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from the PRC entered, or withdrawn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
31724 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 /Wednesday, June 10, 1998 / Notices

companies from any other interested

party and because no other request for

review was received with respect to

other companies, we are rescinding this

review in its entirety in accordance with

19 CFR 351.213(d)(1).

Clarification of Final Results of

Changed Circumstances Review

On April 27, 1998, we published our

Notice of Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Changed Circumstances Review;

Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe

From Korea (63 FR 20572). In these final

results, the cash deposit rate listed for

SeAH was incorrect. The correct cash

deposit rate is 5.31 percent ad valorem,

as found in Circular Welded Non-Alloy

Steel Pipe From the Republic of Korea;

Amendment of Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review (63 FR 2200, 2202, January 14,

1998). This cash deposit rate will apply

to all shipments of the subject

merchandise entered, or withdrawn

from warehouse, for consumption on or

after April 27, 1998. This cash deposit

rate shall remain in effect until

publication of the final results of the

next administrative review.

This notice is published in

accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(f).

Dated: June 14, 1998.

Richard W. Moreland,

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–15469 Filed 6–9–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–301–602]

Certain Fresh Cut Flowers From

Colombia: Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of

antidumping duty administrative

review.

SUMMARY: On February 2, 1998, the

Department of Commerce published the

preliminary results of the administrative

review of the antidumping duty order

on certain fresh cut flowers from

Colombia. This review covers a total of

424 producers and/or exporters of fresh

cut flowers to the United States during

the period March 1, 1996 through

February 28, 1997.

We gave interested parties an

opportunity to comment on the

preliminary results. Based on our

analysis of the comments received, we

have made certain changes for the final

results. The review indicates the

existence of dumping margins for

certain firms during the review period.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 10, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rosa

Jeong, Hong-Anh Tran or Todd Hansen,

Office 1, Group 1, AD/CVD

Enforcement, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone

(202) 482–1278, (202) 482–0176 or (202)

482–1276, respectively.

APPLICABLE STATUTE AND REGULATIONS:

The Department of Commerce (the

Department) is conducting this

administrative review in accordance

with section 751 of the Tariff Act of

1930, as amended (the Act). 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 Act

by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act

(URAA). In addition, unless otherwise

indicated, all citations to the

Department’s regulations are to those

codified at 19 CFR Part 353 (April

1997).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On February 2, 1998, we published a

notice of Preliminary Results and Partial

Termination of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review (Preliminary

Results), wherein we invited interested

parties to comment. See 63 FR 5354. At

the request of the interested parties, we

held a public hearing on April 14, 1998.

Scope of Review

Imports covered by this review are

shipments of certain fresh cut flowers

from Colombia (standard carnations,

miniature (spray) carnations, standard

chrysanthemums and pompon

chrysanthemums). These products are

currently classifiable under item

numbers 0603.10.30.00, 0603.10.70.10,

0603.10.70.20, and 0603.10.70.30 of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (HTSUS). The HTSUS

item numbers are provided for

convenience and customs purposes. The

written description of the scope of this

order remains dispositive.

Fair Value Comparisons

Export Price and Constructed Export

Price

For the price to the United States, we

used export price (EP) or constructed

export price (CEP) as defined in section

772(a) and 772(b) of the Act. We

calculated EP and CEP based on the

same methodology used in the

Preliminary Results with the following

exceptions: (1) we recalculated

Tuchany’s credit expenses net of

commission and international freight

expenses (see infra Comment 14); (2) we

accounted for the returns for Clavecol

and Caicedo for the months reported

rather than allocating them over the

period of review (POR) (see infra

Comment 16).

Normal Value

As discussed in the Preliminary

Results, we determined that home

market and third-country sales are not

an appropriate basis for normal value

(NV) and, therefore, used constructed

value (CV) as defined in section 773(e)

of the Act as the basis for determining

NV. We used the same methodology to

calculate NV as that described in the

Preliminary Results.

Analysis of Comments Received

We received case and rebuttal briefs

from the Floral Trade Council (FTC), the

domestic interested party, and the

Asociacion Colombiana de Exportadores

de Flores (Asocolflores), an association

of Colombian flower producers

representing many of the respondents in

this case.

General Issues

Comment 1: Asocolflores argues that

zero and de minimis margins should be

included in the calculation of the rate

for non-selected respondents since it is

reasonable to assume that some of the

non-selected respondents would have

received the same had they been

individually reviewed. Citing to

Serampore Indus. Pvt. Ltd. v. United

States, 696 F. Supp. 665, 668–69 (CIT

1988), Asocolflores argues that

excluding zero and de minimis margins

amounts to a presumption of dumping

on behalf of non-selected firms.

Asocolflores further argues that if the

rates of selected companies are not, in

some way, ‘‘representative,’’ then there

is no legal basis for using such rates for

non-selected respondents. Referring to

National Knitwear & Sportswear

Association v. United States, 779 F.

Supp. 1364, 1372 (CIT 1991),

Asocolflores elaborates that the benefits

of zero or de minimis margins made

available to selected respondents should

be extended to non-selected

respondents. Acknowledging that the

Act provides for the exclusion of zero

and de minimis margins in calculating

the cash deposit rate for non-examined

producers in an investigation,

Asocolflores differentiates this situation