

activities, evidence on the record

indicates that Rudong is a collectivelyowned enterprise, does not coordinate

with other exporters and has no

relationship with the national,

provincial or local levels of the PRC

government. As a collectively-owned

enterprise, Rudong has the legal right to

set prices independent of all

government oversight, as codified by

Chinese Law for Foreign Businesses, Ch.

3 Art. 26. Chinese Law for Foreign

Businesses and ‘‘Excerpts from

Regulations for Transformation of

Operational Mechanism of State-Owned

Industrial Enterprises,’’ published in the

December, 1992 edition of The Bulletin

of the Ministry of Foreign Economic

Relations and Trade of the People’s

Republic of China, both of which

regulate the operation of PRC

collectively-owned industrial

enterprises, are attached to

Memorandum to the File dated June 2,

1998, ‘‘Chrome-Plated Lug Nuts from

the People’s Republic of China: Laws

and Regulations Governing Business

Practices in the PRC.’’

With respect to the absence of de

facto control over export activities,

Rudong’s management is responsible for

all decisions such as the determination

of its export prices, profit distribution,

marketing strategy, and contract

negotiations. For more information, see

Separate Rate Analysis in the

Administrative Review of ChromePlated Lug Nuts from the People’s

Republic of China dated June 2, 1998

(Separate Rates Memorandum), which

is on file in the Central Records Unit

(room B099 of the Main Commerce

Building).

Because evidence on the record

demonstrates an absence of government

control, both in law and in fact, over

Rudong’s export activities, the

Department preliminarily grants Rudong

a separate rate. For further discussion of

the Department’s preliminary

determination that Rudong is entitled to

a separate rate, see Separate Rates

Memorandum.

United States Price

For sales made by Rudong, we based

United States price on export price, in

accordance with section 772(a) of the

Act, because the subject merchandise

was sold to unaffiliated purchasers in

the United States prior to importation

into the United States, and because

constructed export price is not indicated

by other facts of record.

We calculated export price based on

the price to unaffiliated purchasers. We

deducted an amount for foreign inland

freight, insurance, and, for sales made

on a CIF basis, international (ocean)

freight. We selected India for all

surrogate values with the exception of

international freight, for the reasons

explained in the ‘‘Normal Value’’

section of this notice.

We valued movement expenses as

follows:

• To value truck freight, we used the

rates reported in an April 20, 1994

newspaper article in the ‘‘Times of

India’’ and submitted for the Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Polyvinyl Alcohol From the

People’s Republic of China, 60 FR 52647

(October 10, 1995). We adjusted the

rates to reflect inflation through the POR

using WPI published by the IMF.

• Where ocean freight was sourced

from a market economy and paid for in

a market-economy currency, we used

the actual prices paid to the marketeconomy carriers; where ocean freight

was provided by a nonmarket-economy

carrier, we used a weighted average of

the prices paid to the market-economy

carriers. See Final Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value:

Manganese Sulphate from the People’s

Republic of China, 60 FR 52155

(October 5, 1995).

• We valued marine insurance using

the average rate in effect during the

period November 1991 through April

1992. This rate was reported in public

information placed on the record for the

Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value: Sulfur Dyes, Including

Sulfur Vat Dyes, From India, 58 FR

11835 (March 1, 1993). We adjusted this

rate to reflect inflation through the POR

using WPI published by the IMF.

Normal Value

For companies located in NME

countries, section 773(c)(1) of the Act

provides that the Department shall

determine NV using a factors-ofproduction methodology if (1) the

merchandise is exported from an NME

country, and (2) available information

does not permit the calculation of NV

using home-market prices, third-country

prices, or constructed value under

section 773(a) of the Act.

In every case conducted by the

Department involving the PRC, the PRC

has been treated as an NME country.

Pursuant to section 771(18)(C)(i) of the

Act, any determination that a foreign

country is an NME country shall remain

in effect until revoked by the

administering authority. None of the
31722 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 /Wednesday, June 10, 1998 / Notices

parties to this proceeding has contested

such treatment in this review.

Accordingly, we have applied surrogate

values to the factors of production to

determine NV.

We calculated NV based on factors of

production in accordance with section

773(c)(4) of the Act and section

351.408(c) of our regulations. We

determined that India 1) is comparable

to the PRC in terms of level of economic

development, and 2) is a significant

producer of comparable merchandise.

See Memorandum to the File dated

January 29, 1998, ‘‘Chrome-Plated Lug

Nuts from the People’s Republic of

China—Significant Production in India

of Comparable Merchandise.’’

Therefore, for this review, we used

publicly available information relating

to India to value the various factors of

production. See Memorandum to the

File from Eric Scheier, dated June 2,

1998, ‘‘Factor Values Used for the

Preliminary Results of the 1996–1997

Administrative Review of Chrome

Plated Lug Nuts from the People’s

Republic of China.’’

We valued the factors of production

as follows:

• For steel wire rods, we used a per

kilogram value obtained from the

Monthly Statistics of Foreign Trade of

India (Indian Import Statistics). Using

wholesale price indices (WPI) obtained

from the International Financial

Statistics, published by the International

Monetary Fund (IMF), we adjusted these

values to reflect inflation through the

period of review (POR). We made

further adjustments to include freight

costs incurred between the supplier and

Rudong. For transportation distances

used for the calculation of freight

expenses on raw materials, we added to

surrogate values from India a surrogate

freight cost using the shorter of (a) the

distances between the closest PRC port

and the factory, or (b) the distance

between the domestic supplier and the

factory. See Notice of Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Collated Roofing Nails From

the People’s Republic of China, 62 FR

51410 (October 1, 1997) (Roofing Nails).

• For chemicals used in the

production and plating of lug nuts, we

used per kilogram values obtained from

the Indian publication Chemical Weekly

and the Indian Import Statistics. We

adjusted the Indian Import Statistics

rates to reflect inflation through the POR

using WPI published by the IMF. We

made further adjustments to include

freight costs incurred between the

suppliers and Rudong, and to deduct

sales and excise taxes from the prices

listed in the Chemical Weekly. We

obtained excise tax figures from the

Central Excise Tariff of India 1995–1996

and sales tax figures from the All India

Sales Tax Ready Reckoner: 1996

Edition.

• For hydrochloric acid, we relied on

the price used in the Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Certain Helical Spring Lock

Washers from the People’s Republic of

China (Lock Washers) (62 FR 61794,

November 19, 1997) because the Indian

Import Statistics rely on an Indian tariff

category that also encompasses

hydrogen chloride in gaseous form. This

price is derived from prices listed in the

Chemical Weekly for the period of

October 1995 through September 1996,

and excludes prices that were found to

be aberrational in Lock Washers. We

adjusted this value to reflect inflation

through the POR using WPI published

by the IMF. We made further

adjustments to include freight costs

incurred between the supplier and

Rudong.

• For labor, we used the PRC

regression-based wage rate at Import

Administration’s homepage, Import

Library, Expected Wages of Selected

NME Countries, revised on June 2, 1997.

See http://www.ita.doc.gov/

importladmin/records/wages. Because

of the variability of wage rates in

countries with similar per capita GDPs,

section 351.408(c)(3) of the

Department’s regulations requires the

use of a regression-based wage rate. The

source of these wage rate data on the

Import Administration’s homepage is

found in the 1996 Year Book of Labour

Statistics, International Labour Office

(‘‘ILO’’) (Geneva: 1996), Chapter 5B:

Wages in Manufacturing.

• For factory overhead, we used

information reported in the April 1995

Reserve Bank of India Bulletin for the

Indian metals and chemicals industries.

From this information, we were able to

determine factory overhead as a

percentage of the total cost of

manufacture.

• For selling, general and

administrative (SG&A) expenses, we

used information obtained from the

April 1995 Reserve Bank of India

Bulletin for the Indian metals and

chemicals industries. We calculated an

SG&A rate by dividing SG&A expenses

by the cost of manufacture.

• To calculate a profit rate, we used

information obtained from the April

1995 Reserve Bank of India Bulletin for

the Indian metals and chemicals

industries. We calculated a profit rate by

dividing the before-tax profit by the cost

of manufacturing plus SG&A.

• For packing materials, we used per

kilogram values obtained from the

Indian Import Statistics. We adjusted

these values to reflect inflation through

the POR using WPI published by the

IMF. We made further adjustments to

include freight costs incurred between

the suppliers and Rudong.

• To value electricity, we used the

average price of electricity as of July

1995 published in India’s Energy Sector

by the Center for Monitoring the Indian

Economy. We adjusted the value of

electricity to reflect inflation through

the POR using the WPI published by the

IMF.

• Although Rudong did report

banking charges, which it explains are

incurred in connection with the

collection of receivables, we are not

allowing this adjustment. It is the

Department’s current practice not to

make circumstance-of-sale adjustments

in NME cases. The Department does not

adjust for differences in selling expenses

because there is insufficient detail about

the selling expenses included in the

surrogate SG&A to make an adjustment.

See Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value: Manganese Metal from

the People’s Republic of China 60 FR

56045, 50–51 (November 6, 1995).

Currency Conversion

We made currency conversions

pursuant to section 351.415 of the

Department’s regulations at the rates

certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.

Preliminary Results of Review

We preliminarily determine that the

following dumping margins exist:

Manufacturer/Exporter Time period Margin

(percent)

Jiangsu Rudong

Grease Gun

Factory ........... 09/01/96–

08/31/97

5.44

PRC rate ........... 09/01/96–

08/31/97

44.99

Parties to the proceeding may request

disclosure within 5 days of the date of

publication of this notice in accordance

with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Any interested

party may request a hearing within 30

days of publication in accordance with

19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if

requested, will be held 39 days after the

publication of this notice, or the first

workday thereafter. Interested parties

may submit case briefs within 30 days

of the date of publication of this notice

in accordance with 19 CFR

351.309(b)(2)(ii). Rebuttal briefs, which

must be limited to issues raised in the

case briefs, may be filed not later than

37 days after the date of publication.

The Department will publish a notice of

final results of this administrative

review, which will include the results of
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 /Wednesday, June 10, 1998 / Notices 31723

its analysis of issues raised in any such

comments.

The Department shall determine, and

the U.S. Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. Individual differences between

export price and NV may vary from the

percentage stated above. We have

calculated importer-specific duty

assessment rates for lug nuts by dividing

the total dumping margins (calculated

as the difference between NV and EP)

for each importer/customer by the total

number of units sold to that importer/

customer. We will direct Customs to

assess the resulting per-unit dollar

amount against each unit of

merchandise in each of the importer’s/

customer’s entries during the review

period.

Furthermore, the following deposit

rate will be effective upon publication

of the final results of this administrative

review for all shipments of lug nuts

from the PRC entered, or withdrawn

from warehouse, for consumption on or

after the publication date, as provided

for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1)

For Rudong, which has a separate rate,

the cash deposit rate will be 5.44

percent; (2) for all other PRC exporters,

the rate will be the PRC country-wide

rate; and (3) for non-PRC exporters of

subject merchandise from the PRC, the

cash deposit rate will be the rate

applicable to the PRC supplier of that

exporter.

These 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) 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 Act.

Dated: June 2, 1998.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–15471 Filed 6–9–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–580–809]

Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe

From the Republic of Korea;

Rescission of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review and

Clarification of Final Results of

Changed Circumstances Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce

ACTION: Notice of rescission of

antidumping duty administrative review

and clarification of final results of

antidumping duty changed

circumstances review.

SUMMARY: In response to timely

withdrawals of request for review by

Hyundai Pipe Co. Ltd., Korea Iron and

Steel Co., Ltd., SeAH Steel Corporation

and Shinho Steel Co., Ltd., the

Department of Commerce is rescinding

the 1996/1997 antidumping duty

administrative review of circular

welded non-alloy steel pipe from the

Republic of Korea. Also, we are

clarifying the cash deposit rate for SeAH

Steel Corporation which was incorrectly

stated in the final results of

antidumping duty changed

circumstances review published April

27, 1998.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 10, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Marian Wells or Cynthia Thirumalai,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, US Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington

DC 20230; telephone (202) 482–6309

and 482–4087 respectively.

The 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 refer to the

regulations, codified at 19 CFR part 351

published in 62 FR 27295 (May 19,

1997).

Scope of Review

The merchandise subject to this

review is circular welded non-alloy

steel pipe and tube, of circular crosssection, not more than 406.4mm (16

inches) in outside diameter, regardless

of wall thickness, surface finish (black,

galvanized, or painted), or end finish

(plain end, beveled end, threaded, or

threaded and coupled). These pipes and

tubes are generally known as standard

pipes and tubes and are intended for the

low-pressure conveyance of water,

steam, natural gas, air, and other liquids

and gases in plumbing and heating

systems, air-conditioning units,

automatic sprinkler systems, and other

related uses. Standard pipe may also be

used for light load-bearing applications,

such as for fence tubing, and as

structural pipe tubing used for framing

and as support members for

reconstruction or load-bearing purposes

in the construction, shipbuilding,

trucking, farm equipment, and other

related industries. Unfinished conduit

pipe is also included in this order.

All carbon-steel pipes and tubes

within the physical description outlined

above are included within the scope of

this review except line pipe, oil-country

tubular goods, boiler tubing, mechanical

tubing, pipe and tube hollows for

redraws, finished scaffolding, and

finished conduit. In accordance with the

Department’s Final Negative

Determination of Scope Inquiry on

Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy

Steel Pipe and Tube from Brazil, the

Republic of Korea, Mexico, and

Venezuela (61 FR 11608, March 21,

1996), pipe certified to the API 5L linepipe specification and pipe certified to

both the API 5L line-pipe specifications

and the less-stringent ASTM A–53

standard-pipe specifications, which falls

within the physical parameters as

outlined above, and entered as line pipe

of a kind used for oil and gas pipelines

is outside of the scope of the

antidumping duty order.

Imports of these products are

currently classifiable under the

following Harmonized Tariff Schedule

of the United States (HTSUS)

subheadings: 7306.30.10.00,

7306.30.50.25, 7306.30.50.32,

7306.30.50.40, 7306.30.50.55,

7306.30.50.85, and 7306.30.50.90.

Although the HTSUS subheadings are

provided for convenience and customs

purposes, our written description of the

scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

Recession of 1996/97Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review

On December 23, 1997, we published

our Notice of Initiation of Antidumping

and Countervailing Administrative

Reviews (62 FR 246). Subsequently, we

received timely withdrawals of request

for review from Hyundai Pipe Co. Ltd.,

Korea Iron and Steel Co., Ltd., SeAH

Steel Corporation (‘‘SeAH’’) and Shinho

Steel Co., Ltd. Because there was no

other request for review for these