3536 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 15 / Friday, January 23, 1998 / Notices

2Pursuant to appropriate delegations of authority,

the Director, Office of Exporter Services, in

consultation with the Director, Office of Export

Enforcement, exercises the authority granted to the

Secretary by Section 11(h) of the Act.

Commerce,2 no person convicted of

violating IEEPA, or certain other

provisions of the United States code,

shall be eligible to apply for or use any

license, including any License

Exception, issued pursuant to, or

provided by, the Act or the Export

Administration Regulations (currently

codified at 15 CFR parts 730–774

(1997)), (the Regulations), for a period of

up to 10 years from the date of the

conviction. In addition, any license

issued pursuant to the Act in which

such a person had any interest at the

time of conviction may be revoked.

Pursuant to Sections 766.25 and

750.8(a) of the Regulations, upon

notification that a person has been

convicted of violating IEEPA, the

Director, Office of Exporter Services, in

consultation with the Director, Office of

Export Enforcement, shall determine

whether to deny that person permission

to apply for or use any license,

including any License Exception, issued

pursuant to, or provided by, the Act and

the Regulations, and shall also

determine whether to revoke any license

previously issued to such a person.

Having received notice of Keval’s

conviction for violating IEEPA and

following consultations with the Acting

Director, Office of Export Enforcement,

I have decided to deny Keval

permission to apply for or use any

license, including any License

Exception, issued pursuant to, or

provided by, the Act and the

Regulations, for a period of eight years

from the date of his conviction. The

eight-year period ends on September 25,

2003. I have also decided to revoke all

licenses issued pursuant to the Act in

which Keval had an interest at the time

of his conviction.

Accordingly, it is hereby ordered:

I. Until September 25, 2003, Nishan

Keval, 2511 Sullivan Drive, Auburn,

California 95603, may not, directly or

indirectly, participate in any way, in

any transaction involving any

commodity, software or technology

(hereinafter collectively referred to as

‘‘item’’) exported or to be exported from

the United States, that is subject to the

Regulations, or in any other activity

subject to the Regulations, including but

not limited to:

A. Applying for, obtaining, or using

any license, License Exception, or

export control document;

B. Carrying on negotiations

concerning, or ordering, buying,

receiving, using, selling, delivering,

storing, disposing of, forwarding,

transporting, financing, or otherwise

servicing in any way, any transaction

involving any item exported or to be

exported from the United States that is

subject to the Regulations, or in any

other activity subject to the Regulations;

or

C. Benefiting in any way from any

transaction involving any item exported

or to be exported from the United States

that is subject to the Regulations, or in

any other activity subject to the

Regulations.

II. No person may directly or

indirectly, do any of the following:

A. Export or reexport to or on behalf

of the denied person any item subject to

the Regulations;

B. Take any action that facilitates the

acquisition or attempted acquisition by

the denied person of the ownership,

possession, or control of any item

subject to the Regulations that has been

or will be exported from the United

States, including financing or other

support activities related to a

transaction whereby the denied person

acquires or attempts to acquire such

ownership, possession or control;

C. Take any action to acquire from or

to facilitate the acquisition or attempted

acquisition from the denied person of

any item subject to the Regulations that

has been exported from the United

States;

D. Obtain from the denied person in

the United States any item subject to the

Regulations with knowledge or reason

to know that the item will be, or is

intended to be, exported from the

United States; or

E. Engage in any transaction to service

any item subject to the Regulations that

has been or will be exported from the

United States and that is owned,

possessed or controlled by the denied

person, or service any item, of whatever

origin, that is owned, possessed or

controlled by the denied person if such

service involves the use of any item

subject to the Regulations that has been

or will be exported from the United

States. For purposes of this paragraph,

servicing means installation,

maintenance, repair, modification or

testing.

III. After notice and opportunity for

comment as provided in Section 766.23

of the Regulations, any person, firm,

corporation, or business organization

related to Keval by affiliation,

ownership, control, or position of

responsibility in the conduct of trade or

related services may also be subject to

the provisions of this Order.

IV. This Order does not prohibit any

export, reexport, or other transaction

subject to the Regulations, where the

only items involved that are subject to

the Regulations are the foreignproducted direct product of U.S.-origin

technology.

V. This Order is effective immediately

and shall remain in effect until

September 25, 2003.

VI. A copy of this Order shall be

delivered to Keval. This Order shall be

published in the Federal Register.

Dated: January 9, 1998.

Eileen M. Albanese,

Director, Office of Exporter Services.

[FR Doc. 98–1574 Filed 1–22–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DT–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–533–810]

Stainless Steel Bar from India:

Preliminary Results of New Shipper

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of

New Shipper Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review: Stainless Steel

Bar from India.

SUMMARY: In response to requests from

M/s Panchmahal Steels, Ltd. and Ferro

Alloys Corporation Limited, the

Department of Commerce is conducting

a new shipper administrative review of

the antidumping duty order on stainless

steel bar from India. This review covers

M/s Panchmahal Steels, Limited’s and

Ferro Alloys Corporation Limited’s sales

of the subject merchandise to the United

States during the period February 1,

1996 through January 31, 1997.

We have preliminarily determined

that M/s Panchmahal Steels, Ltd.’s sales

have been made below normal value

and that Ferro Alloys Corporation

Limited’s sales have not been made

below normal value. If these

preliminary results are adopted in our

final results of new shipper

administrative review, we will instruct

the U.S. Customs Service to assess

antidumping duties equal to the

difference between the export price and

the normal value.

Interested parties are invited to

comment on these preliminary results.

Parties who submit argument are

requested to submit with the argument

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

brief summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 23, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Craig Matney or Zak Smith, Office 1,
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 15 / Friday, January 23, 1998 / Notices 3537

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington

D.C. 20230; telephone (202) 482–0588 or

(202) 482–1279, respectively.

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.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On February 24 and February 27,

1997, the Department of Commerce

(‘‘the Department’’) received requests

from respondents to conduct a new

shipper administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on stainless

steel bar from India produced by M/s

Panchmahal Steels, Ltd.

(‘‘Panchmahal’’) and Ferro Alloys

Corporation Limited (‘‘Facor’’),

respectively. The Department published

in the Federal Register, on March 28,

1997, a notice of initiation of a new

shipper administrative review of

Panchmahal and Facor covering the

period August 1, 1996, through January

31, 1997 (62 FR 14886). On September

17, 1997, the Department published in

the Federal Register a notice of

extension of time limit for this new

shipper administrative review (62 FR

48811). This notice extended the time

for completion of these preliminary

results to no later than January 14, 1998.

Scope of Review

Imports covered by this review are

shipments of stainless steel bar (‘‘SSB’’).

SSB means articles of stainless steel in

straight lengths that have been either

hot-rolled, forged, turned, cold-drawn,

cold-rolled or otherwise cold-finished,

or ground, having a uniform solid cross

section along their whole length in the

shape of circles, segments of circles,

ovals, rectangles (including squares),

triangles, hexagons, octagons, or other

convex polygons. SSB includes coldfinished SSBs that are turned or ground

in straight lengths, whether produced

from hot-rolled bar or from straightened

and cut rod or wire, and reinforcing bars

that have indentations, ribs, grooves, or

other deformations produced during the

rolling process.

Except as specified above, the term

does not include stainless steel semifinished products, cut length flat-rolled

products (i.e., cut length rolled products

which if less than 4.75 mm in thickness

have a width measuring at least 10 times

the thickness, or if 4.75 mm or more in

thickness having a width which exceeds

150 mm and measures at least twice the

thickness), wire (i.e., cold-formed

products in coils, of any uniform solid

cross section along their whole length,

which do not conform to the definition

of flat-rolled products), and angles,

shapes and sections.

The SSB subject to these orders is

currently classifiable under subheadings

7222.10.0005, 7222.10.0050,

7222.20.0005, 7222.20.0045,

7222.20.0075, and 7222.30.0000 of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’). Although the

HTSUS subheadings are provided for

convenience and customs purposes, our

written description of the scope of this

order is dispositive.

Period of Review

This review covers two

manufacturers/exporters, Panchmahal

and Facor, and the period February 1,

1996 through January 31, 1997. The

initiation notice incorrectly stated the

period of review as August 1, 1996

through January 31, 1997.

Date of Sale

The Department’s April 21, 1997,

questionnaire instructed respondents to

use the invoice date as date of sale. It

further instructed respondent to contact

the Department if the exporter believed

that there was another situation present

that would make using the date of

invoice inappropriate. Facor made a

written submission to the Department

on June 9, 1997, claiming that the

purchase order date was the appropriate

date of sale, because that is the date on

which the material terms of sale are set.

On June 12, 1997, the Department

agreed that Facor may report its sales to

the United States based on purchase

order date.

Petitioners objected to the

Department’s date of sale decision.

Petitioners claimed that our decision in

Wire Rod from India (62 FR 38976, July

21, 1997) allows only two exceptions

(i.e., sales made on the basis of longterm contracts and sales made with a

long lag time) to the rule of using

invoice date as date of sale, and that

Facor did not meet either one. We

conducted a further analysis of the

information on the record and

concluded that the purchase order date

is the appropriate date of sale because

the material terms of sale were set at

this time and no material changes

occurred between the purchase order

date and the invoice date (see,

Memorandum to Richard W. Moreland

from Susan Kuhbach, November 14,

1997).

United States Price

In calculating the price to the United

States, we used export price (‘‘EP’’), in

accordance with section 772(a) of the

Act, because the subject merchandise

was sold directly to the first unaffiliated

purchaser in the United States prior to

importation into the United States and

constructed export price was not

otherwise indicated.

We calculated EP based on either the

CIF or cost and freight (‘‘CFR’’) price to

the United States. In accordance with

section 772(c)(2) of the Act, we made

deductions for foreign inland freight

and international freight.

Panchmahal claimed an upward

adjustment to EP for a ‘‘duty drawback’’

program. In the preliminary results of

the first administrative review of this

order, we analyzed the functioning of

this duty drawback program and found

that it did not meet the Department’s

criteria for an upward adjustment to EP

(see, 62 FR 10540 at 10541, March 7,

1997). We maintained our position in

the final results (see, 62 FR 37030, July

10, 1997). We have reexamined the

program in regard to Panchmahal, and

have found no reason to deviate from

our previous decision. As stated in

Certain Welded Carbon Standard Steel

Pipes and Tubes from India (62 FR

47632 at 47635, September 10, 1997),

‘‘we determine whether an adjustment

to U.S. price for a respondent’s claimed

duty drawback is appropriate when the

respondent can demonstrate that it

meets both parts of our two-part test.

There must be: (1) A sufficient link

between the import duty and the rebate,

and (2) a sufficient amount of raw

materials imported and used in the

production of the final exported

product.’’ Because Panchmahal did not

demonstrate a sufficient link between

the import duty and the rebate, we have

not made an adjustment to EP.

Normal Value

In order to determine whether there

was a sufficient volume of sales in the

home market to serve as a viable basis

for calculating NV, we compared

respondent’s volume of home market

sales of the foreign like product to the

volume of U.S. sales of the subject

merchandise, in accordance with

section 773(a) of the Act. Because the

aggregate volume of home market sales

of the foreign like product was greater

than five percent of the aggregate

volume of U.S. sales of the subject

merchandise, we determined that the

home market provides a viable basis for

calculating NV. Therefore, in

accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i)

of the Act, we based NV on the prices
3538 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 15 / Friday, January 23, 1998 / Notices

at which the foreign like product was

first sold to unaffiliated customers for

consumption in the exporting country,

in the usual commercial quantities and

in the ordinary course of trade.

Level of Trade

In accordance with section

773(a)(1)(B) 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 constructed value, that of the

sales from which we derive selling,

general and administrative expenses

and profit. For EP, the U.S. LOT is also

the level of the starting-price sale,

which is usually from exporter to

importer. For CEP, it is the level of the

constructed sale from the exporter to the

importer.

To determine whether NV sales are at

a different LOT than EP or CEP, we

examine 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 LOT, 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 LOT

of the export transaction, we make an

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 implementing these principles in

this review, we reviewed information

from each respondent regarding the

marketing stage involved in the reported

home market and U.S. sales, including

a description of the selling activities

performed by the respondents for each

channel of distribution. Pursuant to

section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act and the

SAA at 827, in identifying levels of

trade for EP and home market sales we

considered the selling functions

reflected in the starting prices before

any adjustments. We expect that, if

claimed levels of trade are the same, the

functions and activities of the seller

should be similar. Conversely, if a party

claims that levels of trade are different

for different groups of sales, the

functions and activities of the seller

should be dissimilar.

Based on an analysis of the selling

functions, class of customers, and level

of selling expenses, we found that the

marketing process in both the home

market and the United States were not

substantially dissimilar for either

Panchmahal or Facor. Therefore, we

have preliminarily found that sales in

both markets are at the same LOT and

consequently no LOT adjustment is

warranted.

Cost of Production Analysis

Based on a cost allegation presented

by petitioners, the Department found

reasonable grounds to believe or suspect

that sales by Facor in the home market

were made at the prices below their

respective costs of production (‘‘COPs’’).

As a result, the Department initiated an

investigation to determine whether

Facor made home market sales during

the POR at prices below its COP, within

the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act.

We conducted the COP analysis

described below.

A. Calculation of COP

In accordance with section 773(b)(3)

of the Act, we calculated the weightedaverage COP, by model, based on the

sum of the cost of materials, fabrication,

selling, general and administrative

expenses, and packing costs.

B. Results of the COP Test

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C),

where less than 20 percent of a

respondent’s sales of a given product

were made at prices below the COP, we

did not disregard any below-cost sales

of that product because we determined

that the below-cost sales were not made

in ‘‘substantial quantities.’’ Where 20

percent or more of Facor’s sales of a

given product were made at prices

below the COP, we disregarded the

below-cost sales because such sales

were found to be made within an

extended period of time in ‘‘substantial

quantities’’ in accordance with sections

773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act.

Moreover, based on comparisons of

price to weighted-average COPs for the

POR, we determined that the below-cost

sales of the product were at prices

which would not permit recovery of all

costs within a reasonable period of time,

in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D)

of the Act.

We found that Facor made home

market sales at below COP prices within

an extended period of time in

substantial quantities. Further, we

found that these sales prices did not

permit for the recovery of costs within

a reasonable period of time. We

therefore excluded these sales from our

analysis in accordance with section

773(b)(1) of the Act.

Preliminary Results of the Review

As a result of our comparison of EP

and NV, we preliminarily determine the

following weighted-average dumping

margins:

Manufacturer/exporter Period Margin

(percent)

Panchmahal ..................................................................................................................................................... 2/1/96–1/31/97 0.69

Facor ................................................................................................................................................................ 2/1/96–1/31/97 ............................

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 10 days of publication. Any

hearing, if requested, will be held 44

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. 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 of

this notice. The Department will issue

the final results of this administrative

review, which will include the results of

its analysis of issues raised in any such

comments, within 90 days of issuance of

these preliminary results.

Upon completion of this new shipper

administrative review, the Department

shall determine, and the U.S. Customs

Service shall assess, antidumping duties

on all appropriate entries. Individual

differences between EP and NV may

vary from the percentages stated above.

We have calculated an importer-specific

duty assessment rate based on the ratio

of the total amount of AD duties

calculated for the examined sales made

during the POR to the total value of

subject merchandise entered during the
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 15 / Friday, January 23, 1998 / Notices 3539

POR. In order to estimate the entered

value, we subtracted international

movement expenses (e.g., international

freight) from the gross sales value. This

rate will be assessed uniformly on all

entries made during the POR. The

Department will issue appraisement

instructions directly to the Customs

Service.

The following deposit requirement

will be effective upon publication of the

final results of this new shipper

antidumping duty administrative review

for all shipments of stainless steel bar

from India entered, or withdrawn from

warehouse, for consumption on or after

the publication date, as provided for by

section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash

deposit rate for the reviewed companies

will be the rates established in the final

results of this review; (2) if the exporter

is not a firm covered in this review, but

was covered in a previous review or the

original less-than-fair-value (‘‘LTFV’’)

investigation, 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 previous 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

and/or exporters of this merchandise,

shall be 12.45 percent, the ‘‘all others’’

rate established in the LTFV

investigation (59 FR 66915, December

28, 1994).

These 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

353.26 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)) and 19

CFR 353.22(h).

Dated: January 13, 1998.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–1537 Filed 1–22–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C–427–805]

Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth

Carbon Steel Products From France;

Notice of Court Decision and

Suspension of Liquidation

AGENCY: International Trade

Administration, Import Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: On December 18, 1997, in

Usinor Sacilor v. United States, Consol.

Court No. 93-04–00230, a lawsuit

challenging the Department of

Commerce’s final affirmative

countervailing duty determination of

certain hot-rolled lead and bismuth

carbon steel products from France, the

Court of International Trade affirmed

the Department of Commerce’s remand

determination and entered a judgment

order. As a result, the final net subsidy

rate for all programs for Usinor Sacilor

has decreased from 23.11% to 12.51%

ad valorem, and the ‘‘country-wide’’

rate has decreased from 23.11% to

12.51% ad valorem.

Consistent with the decision of the

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

in Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d

337 (Fed. Cir. 1990), the Department of

Commerce will direct the Customs

Service to change the cash deposit rates

being used in connection with the

suspension of liquidation of the subject

merchandise once there is a

‘‘conclusive’’ decision in this case.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 23, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Cindee Thirumulai, Office 1, Group 1,

AD/CVD Enforcement, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Ave., N.W., Washington D.C. 20230,

telephone: (202) 482–4087.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On January 27, 1993, the Department

of Commerce (the ‘‘Department’’ or

‘‘Commerce’’) published notice of its

final affirmative countervailing duty

determination of certain hot-rolled lead

and bismuth carbon steel products from

France. Final Affirmative Countervailing

Duty Determination; Certain Hot-rolled

Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel

Products from France, 58 FR 6221 (Jan.

27, 1993). In that determination, the

Department set forth its finding of a

final net subsidy rate of 23.14% ad

valorem for Usinor Sacilor and 23.14%

ad valorem for the ‘‘country-wide’’ rate.

On March 22, 1993, the Department

published a countervailing duty order

correcting ministerial errors and

instructing the Customs Service to

collect cash deposits at the rate of

23.11% ad valorem for Usinor Sacilor

and 23.11% ad valorem for the

‘‘country-wide’’ rate, on entries of the

subject merchandise entered or

withdrawn from warehouse for

consumption on or after that date. 58 FR

15326.

Following publication of the

Department’s countervailing duty order,

petitioners and respondents filed

lawsuits with the Court of International

Trade (‘‘CIT’’) challenging the

Department’s final determination.

In its first decision in this case, Usinor

Sacilor v. United States, 893 F. Supp.

1112 (CIT 1995), the CIT rejected the

Department’s reliance on IRS tables

showing industry-specific average

useful life of assets in determining an

allocation period of 15 years. In a

subsequent remand determination, the

Department calculated a companyspecific allocation period for Usinor

Sacilor based on the average useful life

of non-renewable physical assets, and

the CIT affirmed it. Usinor Sacilor v.

United States, 955 F. Supp. 1481 (1997).

In a later decision, Usinor Sacilor v.

United States, 966 F. Supp. 1242 (1997),

the CIT remanded the case to the

Department on the issue of the

appropriate sales denominator and

instructed the Department to adjust its

countervailing duty rates to reflect the

fact that the subsidies at issue benefitted

Usinor Sacilor’s worldwide production

rather than just Usinor Sacilor’s

domestic production. In its ensuing

remand determination, dated July 28,

1997, the Department followed the CIT’s

instructions and adjusted the

countervailing duty rates. On December

18, 1997, in Usinor Sacilor v. United

States, Consol. Court No. 93–04–00230,

Slip Op. 97–177, the CIT affirmed the

Department’s remand determination and

entered a judgment order.

As a result of the remands in this

case, the net subsidy rate for all

programs for Usinor Sacilor has

decreased from 23.11% to 12.51% ad

valorem, and the ‘‘country-wide’’ rate

has decreased from 23.11% to 12.51%

ad valorem.

Suspension of Liquidation

In its decision in Timken Co. v.

United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir.

1990) (‘‘Timken’’), the Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit (‘‘CAFC’’) held

that the Department must publish notice

of a decision of the CIT or the CAFC

which is not ‘‘in harmony’’ with the