33350 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 117 /Thursday, June 18, 1998 / Notices

TIE claims that it was reasonable and

in accordance with law for the

Department to use the ILO labor costs.

TIE argues that there is nothing on the

record which indicates that the ILO

wages do not reflect actual costs to

employers. TIE explains that in TRBs

from Romania at 37197 the Department

found no indication that the

‘‘minimum’’ rate for the industry

excludes any employee-benefit costs

which the Department normally

considers. TIE notes that the

Department also addressed this issue in

its January 26, 1998, Preliminary

Analysis Memorandum, where it added

amounts to labor rates to account for

benefits. TIE states that the Department

adjusted the ILO data correctly by using

information from the Foreign Labor

Trends, as in Lighters from the PRC,

which showed supplementary benefits

to be 33 percent of manufacturing

earnings.

TIE also opposes Torrington’s

contention that the Department should

not use data from Indonesian iron and

steel basic industries to value direct and

indirect labor. TIE claims that the

Department responded to this same

argument in TRBs from Romania at

37197, where it acknowledged that wage

rates for laborers in the iron and steel

basic industries are not in the same

industry as the bearings industry. TIE

notes that section 773(c)(4) of the statute

states that the Department will attempt

to find producers of comparable

products in selecting surrogate countries

when the Department can not locate

information from the same industry. TIE

argues that the facts of the current case

are the same as those in TRBs from

Romania and, therefore, that there is no

information on the record which

pertains specifically to the bearing

industry.

In addition, TIE argues that the

Department rejected in TRBs from

Romania at 37197 two of the alternate

sources for surrogate data, IL&T and

Doing Business in Indonesia (1996),

proposed by Torrington. Also, TIE

contests Torrington’s suggestion that the

Department use its own calculation of

wage rates for NME countries, Expected

Wages of Selected Nonmarket Economy

Countries, which is referenced by the

Department’s new regulations. TIE

argues that the new regulations are not

relevant in this review and, therefore, it

would be unreasonable for the

Department to apply those wage rates in

an old-regulations case without prior

notice to TIE.

Department’s Position: We disagree

with the petitioner. The wage rates we

used in the preliminary results

represent actual costs. Although the ILO

data is a minimum wage, it includes

such costs as ‘‘cost-of-living allowances,

and other guaranteed and regularly paid

allowances,’’ according to the ILO’s

Special Supplement to the Bulletin of

Labor Statistics (1994). Furthermore,

this follows our practice in AFBs 7,

TRBs from Romania, and in Tapered

Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof,

Finished or Unfinished, from Romania;

Preliminary Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR

11217 (March 6, 1998). Thus, we have

continued to use, in these final results,

the ILO labor data that we used in the

preliminary results.

We have not used our own calculation

of wage rates for NME countries,

Expected Wages of Selected Nonmarket

Economy Countries, because this

administrative review is not governed

by the new regulations. We do,

however, intend to use this data source

in any subsequently requested

administrative reviews which will be

governed by the new regulations.

[FR Doc. 98–16100 Filed 6–17–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–475–059]

Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape From

Italy; 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

of pressure sensitive plastic tape from

Italy.

SUMMARY: In response to a request from

an importer, Horizon Plastics, the

Department of Commerce is conducting

an administrative review of the

antidumping duty finding on pressure

sensitive plastic tape from Italy. The

period of review is October 1, 1996

through September 30, 1997. This

review covers products manufactured

and exported by N.A.R.S.p.A. We have

preliminarily found that sales of subject

merchandise have been made below

normal value. If these preliminary

results are adopted in our final results,

we will instruct the Customs Service to

assess antidumping duties based on the

difference between the export price or

constructed export price and normal

value.

Interested parties are invited to

comment on these preliminary results.

Parties who submit arguments are

requested to submit with the argument

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

brief summary of the argument. We will

issue the final results not later than 120

days from the date of publication of this

notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 18, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Todd Peterson or Thomas Futtner, AD/

CVD Enforcement Office 4, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;

telephone (202) 482–4195, and 482–

3814, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

(62 FR 27296, May 19, 1997).

Background

On October 21, 1997, the Department

published in the Federal Register (42

FR 56110) the antidumping duty finding

on pressure sensitive plastic tape (PSPT)

from Italy. On October 31, 1997, in

accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), an

interested party and importer of the

subject merchandise, Horizon Plastics,

Inc., requested that the Department

conduct an administrative review of

N.A.R.S.p.A. exports of subject

merchandise to the United States. We

published the notice of initiation of this

review on November 26, 1997 (62 FR

63069).

Scope of the Review

Imports covered by the review are

shipments of PSPT measuring 13⁄8

inches in width and not exceeding 4

mils in thickness. During the period of

review (POR), the above described PSPT

was classified under HTS subheadings

3919.90.20 and 3919.90.50. The HTS

subheadings are provided for

convenience and for U.S. Customs

purposes. The written description

remains dispositive as to the scope of

the product coverage.

Use of Facts Otherwise Available

We preliminarily determine that, in

accordance with section 776(a)(2)(A) of

the Act, the use of facts available is
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 117 /Thursday, June 18, 1998 / Notices 33351

appropriate for N.A.R.S.p.A. because

this firm did not respond to the

Department’s antidumping

questionnaire. In addition, there is no

information on the record within the

meaning of section 782(e) of the Act

with regard to sales by N.A.R.S.p.A. and

therefore no information to consider as

an alternative to facts available in

determining the margin for N.A.R.S.p.A.

The Department finds that, in not

responding to the questionnaire, this

firm failed to cooperate by not acting to

the best of its ability to comply with

requests for information from the

Department. Where the Department

must base the entire dumping margin

for a respondent in an administrative

review on the facts available because the

respondent failed to cooperate, section

776(b) authorizes the Department to use

an inference adverse to the interests of

the respondent in choosing the facts

available. Section 776(b) also authorizes

the Department to use as adverse facts

available information derived from the

petition, the final determination, a

previous administrative review, or other

information placed on the record.

As adverse facts available, we have

used the highest rate from any prior

segment of the proceeding, 12.66

percent. This rate was calculated in the

Final Results of Administrative Review

of Antidumping Finding (48 FR 35666),

covering the period February 18, 1977

through September 30, 1980.

Information from prior segments of the

proceeding constitutes ‘‘secondary

information’’ within the meaning of

section 776(c) of the Act. Section 776(c)

provides that the Department shall, to

the extent practicable, corroborate

secondary information by comparing it

with independent sources reasonably at

its disposal. The Statement of

Administrative Action (SAA) provides

that corroborate means simply that the

Department will satisfy itself that the

secondary information to be used has

probative value.

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 input costs or

selling expenses, there are no

independent sources for calculated

dumping margins. The only source for

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; Preliminary

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review (60 FR 49567),

where the Department disregarded the

highest margin as averse facts available

because the margin was based on

another company’s uncharacteristic

business expense resulting in an

unusually high margin). No such

circumstances exist in this case which

would cause the Department to

disregard a prior margin.

Preliminary Results of the Review

As a result of this review, we

preliminarily determine that the

following margin exists for the period

October 1, 1996, through September 30,

1997:

Manufacturer/exporter Margin

(percent)

N.A.R.S.p.A ............................... 12.66

Parties to the proceeding may request

disclosure within five days of the date

of publication of this notice. Interested

parties may also request a hearing

within ten days of publication. If

requested, a hearing will be held as

early as convenient for the parties but

not later than 39 days after the date of

publication of the first work day

thereafter. Interested parties may submit

case briefs not later than 30 days after

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 a notice of the

final results of this administrative

review, which will include the results of

its analysis of issues raised in any such

briefs, within 120 days from the

publication of these preliminary results.

The Department shall determine, and

the Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. Furthermore, the following

deposit requirements will be effective

upon completion of the final results of

this administrative review for all

shipments of pressure sensitive plastic

tape from Italy entered, or withdrawn

from warehouse, for consumption on or

after the publication date of the final

results of this administrative review, as

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

(1) the cash deposit rate for the

reviewed company will be the rate

established in the final results of this

administrative review (except no cash

deposit will be required where

weighted-average margin is de minimis,

i.e., less than 0.5 percent); (2) for

merchandise exported by manufacturers

or exporters not covered in this review

but covered in the original less-thanfair-value (LTFV) investigation or a

previous review, the cash deposit will

continue to be the most recent rate

published in the final determination or

final results for which the manufacturer

or exporter received an individual rate;

(3) if the exporter is not a firm covered

in this review, a previous review, or the

original investigation, but the

manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate

will be the rate established for the most

recent period for the manufacturer of

the merchandise; and (4) if neither the

exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm

covered in this or any previous reviews

or the original investigation, the cash

deposit rate will be 12.66 percent, the

‘‘new shipper’’ rate established in the

first notice of final results of

administrative review published by the

Department (48 FR 35686, August 5,

1983).

This notice serves as a preliminary

reminder to importers of their

responsibility to file a certificate

regarding the reimbursement of

antidumping duties prior to liquidation

of the relevant entries during this

review period. Failure to comply with

this requirement could result in the

Secretary’s presumption that

reimbursement of antidumping duties

occurred and the subsequent assessment

of double antidumping duties.

This administrative review and notice

are in accordance with sections

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

Dated: June 11, 1998.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary, Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–16273 Filed 6–17–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

North American Free-Trade Agreement

(NAFTA), Article 1904 Binational Panel

Reviews

AGENCY: NAFTA Secretariat, United

States Section, International Trade

Administration, Department of

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of decision of panel.