Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 132 / Friday, July 10, 1998 / Notices 37331

Dated: June 30, 1998.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–18443 Filed 7–9–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–588–810]

Mechanical Transfer Presses From

Japan; Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review and

Revocation of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Order in Part

AGENCY: International Trade

Administration/Import Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of

antidumping duty administrative review

and revocation of antidumping duty

administrative order in part.

SUMMARY: On March 6, 1998, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) published in the Federal

Register the preliminary results of its

antidumping duty administrative review

of the antidumping duty order on

mechanical transfer presses (MTPs)

from Japan and intent to revoke in part

with respect to respondent Aida

Engineering, Ltd. (Aida) (63 FR 11211).

This review covers two manufacturers/

exporters of the subject merchandise to

the United States and the period of

February 1, 1996 through January 31,

1997. We gave interested parties an

opportunity to comment on the

preliminary results of review. We

received comments from Aida. We

received rebuttal comments from Verson

Division of Allied Products Corp., the

United Autoworkers of America, and

the United Steelworkers of America

(AFL–CIO/CLC) (petitioners). We have

not changed the results from those

presented in the preliminary results of

review. We have also determined to

revoke the order in part, with respect to

Aida.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 10, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lesley Stagliano or Maureen Flannery,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington

D.C. 20230; telephone (202) 482–3782,

(202) 482–3020.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute are references to

the provision 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 to the provisions

codified at 19 CFR part 353 (1997).

Background

On March 6, 1998, the Department of

Commerce (the Department) published

in the Federal Register the preliminary

results of the review of the antidumping

duty order and intent to revoke order in

part on MTPs from Japan (63 FR 11211).

The Department has now completed this

antidumping duty administrative review

in accordance with section 751(b) of the

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

Scope of Review

Imports covered by this review

include MTPs currently classifiable

under Harmonized Tariff Schedule

(HTS) item numbers 8462.99.0035 and

8466.94.5040. The HTS numbers are

provided for convenience and for U.S.

Customs purposes. The written

description remains dispositive of the

scope of the order.

The term mechanical transfer presses

refers to automatic metal-forming

machine tools with multiple die stations

in which the work piece is moved from

station to station by a transfer

mechanism designed as an integral part

of the press and synchronized with the

press action, whether imported as

machines or parts suitable for use solely

or principally with these machines.

These presses may be imported

assembled or unassembled. This review

does not cover certain parts and

accessories, which were determined to

be outside the scope of the order (See

‘‘Final Scope Ruling on Spare and

Replacement Parts,’’ U.S. Department of

Commerce, March 20, 1992; and ‘‘Final

Scope Ruling on the Antidumping Duty

Order on Mechanical Transfer Presses

(MTPs) from Japan: Request by

Komatsu, Ltd.,’’ U.S. Department of

Commerce, October 1, 1996).

This review covers two manufacturers

of MTPs, and the period February 1,

1996 through January 31, 1997.

Analysis of the Comments Received

We gave interested parties an

opportunity to comment on the

preliminary results of review. We

received comments from Aida and

rebuttal comments from petitioners.

Comment 1: Aida contends that the

Department erred in excluding belowcost sales in calculating the profit rate

for constructed value. Aida states that

its below-cost sales were not outside the

ordinary course of trade according to the

general definition of ‘‘ordinary course of

trade’’ as it is defined in Section 771(15)

of the Act; therefore, they should not

have been excluded by the Department

in its calculation of constructed value.

Section 771(15) states:

The term ‘‘ordinary course of trade’’ means

the conditions and practices which, for a

reasonable time prior to the exportation of

the merchandise which is the subject of the

investigation, have been normal in the trade

under consideration with respect to

merchandise of the same class or kind. The

administering authority shall consider the

following sales and transactions, among

others, to be outside the ordinary course of

trade:

(A) Sales disregarded under section

773(b)(1)

(B) Transactions disregarded under section

773(f)(2)

Aida states that the Department and the

courts have consistently held that

below-cost sales are not per se outside

the ‘‘ordinary course of trade.’’ See, e.g.,

Federal-Mogul Corp. v. United States,

918 F. Supp. 386, 402–403 (Ct. Int’l

Trade, 1996); Timken Co. v. United

States, 930 F. Supp. 621, 624–625 (Ct.

Int’l Trade, 1996); and Torrington Co. v.

United States, 984 F. Supp. 67, 75 (Ct,

Int’l Trade, 1996). Although these cases

were decided under the definition of

‘‘ordinary course of trade’’ as it existed

prior to the Uruguay Round Agreements

Act (URAA), Aida maintains that these

cases continue to be valid because this

definition was carried forward with

URAA law. Aida asserts that the second

sentence of section 771(15) only applies

to below-cost sales that have been

disregarded for purposes of normal

value comparisons under section 773(b)

of the Act.

Aida argues that there were no home

market sales ‘‘under consideration for

the determination of normal value,’’ and

no sales were disregarded under section

773(b)(1). Aida contends that the

Department based its decision to use

constructed value on section

773(a)(1)(C) when it stated that ‘‘the

particular market situation in this case,

which requires that the subject

merchandise be built to each customer’s

specifications, does not permit proper

price-to-price comparisons in either the

home market or third countries.’’ 63 FR

11213. Aida concludes that, since no

home market sales were considered or

disregarded for price comparison under

section 773(b)(1), the second sentence of

section 771(15) was inapplicable, and

that Aida’s below-cost sales were not

outside the ordinary course of trade.

Aida argues that the Department’s

discussion of the below-cost sales issue

is based on an incorrect interpretation of
37332 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 132 / Friday, July 10, 1998 / Notices

section 773(b)(1) in that the Department

equated calculation of constructed value

profit with ‘‘determination of normal

value.’’ Aida states that, prior to the

URAA amendments, the Department

consistently took the position that

section 773(b)(1) did not apply to the

calculation of constructed value. See

Antifriction Bearings . . . and Parts

Thereof From France, et al., 57 FR

28360, June 24, 1992. Aida asserts that

the Department’s position was upheld

by the Court of Appeals for the Federal

Circuit in Torrington Co. v. United

States, 127 F.3d 1077, 1977, in which

the Court stated:

The requirement in 19 U.S.C. 1677b(b)

[Section 773(b) of the Act] that Commerce

‘‘shall’’ disregard below-cost sales when

calculating FMV based on actual sales figures

does not apply when Commerce calculates

FMV based on constructed value.

Aida asserts that, although the URAA

revised section 773(b)(1), it did not

change the basic structure of the

provision, namely that disregarding

sales ‘‘in the determination of normal

value’’ means that the sales will not be

used to determine price-based normal

value, not that they will not be used to

determine the profit rate for constructed

value. See SAA at 163, House Rept.

103–316 at 833. Aida states that

Congress amended the statute to provide

for exclusion of certain below-cost sales

from the constructed value profit

calculation by adding the second

sentence to the definition of ‘‘ordinary

course of trade’’ in section 771(15). Aida

asserts that in conjunction with the

definitions of constructed value profit in

section 773(e), the amendment

determines when below-cost sales may

be excluded from constructed value

profit. See 62 FR 27359, supra. See also

Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Review: Color Picture Tubes from Japan,

62 FR 34201, 34209, June 25, 1997. Aida

contends that if sales could be

disregarded under section 773(b)(1) for

constructed value purposes there would

be no reason for the addition of clause

(A) to section 771(15), and below-cost

sales would be excluded without regard

to the method of profit calculation. Aida

argues that sales were not considered for

price comparisons under section 773(a)

and were not disregarded for such

purposes pursuant to section 773(b)(1);

thus, they are not outside the ordinary

course of trade, and, therefore, do not

meet the conditions for exclusion from

the constructed value profit calculation

under section 773(e)(2)(A).

In addition, Aida states that nothing

on the record suggests that Aida’s

below-cost sales fell into any of the

‘‘ordinary course of trade’’ definitions

mentioned in the Statement of

Administrative Action (SAA), which

accompanied the URAA amendments.

Petitioners contend that, in the 1995–

1996 administrative review of this

order, the Department rejected this same

argument stating:

We conclude, therefore, that in this review

it is appropriate to exclude these sales from

the profit calculation as outside the ordinary

course of trade, pursuant to Section 771(15)

of the Act. The fact that we did not

‘‘disregard’’ such sales in a price based

determination of NV as provided in Section

771(15) of the Act does not prevent the

Department from finding these sales outside

the ordinary course of trade when we have,

in effect, conducted a cost test on the sales

and found that they have failed. We would

have disregarded these sales, pursuant to

Section 773(b)(1) of the Act if we were using

price-to-price comparisons, and, as a result,

we believe that it is appropriate to do so here.

Mechanical Transfer Presses from Japan:

Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 62 FR 11850–22,

March 17, 1997.

Petitioners assert that the Department

maintained that it was appropriate to

exclude below-cost sales from CV profit,

as sales made outside the ordinary

course of trade in Large Newspaper

Printing Presses from Japan; Final

Determination of Sales at less Than Fair

Value, 61 FR 38139–45, July 23, 1996;

and Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes

from Thailand; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 61 FR 56515–18, November 1,

1996. Petitioners argue that although the

Department does not treat below-cost

sales as per se outside the ordinary

course of trade in price-to-price cases,

the Department has a per se rule with

respect to below-cost sales made in a

case where normal value is based on CV

from the outset due to the unique nature

of the product involved. Petitioners

state that, in such situations, the

Department performs a cost test on a

sale-by-sale basis ‘‘because each MTP is

custom-built, differs significantly in

specifications, and is essentially a

discrete model.’’ Preliminary Results at

11213.

Petitioners state that in the only

‘‘new’’ law case cited by Aida, the

Department did not disregard belowcost sales because the Department based

normal value on price-to-price

comparisons, and the specific models

found to be below-cost did not exceed

the Department’s ‘‘20 percent’’ test. See

Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Review: Color Picture Tubes from Japan,

62 FR 34209. Petitioners point out that

Aida states in its case brief that the

Department referenced Mechanical

Transfer Presses from Japan in Color

Picture Tubes from Japan, and indicates

that, while a per se rule may not attain

in price-to-price cases, below-cost sales

are properly excluded from CV profit

when normal value is based on CV.

Accordingly, petitioners argue that the

Department should continue to

disregard below-cost sales in its CV

profit calculation for the final results,

consistent with its determination in the

preliminary results and the other cited

cases.

Department’s Position: Aida’s

argument that no sales were disregarded

under section 773(b)(1), and therefore

none can be considered outside the

ordinary course of trade reflects an

overly-restrictive interpretation of the

Act, and raises form over substance.

Because the Department found belowcost sales in the previous review, the

Department had ‘‘reasonable grounds to

believe or suspect’’ that home market

sales were made at prices which were

below the cost of production under

section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii), and therefore

was required to initiate a cost

investigation under section 773(b)(1).

Moreover, as the Department explained

in the prior review, there are reasonable

grounds to believe that below-cost sales

were made where actual costs

demonstrate as much, as they do in the

present case. MTPs from Japan, 62 FR

at 11822.

Furthermore, the facts of this case

closely resemble those of LNPPs, in

which the Department explained, ‘‘the

unique cost reporting aspects of this

case were such that, in effect, [we]

conducted a cost investigation. . .’’ 61

FR at 38145.

The Department also explained in

LNPPs that, the Department has

sufficient flexibility under section

771(15) to conclude, in the present

circumstances, that sales below the cost

of production should be disregarded as

outside the ordinary course of trade. Id.

This position has been upheld by the

CIT in Mitsubishi Heavy Industries v.

U.S., Slip Op. 98–82. at 41–42 (CIT June

23, 1998). Section 771(15) makes clear

on its face that the circumstances listed

are only two ‘‘among others’’ in which

sales should be considered to have been

made outside the ordinary course of

trade. See also URAA Statement of

Administrative Action (SAA), H.R. Doc.

103–316, 103d Cong., 2d Sess, Vol. 1 at

834. Thus, even taking AIDA’s view that

the Department is not acting under

section 773(b), the Department has the

authority to find, in the present

circumstances, that sales which it finds

to be below cost, and which it would

disregard under section 773(b), are

outside the ordinary course of trade.

Finally, Aida’s overly-rigid reading of

the statute must be rejected because it
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 132 / Friday, July 10, 1998 / Notices 37333

would mean that in cases such as the

present one and LNPPs, where the

complexity of the product makes resort

to CV almost inevitable, the Department

would be unreasonably precluded from

computing actual profit under section

773(e)(2)(A), the preferred method of

determining CV profit, since sales

outside the ordinary course of trade may

not be used in the calculation of profit

under that method. Moreover, the SAA,

at 840, indicates that under this

provision ‘‘in most cases Commerce

would use profitable sales as the basis

for calculating profit.’’ Thus, Aida’s

interpretation of the statute undermines

Congress’ preference for the calculation

of actual profit for purposes of CV.

Comment 2: Aida contends that the

Department should use the Japanese

short-term interest rate to calculate

credit expenses for Aida’s U.S. sales #1–

4 which were made in yen. Aida

originally reported the credit expenses

for U.S. sales #1–4 based on the

Japanese yen short-term prime interest

rate, but later revised their calculations

in accordance with the Department’s

supplemental questionnaire. Aida cites

both Sodium Azide from Japan, 61 FR

42585, 42588, August 16, 1996, and

Engineered Process Gas TurboCompressor Systems * * * from Japan,

62 FR 24394, 24408, May 5, 1997, which

state:

[W]hen sales are made in, and future

payments are expected in a given currency,

the measure of the company’s extension of

credit should be based on an interest rate tied

to the currency in which its receivables are

denominated.

Thus, Aida argues that since U.S. sales

#1–4 were made in yen and payment

was received in yen, the yen short-term

interest rate should be used to calculate

credit expense for these sales.

Department’s Position: The

Department agrees with respondents, in

that, credit for U.S. sales # 1–4 should

be denominated in Japanese yen. The

Department has used a short-term

interest rate tied to the currency in

which the sales are denominated. We

based this interest rate on the

respondent’s weighted-average shortterm borrowing experience in the

currency of the transaction. Thus, we

have calculated credit for U.S. sales #1–

4 based on Japanese yen since these

sales were denominated in yen.

Comment 3: Aida argues that the

Department should reduce expenses in

U.S. sale #2 on a pro-rata basis to adjust

for the removal of the destack feeder

from the sales price. In its preliminary

determination, the Department removed

the destack feeder from sale #2 by

subtracting from the reported gross unit

price the line item price set forth for the

destack feeder in a price quotation that

had preceded the contract. Aida argues

that having done so, the Department

should have subtracted the amount of

expense attributable to the destack

feeder from the movement expenses,

warranty expense, credit expense, and

service fee to reflect the removal of the

destack feeder from the sale.

Department’s Position: The

Department agrees with Aida in that

expenses in U.S. sale #2 should be

reduced on a pro rata basis

corresponding to the subtraction of the

destack feeder from the sales price. The

Department has revised the U.S. sales

summary to reflect these changes.

Comment 4: Aida asserts that the

Department should deduct

transportation expense from the sales

price in calculating profit on home

market sales. Aida states that its cost

accounting includes transportation cost

in its manufacturing cost. Aida Section

D Response, pp. D–34, D–35. Since the

Department treats transportation cost as

a movement expense, Aida deducted

transportation cost from manufacturing

cost in calculating cost of manufacture

cost (MANCOST), and it subtracted

transportation cost as a separate line

item in calculating the home market

profit rate. Aida Supplemental Response

Exhibit S–10. Since it is a cost incurred

by Aida on the sales, Aida maintains

that transportation cost must be

subtracted from revenue in calculating

profit. Aida contends that when the

Department recalculated Aida’s home

market profit rate, it failed to deduct

transportation expense, thus, overstating

home market profit.

Department’s Position: The

Department agrees with Aida.

Transportation expense should be

deducted from the sales price when

calculating the home market profit rate.

To ensure that home market profit is

calculated correctly it is necessary to

deduct the transportation expense from

both the sales price and the COM.

Final Results of the Review

We determine that the following

dumping margins exist:

Manufacturer/exporter Time Period Margin

(percent)

Aida Engineering, Ltd ..................................................................................................................................... 2/1/96–1/31/97 0.00

Hitachi-Zosen .................................................................................................................................................. 2/1/96–1/31/97 0.00

We further determine that Aida sold

MTPs at not less than NV for three

consecutive review periods, including

this review period, and it is not likely

that Aida will in the future sell subject

merchandise at less than NV.

Additionally, Aida has submitted the

required certifications, and has agreed

to its immediate reinstatement in the

antidumping duty order, as long as any

firm is subject to the order, if the

Department concludes under 19 CFR

353.22(f) that, subsequent to revocation,

it sold the subject merchandise at less

than NV. Furthermore, we received no

comments from any interested party

contesting the revocation. For these

reasons we are revoking the order on

MTPs from Japan with respect to Aida

in accordance with section 751(d) of the

Act and 19 CFR 353.25(a)(2). In

accordance with the regulations, the

Department will take seriously any

credible evidence that, subsequent to

the revocation, Aida sold the

merchandise at less than NV.

This revocation applies to all entries

of the subject merchandise from Aida

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after February 1,

1997. The Department will order

suspension of liquidation ended for all

such entries and will instruct the

Customs Service to release any cash

deposits or bonds. The Department will

further instruct the Customs Service to

refund with interest any cash deposits

on entries made on or after February 1,

1997.

The following deposit requirements

will be effective upon publication of

this notice of final results of

administrative review for all shipments

of the subject merchandise entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after the publication

date as provided by section 751(a)(2)(c)

of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for

Hitachi Zosen will be the rate stated

above; (2) if the exporter is not a firm

covered in this review, a prior review,

or the original less than fair value

(LTFV) investigation, but the

manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate

will be the rate established for the most

recent period for the manufacturer of
37334 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 132 / Friday, July 10, 1998 / Notices

the merchandise; and (3) the cash

deposit rate for all other manufacturers

or exporters will be the rate established

in the investigation of sales at less than

fair value, which is 14.51 percent. These

deposit requirements, when imposed,

shall remain in effect until publication

of the final results of the next

administrative review.

This notice serves as a final 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 subsequent assessment of

double antidumping duties.

Notification to Interested Parties

This notice also serves as a reminder

to parties subject to administrative

protective order (APO) of their

responsibility concerning the

disposition of proprietary information

disclosed under APO in accordance

with 19 CFR 353.34(d). Timely written

notification of return/destruction of

APO materials or conversion to judicial

protective order is hereby requested.

Failure to comply with the regulations

and the terms of an APO is a

sanctionable violation.

This determination is issued and

published in accordance with sections

751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19

CFR 353.22(f).

Dated: July 2, 1998.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–18307 Filed 7–9–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

[A–580–807]

Polyethylene Terephthalate Film,

Sheet, and Strip From the Republic of

Korea; 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 March 6, 1998, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) published the preliminary

results of administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on

polyethylene terephthalate film sheet,

and strip (PET film) from the Republic

of Korea. The review covers one

manufacturer/exporter of the subject

merchandise to the United States and

the period June 1, 1996 through May 31,

1997.

As a result of comments we received,

the dumping margin has changed from

that presented in our preliminary

results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 10, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael J. Heaney, or Linda Ludwig,

AD/CVD Enforcement Group III, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230,

telephone: (202) 482–4475, or 3833,

respectively.

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION:

Background

On March 6, 1998, (63 FR 11214), the

Department published the preliminary

results of administrative review and

recission in part of the antidumping

duty order on PET film from the

Republic of Korea, 56 FR 25669, (June

5, 1991).

This review covers one

manufacturers/exporter of the subject

merchandise to the United States: SKC

Co., Ltd, (SKC), and the period June 1,

1996 through May 31, 1997.

The Department has concluded this

review in accordance with section 751

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended

(the Tariff Act).

Scope of the Review

Imports covered by this review are

shipments of all gauges of raw,

pretreated, or primed polyethylene

terephthalate film, sheet, and strip,

whether extruded or coextruded. The

films excluded from this review are

metallized films and other finished

films that have had at least one of their

surfaces modified by the application of

a performance-enhancing resinous or

inorganic layer of more than 0.00001

inches (0.254 micrometers) thick. Roller

transport cleaning film which has at

least one of its surfaces modified by the

application of 0.5 micrometers of SBR

latex has also been ruled as not within

the scope of the order.

PET film is currently classifiable

under Harmonized Tariff Schedule

(HTS) subheading 3920.62.00.00. The

HTS subheading is provided for

convenience and for U.S. Customs

purposes. The written description

remains dispositive as to the scope of

the product coverage.

The review covers the period June 1,

1996 through May 31, 1997.

Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended (the Tariff Act), are references

to the provisions effective January 1,

1995, the effective date of the

amendments made to the Tariff Act by

the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. In

addition, unless otherwise indicated, all

references to the Department’s

regulations are to 19 CFR part 353

(1997).

Analysis of Comments Received

We invited interested parties to

comment on the preliminary results of

this administrative review. On April 6,

1998, we received timely comments

from the respondent, SKC and the

petitioners (E.I. DuPont de Nemours &

Company, Hoechst Celanese

Corporation, and ICI America’s Inc.)

(Petitioners). SKC and the Petitioners

submitted their reply briefs on April 13,

1998 and April 14, 1998 respectively.

Comment 1: SKC contends that the

payment dates for some of the U.S. sales

reported in its December 8, 1997 letter

were incorrectly transcribed, thereby

overstating its U.S. credit expense. SKC

contends that the Department should

accept the corrected payment dates set

forth in its March 16, 1998 letter. SKC

further contends that the correct

payment dates are discernible from the

record, and that the error in question is

clearly clerical in nature.

SKC argues that the Department’s

established practice is to accept

corrections following the preliminary

results when (1) the error in question is

demonstrated to be a clerical error; (2)

the corrective documentation provided

in support of the clerical error allegation

is reliable; (3) the respondent availed

itself of the earliest reasonable

opportunity to correct the error; (4) the

clerical error allegation, and any

corrective documention, is submitted to

the Department no later than the due

date for the respondent’s administrative

case brief; (5) the clerical error does not

entail a substantial revision of the

response; and (6) the respondent’s

corrective documentation does not

contradict information previously

determined to be accurate at

verification. (See e.g., Certain Fresh Cut

Flowers from Colombia, Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Reviews, (Colombian Flowers) 61 FR

42833, 42834 (August 19, 1996).)

SKC asserts that the corrected

information meets the criteria outlined

in Colombian Flowers because the error

contained in its December 8, 1997

response is demonstrably clerical, can

reliably be discerned from the data on