41794 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 150 /Wednesday, August 5, 1998 / Notices

are materially injuring, or threaten

material injury to, the U.S. industry.

Public Comment

Case briefs or other written comments

in at least ten copies must be submitted

to the Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration no later than October

14, 1998, and rebuttal briefs no later

than October 21, 1998. A list of

authorities used and an executive

summary of issues should accompany

any briefs submitted to the Department.

Such summary should be limited to five

pages total, including footnotes. In

accordance with section 774 of the Act,

we will hold a public hearing, if

requested, to afford interested parties an

opportunity to comment on arguments

raised in case or rebuttal briefs.

Tentatively, the hearing will be held on

October 23, 1998, time and room to be

determined, at the U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

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

Parties should confirm by telephone the

time, date, and place of the hearing 48

hours before the scheduled time.

Interested parties who wish to request

a hearing, or to participate if one is

requested, must submit a written

request to the Assistant Secretary for

Import Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, Room 1870, within 30

days of the publication of this notice.

Requests should contain: (1) The party’s

name, address, and telephone number;

(2) the number of participants; and (3)

a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral

presentations will be limited to issues

raised in the briefs. If this investigation

proceeds normally, we will make our

final determination by no later than 135

days after the publication of this notice

in the Federal Register.

This determination is issued and

published in accordance with sections

733(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration .

[FR Doc. 98–20911 Filed 8–4–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–570–851]

Notice of Preliminary Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and

Postponement of Final Determination:

Certain Preserved Mushrooms From

the People’s Republic of China

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 5, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David J. Goldberger or Kate Johnson,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone:

(202) 482–4136 or (202) 482–4929,

respectively.

The Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended (‘‘the Act’’), 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 of Commerce

(‘‘Department’’) regulations are to the

regulations at 19 CFR Part 351, 62 FR

27296 (May 19, 1997).

Preliminary Determination

We preliminarily determine that

certain preserved mushrooms

(‘‘mushrooms’’) from the People’s

Republic of China are being, or are

likely to be, sold in the United States at

less than fair value (‘‘LTFV’’), as

provided in section 733 of the Act. The

estimated margins of sales at LTFV are

shown in the ‘‘Suspension of

Liquidation’’ section of this notice.

Case History

Since the initiation of this

investigation (Notice of Initiation of

Antidumping Duty Investigations:

Certain Preserved Mushrooms from

Chile, India, Indonesia, and the People’s

Republic of China, (63 FR 5360,

February 2, 1998) (‘‘Notice of

Initiation’’)), the following events have

occurred:

During January and February 1998,

the Department requested information

from the U.S. Embassy in the People’s

Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) to identify

producers/exporters of the subject

merchandise.

On February 27, 1998, the United

States International Trade Commission

(‘‘ITC’’) notified the Department of its

affirmative preliminary injury

determination in this case.

Also, on February 27, 1998, the

Department issued an antidumping

questionnaire to the China Chamber of

Commerce for Import & Export of

Foodstuffs, Native Produce, and Animal

By-Products (the ‘‘Chamber’’) and the

Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic

Cooperation (‘‘MOFTEC’’) with

instructions to forward the

questionnaire to all producers/exporters

of the subject merchandise and that

these companies must respond by the

due dates. During February and March

1998, we sent courtesy copies of the

antidumping duty questionnaire to the

following companies identified as

possible exporters/producers of the

subject merchandise during the POI:

Shanghai Maling Canned Food

Fuzhou Cannery

Chin Huay Food Co. (HK) Ltd.

China Ningbo Canned Food

Zhang Zhou General Canned Food

Xia Men Cannery

Raoping Tinned Food Factory

Ruian Canned Factory

Yue Qin Canned Food Factory

Wenzhou Wanli Food Co. Ltd.

Glory Land Food Industrial Co.

Ning De Cannery

Shansha Cannery

Xin an Jiang Canned Food

Cangxi Cannery

Ba Zhong Cannery

Chongqing Cannery

Tung Chun Company

Nang Jin Cannery

Mei Wei Foods Industry Co. Ltd.

Dongguan Canning Factory

Cangban Canned Food Factory

Cofco (Longhai) Food Inc.

Longhai Senox Food Industry Ltd.

Pinghe Canned Factory

Fujian Tiand Food Drink Co.

Shanghai Foreign Trade Xian You

Fuan Canned Food Factory

Xibin Overseas Chinese Canned

Dongya Food Company

Fujian Zhaoan Canned Food

Zhanghou Xiancheng Canned

Zhang Huaqing Canned Food

Zishan Food Canning Plant

Gerber Food (Yunnan) Food Co.

Jiufa Edible Fungus Co. Ltd.

Xiamen Jiahua Export and Import Trading

Co. Ltd.

Xiamen Gulong Import Export Co., Ltd.

Bazhong Canned Food Factory

Beiliu Canned Food Factory

Dangdong Canned Food Import & Export Co.

Dayi Brewery

Dongqing Canned Food Processing Factory

Fu’an Kangcuo Cereals & Oils Management

Station

Fujian Changshan Huaqiao Canned Food

Processing Factory

Fujian Zhangzhou Canned Food Factory

Hebei Edible Fungus Research Institute

Hunan Changsha Canned Food Factory

Jiangsu Rugao Canned Food Factory

Chifeng Fuyuan Cereals & Oils Co.

Fuzhou Native Produce & Animal ByProducts Import and Export Co.

Guangdong Heshan Foodstuffs Import &

Export Corp.

Beijing Foreign Trade Food Corp.

China National Processed Food Import &

Export Corp.

Chengdu Native Produce Import & Export

Corp.

Shantou Foodstuffs Import & Export Corp.

Shanghai Cereals & Oil Trade Co.

Guangdong Maoming Native Produce Import

& Export Corp.

Henan Native Produce Import and Export

Corp.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 150 /Wednesday, August 5, 1998 / Notices 41795

Qingdao Cereals, Oils & Foodstuffs Import

and Export Corp.

On March 30, 1998, the Department

issued a notice setting aside a period for

interested parties to raise issues

regarding product coverage. (See Certain

Preserved Mushrooms from Chile, India,

Indonesia, and the People’s Republic of

China: Comments Regarding Product

Coverage, 63 FR 16971 (April 7, 1998).

No parties to this investigation

commented on product coverage.

During the period March through June

1998, the Department received

questionnaire responses from (1) China

Processed Food Import & Export

Company (‘‘China Processed’’);

(2) Jiangsu Cereals, Oils & Foodstuffs

Group Import & Export Corporation

(‘‘Jiangsu’’);

(3) Shenzhen Cofry Cereals, Oils, &

Foodstuffs Company, Ltd. (‘‘Shenzhen

Cofry’’); (4) Gerber (Yunnan) Food Co.;

(5) Fujian Provincial Cereals, Oils &

Foodstuffs Import & Export Corp.;

(6) Putian Cannery Fujian Province,

Xiamen Gulong Import & Export Co.,

Ltd.; (7) General Canned Foods Factory

of Zhangzhou; (8) Zhejiang Cereals, Oils

& Foodstuffs Import & Export Corp.; (9)

Shanghai Foodstuffs Import & Export

Corp.; (10) Canned Goods Co. of

Raoping; and

(11) Xiamen Jiahua Import & Export

Trading Company, Ltd. (‘‘Xiamen

Jiahua’’). In addition, the Department

received letters from Beilu Canned Food

Factory and Longhai Senox, Ltd., each

stating that it did not sell the subject

merchandise to the United States during

the second half of 1997.

On April 13, 1998, the Department

invited interested parties to provide

publicly available information (‘‘PAI’’)

for valuing the factors of production and

for surrogate country selection. We

received responses from the interested

parties on May 27, 1998, and additional

comments on June 4, 1998.

On April 14, 1998, pursuant to section

777A(c) of the Act, the Department

determined that, due to the large

number of exporters/producers of the

subject merchandise, it would limit the

number of mandatory respondents in

this investigation. See ‘‘Respondent

Selection’’ section below.

On April 20, 1998, Gerber requested

that it be considered a voluntary

respondent in this investigation. On

April 28, 1998, we informed Gerber that,

due to administrative resource

constraints, we would not accept

voluntary respondents unless one of the

designated mandatory respondents

elected not to respond to the

Department’s questionnaire.

On May 1, 1998, pursuant to section

733(c)(1)(A) of the Act, the petitioners

made a timely request to postpone the

preliminary determination for forty

days. We granted this request and, on

May 8, 1998, we postponed the

preliminary determination until no later

than July 27, 1998. (See 63 FR 27264,

May 18, 1998).

On June 5, 1998, the respondents

requested that the PRC be treated as a

market economy in this investigation,

and that the PRC mushroom industry be

considered a market-oriented industry

(‘‘MOI’’). The Department issued a MOI

questionnaire to the PRC respondents

on June 19, 1998, and the respondents

submitted their responses on July 17,

1998. Treatment of both of these claims

for the preliminary determination is

discussed below under ‘‘Nonmarket

Economy Country and Market-Oriented

Industry Status.’’

On June 17, 1998, the petitioners

alleged that critical circumstances exist

with respect to imports of mushrooms

from the PRC. Accordingly, pursuant to

section 732(e) of the Act, on June 19,

1998, the Department requested

information regarding shipments of

mushrooms for the period January 1996

to July 1998 from all mandatory

respondents participating in this

investigation. We received the requested

information on July 6, 1998. The critical

circumstances analysis for the

preliminary determination is discussed

below under ‘‘Critical Circumstances.’’

Postponement of Final Determination

and Extension of Provisional Measures

Pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the

Act, on July 16, 1998, the mandatory

PRC respondents requested that, in the

event of an affirmative preliminary

determination in this investigation, the

Department postpone its final

determination until not later than 135

days after the date of the publication of

an affirmative preliminary

determination in the Federal Register.

On July 27, 1998, these parties amended

their request to agree to extend the

provisional measures to not more than

six months. In accordance with 19 CFR

351.210(b), because (1) our preliminary

determination is affirmative, (2) the

requesting exporters account for a

significant proportion of exports of the

subject merchandise, and (3) no

compelling reasons for denial exist, we

are granting the respondents’ request

and are postponing the final

determination until no later than 135

days after the publication of this notice

in the Federal Register. Suspension of

liquidation will be extended

accordingly.

Scope of Investigation

For purposes of this investigation, the

products covered are certain preserved

mushrooms whether imported whole,

sliced, diced, or as stems and pieces.

The preserved mushrooms covered

under this investigation are the species

Agaricus bisporus and Agaricus

bitorquis. ‘‘Preserved mushrooms’’ refer

to mushrooms that have been prepared

or preserved by cleaning, blanching, and

sometimes slicing or cutting. These

mushrooms are then packed and heated

in containers including but not limited

to cans or glass jars in a suitable liquid

medium, including but not limited to

water, brine, butter or butter sauce.

Preserved mushrooms may be imported

whole, sliced, diced, or as stems and

pieces. Included within the scope of the

investigation are ‘‘brined’’ mushrooms,

which are presalted and packed in a

heavy salt solution to provisionally

preserve them for further processing.

Excluded from the scope of this

investigation are the following: (1) all

other species of mushroom including

straw mushrooms; (2) all fresh and

chilled mushrooms, including

‘‘refrigerated’’ or ‘‘quick blanched

mushrooms;’’ (3) dried mushrooms; (4)

frozen mushrooms; and (5) ‘‘marinated,’’

‘‘acidified’’ or ‘‘pickled’’ mushrooms,

which are prepared or preserved by

means of vinegar or acetic acid, but may

contain oil or other additives.

The merchandise subject to this

investigation is classifiable under

subheadings 2003.10.27, 2003.10.31,

2003.10.37, 2003.10.43, 2003.10.47,

2003.10.53, and 0711.90.4000 of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (‘‘HTS’’). Although the

HTS subheadings are provided for

convenience and Customs purposes, the

written description of the merchandise

under investigation is dispositive.

Period of Investigation

The period of this investigation

(‘‘POI’’) comprises each exporter’s two

most recent fiscal quarters prior to the

filing of the petition.

Respondent Selection

The Department determined that the

resources available to it for this

investigation and the three companion

mushroom investigations limited our

ability to analyze any more than the

responses of the three largest exporters/

producers of the subject merchandise in

this investigation. Based on Section A

questionnaire responses, the

Department selected the three largest

exporters to be the mandatory

respondents in this proceeding: China

Processed (including its affiliated
41796 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 150 /Wednesday, August 5, 1998 / Notices

exporter, Xiamen Jiahua), Jiangsu, and

Shenzhen Cofry. (See ‘‘Memorandum

from the Team to Louis Apple dated

April 14, 1998).

Subsequently, Jiangsu reported in its

questionnaire responses that it

purchases the subject merchandise from

Mei Wei Foods Industrial Co. Ltd. (‘‘Mei

Wei’’) and resells the merchandise to

Tak Fat Trading Company (‘‘Tak Fat’’),

a Hong Kong trading company, which

owns Mei Wei. In submissions separate

from Jiangsu, Tak Fat and Mei Wei

provided the same information.

According to the questionnaire

responses and Tak Fat’s letters, Tak Fat

negotiates the sales prices with the

ultimate U.S. customer, and controls the

production of Mei Wei, its whollyowned PRC affiliate. Jiangsu acts only as

an intermediary in order to facilitate the

export of the merchandise from the PRC

and arrange the shipment of the subject

merchandise from the PRC. Under these

circumstances, we find that Tak Fat is

the actual exporter and appropriate

respondent. Thus, our analysis for

purposes of the preliminary

determination was based on Tak Fat’s

sales during the POI, which included

the sales initially reported by Jiangsu

sourced from Mei Wei, and the other

mandatory exporters and their

respective suppliers. As the

supplemental questionnaire responses

include consolidated data from Tak Fat

and Jiangsu, the Department was able to

analyze Tak Fat’s sales based on

submitted data.

Nonmarket Economy Country and

Market Oriented Industry Status

The Department has treated the PRC

as a nonmarket economy country

(‘‘NME’’) in all past antidumping

investigations (see, e.g., Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the

People’s Republic of China, 59 FR 22585

(May 2, 1994) (‘‘Silicon Carbide’’) and

Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol from

the People’s Republic of China, 60 FR

22545 (May 8, 1995) (‘‘Furfuryl

Alcohol’’)). A designation as an NME

remains in effect until it is revoked by

the Department (see section 771(18)(C)

of the Act).

On June 5, 1998, the respondents

made a claim that economic changes in

the PRC warrant revocation of PRC’s

NME status. Because the respondents’

submission does not provide sufficient

support for their claim for market

economy status and does not address a

number of important factors for

determining market economy status

(see, Memorandum from the Team to

Lou Apple, dated July 27, 1998), we

have preliminarily determined to

continue to treat the PRC as an NME.

In addition, the respondents have

claimed that their material inputs are

acquired at market prices and that,

accordingly, the Department should

determine that the PRC mushroom

industry is a MOI and should rely on

the actual PRC prices for valuing these

inputs. Because the supporting

information for this claim was

submitted by respondents on July 17,

1998, less than two weeks prior to the

preliminary determination, we did not

have adequate time to analyze the

information for purposes of the

preliminary determination. However,

we will examine the respondents’ MOI

claim for purposes of the final

determination.

Separate Rates

Each respondent has requested a

separate company-specific rate. China

Processed is wholly owned by China

National Cereals, Oils, & Foodstuffs

Import & Export Corp., which in turn is

owned by ‘‘the whole people.’’ Its

affiliated exporter Xiamen Jiahua is a

domestic joint venture between China

National Cereals, Oils & Foodstuffs

Corp., and Xiamen Special Economic

Trade Group Cereals, Oils, & Foodstuffs

Import & Export Company. Both of these

companies are also owned by ‘‘the

whole people.’’ Shenzhen Cofry is a

limited liability company owned by the

China Ocean Helicopter Company and

the Anhui Cereals, Oils, & Foodstuffs

Import & Export Group, which, in turn,

are both owned by ‘‘the whole people.’’

Tak Fat is a Hong Kong trading

company which is wholly-owned by

Hong Kong entities. Therefore, we

determine that no separate rates analysis

is required for this exporter.

As stated in Silicon Carbide and

Furfuryl Alcohol, ownership of the

company by ‘‘all the people’’ does not

require the application of a single rate.

Accordingly, the above-mentioned

companies named as mandatory

respondents as well as the companies

who submitted a Section A response are

eligible for consideration of a separate

rate.

The Department’s separate rate test is

not concerned, in general, with

macroeconomic/border-type controls,

e.g., export licenses and quotas and

minimum export prices, particularly if

these controls are imposed to prevent

dumping. The test focuses, rather, on

controls over the investment, pricing,

and output decision-making process at

the individual firm level. See Certain

Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from

Ukraine: Final Determination of Sales at

Less than Fair Value, 62 FR 61754,

61757, (November 19, 1997); Tapered

Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof,

Finished and Unfinished, from the

People’s Republic of China: Final

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 62 FR 61276,

61279, November 17, 1997; and Honey

from the People’s Republic of China:

Preliminary Determination of Sales at

Less than Fair Value, 60 FR 14725,

14726, (March 20, 1995).

To establish whether a firm is

sufficiently independent from

government control to be entitled to a

separate rate, the Department analyzes

each exporting entity under a test

arising out of the Final Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers

from the People’s Republic of China, 56

FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) and amplified

in Silicon Carbide. Under the separate

rates criteria, the Department assigns

separate rates in NME cases only if

respondents can demonstrate the

absence of both de jure and de facto

governmental control over export

activities.

1. Absence of De Jure Control

The respondents have placed on the

record a number of documents to

demonstrate absence of de jure control,

including the ‘‘Foreign Trade Law of the

People’s Republic of China’’ and the

‘‘Law of the People’s Republic of China

on Industrial Enterprises Owned By the

Whole People.’’

In prior cases, the Department has

analyzed these laws and found that they

establish an absence of de jure control.

(See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:

Certain Partial-Extension Steel Drawer

Slides with Rollers from the People’s

Republic of China, 60 FR 54472

(October 24, 1995); see also Furfuryl

Alcohol.) We have no new information

in this proceeding which would cause

us to reconsider this determination.

According to the respondents, exports

of mushrooms are also affected by quota

allocations under a December 17, 1997,

Notice Regarding Printing and

Distributing ‘‘List of Commodities

Subject Export License Administration

and Issuance of Licenses at Different

Levels’’ and Relevant Issues issued by

MOFTEC (‘‘Notice’’). The respondents

claim that, although the export license

and quota allocation regulations and

procedures which applied to sales of the

subject merchandise during the POI

were promulgated in 1996, they are, for

all intents and purposes, the same as

those set forth in the 1997 version.

Under the Notice, 143 items are subject

to export licensing controls with three

categories of control—(1) ‘‘controlled’’;

(2) ‘‘less controlled,’’ and (3) the ‘‘least
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 150 /Wednesday, August 5, 1998 / Notices 41797

controlled’’ merchandise. Mushrooms

fall under the ‘‘least controlled’’

category.

The respondents describe the quota

process as follows. MOFTEC distributes

quota amounts to the provinces and

municipalities and exporters (except

those located in Beijing, which are

supposed to apply to MOFTEC directly).

The quota process is administered

through export licenses required for the

export of the subject merchandise.

Neither the quota allocation process nor

the export licensing process involve any

PRC government participation in the

setting of export prices.

Global quota amounts are determined

by MOFTEC based on (1) international

market demand/supply; (2) the previous

year’s exports; (3) Chamber proposals;

and (4) the suggestions of PRC

Provincial Trade Commissions which

take into account the requests of

mushroom exporters and their previous

year’s exports as well as requests of

other PRC exporters who wish to export,

but have not previously received a

quota. The Commissions are comprised

of local government authorities involved

with foreign trade of their provinces.

They are separate from MOFTEC,

receiving neither funding nor

administration from MOFTEC. Once a

quota is received, a company may

obtain an export license from the

applicable Commissions’ Trade

Administration Import and Export

Divisions after it has a commitment

from a foreign buyer. Copies of the

quotas are sent to MOFTEC and the

Chamber.

The Commissions grant the export

licenses based on the quotas allocated to

each company. Records are kept of each

individual company’s quota and the

quantities it has exported so that the

Commissions can determine when an

individual company has reached its

allocated quota.

Furthermore, according to the

respondents, the concept of the

‘‘minimum price’’ floor referenced in

the Memorandum on Minimum Price for

Export of Canned Mushroom Products is

an agreed minimum price only. The

exporters claim to have the autonomy to

set the price at whatever level they wish

without government interference. The

memorandum referenced above did not

set forth minimum prices established by

the Chamber or the PRC government

but, rather, established minimum prices

that were discussed among, and agreed

to, by the member companies of the

Chamber that were involved in the

canned mushroom business.

The respondents describe the process

for establishing the minimum prices as

follows: (1) member companies request

the Chamber convene a meeting of all

the exporters; (2) the Chamber provides

information on domestic productivity

and international markets during this

meeting; and (3) the member companies

then agree to minimum prices and

memorialize the agreement in the

minutes to the meeting. Therefore,

according to the respondents, the

minimum price is an agreement among

the exporters and a means by which

exporters can insure that no exporter is

selling subject merchandise lower than

what they, as an industry, consider to be

the fair market price. In addition, the

minimum price is considered a means

of ‘‘self-regulation’’ among the industry

to prevent unfair competition.

The quota system in the instant

investigation operates on the basis of

transparent and well-defined rules.

Companies are free to independently

negotiate export prices with their

customers above the floor price, which

the exporting companies themselves set.

MOFTEC has claimed that it does not

involve itself in the price-setting of

companies that export mushrooms.

Thus, the allocation of the export quota

is arrived at in a competitive forum, and

separate prices are set by each

enterprise with industry input regarding

the floor price and in open competition

with respect to the final price.

In past cases, the Department has

determined that there is an absence of

government control over export pricing

and marketing decisions of firms even

though there may be some government

involvement with respect to the export

of products subject to investigation. See

Preliminary Determination of Sales at

Less Than Fair Value: Honey from the

People’s Republic of China, 60 FR

14725, March 20, 1995.

Accordingly, we preliminarily

determine that, within the preserved

mushroom industry, there is an absence

of de jure government control over

exporting pricing and marketing

decisions of firms.

2. Absence of De Facto Control

As stated in previous cases, there is

some evidence that certain enactments

of the PRC central government have not

been implemented uniformly among

different sectors and/or jurisdictions in

the PRC. (See Silicon Carbide and

Furfuryl Alcohol.) Therefore, the

Department has determined that an

analysis of de facto control is critical in

determining whether respondents are,

in fact, subject to a degree of

governmental control which would

preclude the Department from assigning

separate rates.

The Department typically considers

four factors in evaluating whether each

respondent is subject to de facto

governmental control of its export

functions: (1) whether the export prices

are set by, or subject to, the approval of

a governmental authority; (2) whether

the respondent has authority to

negotiate and sign contracts, and other

agreements; (3) whether the respondent

has autonomy from the government in

making decisions regarding the

selection of its management; and (4)

whether the respondent retains the

proceeds of its export sales and makes

independent decisions regarding

disposition of profits or financing of

losses (see Silicon Carbide and Furfuryl

Alcohol).

China Processed/Xiamen Jiahua and

Shenzhen Cofry each asserted the

following: (1) it establishes its own

export prices; (2) it negotiates contracts

without guidance from any

governmental entities or organizations;

(3) it makes its own personnel

decisions; and (4) it retains the proceeds

of their export sales, uses profits

according to its business needs, and has

the authority to sell its assets and to

obtain loans. Additionally, the three

respondents’ questionnaire responses

indicate that company-specific pricing

during the POI does not suggest

coordination among exporters. This

information supports a preliminary

finding that there is an absence of de

facto governmental control of the export

functions of these companies.

Consequently, we preliminarily

determine that these exporters have met

the criteria for the application of

separate rates.

Margins for Exporters Whose Responses

Were Not Analyzed

For the responding companies that

provided all the questionnaire responses

requested of them and otherwise fully

cooperated with the Department’s

investigation, but nonetheless, were not

fully analyzed by the Department due to

limited resources (see ‘‘Respondent

Selection’’ section above), including

Jiangsu, we are assigning the weightedaverage of the rates of the three fully

analyzed companies, or a non-adverse

facts available rate. Companies receiving

this rate are identified by name in the

‘‘Suspension of Liquidation’’ section of

this notice.

The parties who responded but were

not analyzed have applied for separate

rates, and provided information for the

Department to consider in this request.

Although the Department is unable, due

to administrative constraints, to

consider the requests for separate rates

status, and to calculate a separate rate

for each of these named parties, there

has been no failure on the part of these
41798 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 150 /Wednesday, August 5, 1998 / Notices

firms to provide requested information.

Because it would not be appropriate for

the Department to refuse to consider a

request for an examination of separate

rates status, and assign to the

cooperative firms the rate for the

noncooperative firms (which in this

case is an adverse margin based on facts

available), the Department has assigned

a single calculated rate for these firms,

which is a weighted-average of the rates

of the three analyzed companies.

China-Wide Rate

U.S. import statistics indicate that the

total quantity and value of U.S. imports

of mushrooms from the PRC is greater

than the total quantity and value of

mushrooms reported by all PRC

exporters that submitted responses in

this investigation. Given this

discrepancy, it appears that not all

exporters of PRC mushrooms responded

to our questionnaire. Accordingly, we

are applying a single antidumping

deposit rate—the PRC-wide rate—to all

exporters in the PRC, other than those

specifically identified below under

‘‘Suspension of Liquidation,’’ based on

our presumption that the export

activities of the companies that failed to

respond to the Department’s

questionnaire are controlled by the PRC

government (see, e.g., Notice of Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Bicycles from the People’s

Republic of China, 61 FR 19026, April

30, 1996) (‘‘Bicycles from the PRC’’).

As explained below, this PRC-wide

antidumping rate is based on adverse

facts available. Section 776(a)(2) of the

Act provides that ‘‘if an interested party

or any other person—(A) withholds

information that has been requested by

the administering authority; (B) fails to

provide such information by the

deadlines for the submission of the

information or in the form and manner

requested, subject to subsections (c)(1)

and (e) of section 782; (C) significantly

impedes a proceeding under this title; or

(D) provides such information but the

information cannot be verified as

provided in section 782(i), the

administering authority * * * shall,

subject to section 782(d), use the facts

otherwise available in reaching the

applicable determination under this

title.’’

Section 776(b) of the Act provides

that adverse inferences may be used

when a party has failed to cooperate by

not acting to the best of its ability to

comply with a request for information.

The exporters that decided not to

respond in any form to the Department’s

questionnaire failed to act to the best of

their ability in this investigation.

Further, absent a response, we must

presume government control of these

and all other PRC companies for which

we cannot make a separate rates

determination. Thus, the Department

has determined that, in selecting from

among the facts otherwise available, an

adverse inference is warranted.

As adverse facts available, we are

assigning the highest margin in the

petition, 198.63%, because the margins

in the petition (as recalculated by the

Department at initiation) were higher

than any of the calculated margins.

Section 776(c) of the Act provides that

where the Department selects from

among the facts otherwise available and

relies on ‘‘secondary information,’’ such

as the petition, the Department shall, to

the extent practicable, corroborate that

information from independent sources

reasonably at the Department’s disposal.

The Statement of Administrative Action

accompanying the URAA, H.R. Doc. No.

316, 103d Cong., 2d Sess. (1994)

(hereinafter, the ‘‘SAA’’), states that

‘‘corroborate’’ means to determine that

the information used has probative

value. See SAA at 870.

The petitioners methodology for

calculating (‘‘EP’’) and normal value

(‘‘NV’’) is discussed in the Notice of

Initiation. To corroborate the petition’s

EP calculations, we compared the prices

in the petition for three of the products

to the prices submitted by respondents

for the same mushroom style and

container size. To corroborate the

petitioners’ NV calculations, we

compared the petitioners’ factor

consumption and surrogate value data

for those same three products to the data

reported by the respondents for the most

significant factors—fresh mushrooms,

cans, factory overhead, and selling,

general, and administrative expenses,

and the surrogate values for these

factors in the petition to the values

selected for the preliminary

determination, as discussed below. Our

analysis showed that the petitioners’

data was either reasonably close to the

data submitted by the respondents and

the surrogate values chosen by the

Department, or conservative (see

Memorandum to the File dated July 27,

1998 (‘‘Corroboration Memo’’).

Therefore, we find that the calculations

set forth in the petition have probative

value.

Fair Value Comparisons

To determine whether sales of the

subject merchandise by China

Processed/Xiamen Jiahua, Tak Fat, and

Shenzhen Cofry to the United States

were made at LTFV, we compared the

EP to the NV, as described in the

‘‘Export Price’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’

sections of this notice, below. In

accordance with section

777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we

compared POI-wide weighted-average

EPs to weighted-average NVs. To value

foreign brokerage and handling incurred

in the PRC, we relied on the value used

in the Bicycles from the PRC

investigation.

Export Price

China Processed/Xiamen Jiahua

We used EP methodology in

accordance with section 772(a) of the

Act, because the subject merchandise

was sold directly to unaffiliated

customers in the United States prior to

importation and CEP methodology was

not otherwise indicated. We calculated

EP based on packed FOB or C&F prices

to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the

United States. Where appropriate, we

made deductions from the starting price

(gross unit price) for billing

adjustments, inland freight from the

plant/warehouse to port of exit,

brokerage and handling in the PRC, and

ocean freight. Because domestic

brokerage and handling and inland

freight were provided by NME

companies, we based those charges on

surrogate rates from India. (See ‘‘Normal

Value’’ section for further discussion).

As China Processed and Xiamen Jiahua

reported using market economy carriers

for ocean freight, we valued this

expense using the actual reported costs.

Tak Fat

We used EP methodology in

accordance with section 772(a) of the

Act because the subject merchandise

was sold directly to unaffiliated

customers in the United States prior to

importation and CEP methodology was

not otherwise indicated. We calculated

EP based on packed FOB or C&F prices,

to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the

United States. Where appropriate, we

made deductions from the starting price

(gross unit price) for inland freight from

the plant/warehouse to port of exit,

brokerage and handling in the PRC, and

international freight, in accordance with

section 772(c) of the Act. Because

domestic brokerage and handling and

inland freight were provided by NME

companies, we based those charges on

surrogate rates from India. As Tak Fat

reported using market economy carriers

for ocean freight, we valued this

expense using the actual reported costs.

Shenzhen Cofry

We used EP methodology in

accordance with section 772(a) of the

Act, because the subject merchandise

was sold directly to unaffiliated

customers in the United States prior to
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 150 /Wednesday, August 5, 1998 / Notices 41799

importation and CEP methodology was

not otherwise indicated. We calculated

EP based on packed FOB or C&F prices

to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the

United States. Where appropriate, we

made deductions from the starting price

(gross unit price) for billing

adjustments, inland freight from the

plant/warehouse to port of exit,

brokerage and handling in the PRC, and

ocean freight. Because domestic

brokerage and handling and inland

freight were provided by NME

companies, we based those charges on

surrogate rates from India. As Shenzhen

Cofry reported using market economy

carriers for ocean freight, we valued this

expense using the actual reported costs.

Normal Value

A. Surrogate Country

Section 773(c)(4) of the Act requires

the Department to value the NME

producer’s factors of production, to the

extent possible, in one or more market

economy countries that: (1) are at a level

of economic development comparable to

that of the NME, and (2) are significant

producers of comparable merchandise.

The Department has determined that

India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Egypt, and

Indonesia are countries comparable to

the PRC in terms of overall economic

development (see Memorandum dated

February 23, 1998). According to the

available information on the record, we

have determined that both India and

Indonesia meet the statutory

requirements for an appropriate

surrogate country for the PRC. For

purposes of the preliminary

determination, we have selected India

as the surrogate country, based on the

quality and contemporaneity of the

currently available data. Accordingly,

we have calculated NV using Indian

values for the PRC producers, factors of

production, except, as noted below, in

certain instances where an input was

sourced from a market economy and

paid for in a market economy currency.

We have obtained and relied upon PAI

wherever possible.

B. Factors of Production

In accordance with section 773(c) of

the Act, we calculated NV based on

factors of production reported by the

companies in the PRC which produced

mushrooms for the exporters which sold

mushrooms to the United States during

the POI. To calculate NV, the reported

unit factor quantities were multiplied by

publicly available Indian values, where

possible.

For Longhai Food, Inc. (‘‘Longhai’’),

which supplied some of the

merchandise sold by China Processed,

Mei Wei, and Zhaoan Canned Food

Factory (‘‘Zhaoan’’), which supplied

some of the merchandise sold by

Shenzhen Cofry, we recalculated the

reported mushroom consumption factor

for preserved mushroom produced from

brined mushrooms, to an amount

equivalent to consumption of fresh

mushrooms, based on the difference

between each producer’s reported

consumption of both types of

mushrooms. We made this adjustment

because we were unable to identify a

surrogate value for brined mushrooms

(see below).

For those inputs (e.g., glass jars used

by Longhai) that were sourced (either

partially or totally) from a market

economy and paid for in market

economy currency, we used the actual

price paid for the input to calculate the

factors-based NV, in accordance with 19

CFR 351.408(a)(1). As appropriate, for

these imported materials, we calculated

PRC brokerage and inland freight from

the port to the factory using surrogate

rates from India. We valued the

remaining factors using PAI from India,

except where noted below. Where a

producer did not report the distance

between the material supplier and the

factory, as facts available, we used

either the distance to the nearest seaport

(if an import value was used as the

surrogate value for the factor) or the

farthest distance reported for a supplier,

as facts available.

Mei Wei claimed it obtained labels

from a market economy source and paid

market economy prices for this factor,

but did not provide the necessary price

data. Therefore, we have valued Mei

Wei’s label consumption based on the

Indian surrogate value for labels.

Dongya Food Co., Ltd., a supplier to

Xiamen Jiahua, claimed that it

consumed chlorine purchased from a

market economy source. According to

the single invoice submitted to support

this claim, the material, sodium

hypochloride, was purchased in

November 1995—over one and a half

years prior to the beginning of the POI.

Given this long period between

purchase and the POI, we have no basis

to assume that the material in question

was actually used during the POI, nor is

it clear from the record that the sodium

hypochloride purchased is the same as

the chlorine reported as consumed.

Therefore, we have not valued this

input based on the submitted market

economy price and, instead, relied on

the surrogate value.

The selection of the surrogate values

applied in this determination was based

on the quality, specificity, and

contemporaneity of the data. As

appropriate, we adjusted input prices to

make them delivered prices. For those

values not contemporaneous with the

POI and quoted in a foreign currency,

we adjusted for inflation using

wholesale price indices published in the

International Monetary Fund’s

International Financial Statistics. For a

complete analysis of surrogate values,

see the Preliminary Determination

Valuation Memorandum from the team

to the File (‘‘Preliminary Determination

Valuation Memorandum’’), dated July

27, 1998.

We valued fresh mushrooms using the

average unit value derived from the

1996–1997 annual reports from three

Indian preserved mushroom producers

for their purchases of fresh mushrooms.

We were unable to identify an

appropriate surrogate value for brined

(provisionally preserved) mushrooms;

thus, as facts available for the

preliminary determination, we used the

fresh mushroom value to value brined

mushroom consumption but adjusted

the reported brined mushroom

consumption factor to an amount

equivalent to a fresh mushroom

consumption factor using an industry

standard ratio. For salt and citric acid,

we used a domestic price published in

the commodity section of The Financial

Express. For monosodium glutamate

(‘‘MSG’’), vitamin C (ascorbic acid), tin

cans and lids, glass jars, and labels, we

used Indian import values from Monthly

Statistics of the Foreign Trade of India

(‘‘Monthly Statistics’’). To value

chlorine, we used a value from the Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Coumarin from the PRC, (59

FR 66895, December 28, 1994), as found

in the Department’s Index of Factor

Values for Use in Antidumping Duty

Investigations Involving Products from

the People’s Republic of China. To value

water consumed in the production

process (i.e., water packed in cans or

jars with the mushrooms), we relied on

the publicly available tariff rates

reported in the Second Water Utilities

Data Book.

Longhai, Zishan Cannery Canned

Food Factory (‘‘Zishan’’), which also

produced merchandise sold by China

Processed, and Zhaoan Canned Food

Factory (‘‘Zhaoan’’), which produced

some of the merchandise sold by

Shenzhen Cofry, reported that they

resold scrap can material. For Longhai

and Zishan, we made an offset

deduction to the surrogate cost of

production using an average unit value

derived from 1997 U.S. import statistics.

We used this U.S. value as facts

available because we were unable to

identify an appropriate surrogate value

from a surrogate country. We were not

able to make the same offset deduction
41800 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 150 /Wednesday, August 5, 1998 / Notices

for Zhaoan because it did not report the

necessary factor data. Longhai, Zishan,

and Zhaoan, reported that they resold

scrap mushrooms not consumed in the

canning/jarring process. We were

unable to identify an appropriate

surrogate value for this material. As this

factor does not appear to have a

significant impact on the calculation of

NV, we have not made an offset for

scrap mushrooms in the preliminary

determination.

We valued labor based on a

regression-based wage rate, in

accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3).

To value electricity, we used the 1996

electricity rates reported in an article

‘‘All Charged Up Over the Cost of Power

in India’’ published in Business World

in August 1996. We based the value of

coal and diesel fuel on the import

values from the Monthly Statistics.

We based our calculation of factory

overhead (which includes water

consumed for rinsing and blanching

mushrooms), SG&A expenses, and profit

on data contained in the financial

reports of three Indian producers of the

subject merchandise (i.e., Agro Dutch

Foods (India), Saptarishi Agro

Industries, Ltd., and Transchem, Ltd.).

To value truck freight rates, we used

a 1994 rate from The Times of India. As

we were unable to identify a surrogate

value for inland water transportation,

we valued boat and barge transportation

using the surrogate value for truck

freight. With regard to rail freight, we

based our calculation on information

from the Indian Railway Conference

Association.

The CAFC’s decision in Sigma Corp.

v. United States, 117 F. 3d 1401 (CAFC

1997) requires that we revise our

calculation of source-to-factory

surrogate freight for those material

inputs that are based on CIF import

values in the surrogate country.

Therefore, we have added to CIF

surrogate values from India a surrogate

freight cost using the shorter of the

reported distances from either the

closest PRC port to the factory, or from

the domestic supplier to the factory on

an import-specific basis.

For the following reported packing

materials: glue, tape, corrugated paper,

wooden pallets, and shrink wrap, we

used import values from the Monthly

Statistics.

Critical Circumstances

On June 17, 1998, the petitioners

alleged that there is a reasonable basis

to believe or suspect that critical

circumstances exist with respect to

imports of mushrooms from the PRC. In

accordance with 19 CFR

351.206(c)(2)(i), since this allegation

was filed earlier than the deadline for

the Department’s preliminary

determination, we must issue our

preliminary critical circumstances

determination not later than the

preliminary determination.

Section 733(e)(1) of the Act provides

that if a petitioner alleges critical

circumstances, the Department will

determine whether there is a reasonable

basis to believe or suspect that:

(A)(i) there is a history of dumping

and material injury by reason of

dumped imports in the United States or

elsewhere of the subject merchandise, or

(ii) the person by whom, or for whose

account, the merchandise was imported

knew or should have known that the

exporter was selling the subject

merchandise at less than its fair value

and that there was likely to be material

injury by reason of such sales, and

(B) there have been massive imports

of the subject merchandise over a

relatively short period.

In this investigation, the first criterion

is satisfied. Brazil has levied

antidumping duties against preserved

mushrooms from the PRC. Brazil’s

antidumping duty order will be in force

until January 2003. Therefore, we

preliminarily determine that there is a

history of dumping elsewhere of

mushrooms by PRC producers/

exporters. Because there is a history of

dumping, it is not necessary to address

whether the importer had knowledge

that dumping was occurring and

material injury was likely.

Because we have preliminarily found

that the first statutory criterion is met,

we must consider the second statutory

criterion: whether imports of the

merchandise have been massive over a

relatively short period. According to 19

CFR 351.206(h), we consider the

following to determine whether imports

have been massive over a relatively

short period of time: (1) volume and

value of the imports; (2) seasonal trends

(if applicable); and (3) the share of

domestic consumption accounted for by

the imports.

When examining volume and value

data, the Department typically compares

the export volume for equal periods

immediately preceding and following

the filing of the petition. Under 19 CFR

351.206(h), unless the imports in the

comparison period have increased by at

least 15 percent over the imports during

the base period, we will not consider

the imports to have been ‘‘massive.’’

The Department examines shipment

information submitted by the

respondent or import statistics when

respondent-specific shipment

information is not available.

To determine whether or not imports

of subject merchandise have been

massive over a relatively short period,

we compared each of the mandatory

respondent’s export volume for the five

months subsequent to the filing of the

petition (January-May 1998) to that

during the five months prior to the filing

of the petition (August-December 1997).

These periods were selected based on

the Department’s practice of using the

longest period for which information is

available from the month that the

petition was submitted through the

effective date of the preliminary

determination. For the non-mandatory

PRC exporters, we performed this

analysis using import statistics and then

subtracted the figures of the mandatory

respondents. For all other producers/

exporters, we performed the analysis

using import statistics.

Based on our analysis, we

preliminarily find that the increase in

imports was greater than 15 percent

with respect to the named respondents,

the non-mandatory PRC exporters, and

all other producers/exporters.

With regard to the seasonality issue,

we were unable to discern a seasonal

pattern for any of the mandatory

respondents, or any other company,

based on the information on the record.

Furthermore, we were unable to

consider the share of domestic

consumption accounted for by the

imports, pursuant to 351.206(h)(iii),

because the available data did not

permit such analysis.

However, because there is a history of

dumping of such or similar

merchandise, and imports of

mushrooms from the mandatory

respondents, the respondents who were

not analyzed, and the respondents who

failed to submit a response have been

massive over a relatively short period of

time, we preliminarily determine that

there is a reasonable basis to believe or

suspect that critical circumstances exist

with respect to mushrooms from the all

mandatory respondents in this

investigation as well as the nonmandatory respondents and all other

producers/exporters.

We will make a final determination

concerning critical circumstances when

we make our final determination of

sales at LTFV in this investigation.

Verification

As provided in section 782(i) of the

Act, we will verify all information relied

upon in making our final determination.

Suspension of Liquidation

In accordance with section 733(d) of

the Act, we are directing the Customs

Service to suspend liquidation of all
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 150 /Wednesday, August 5, 1998 / Notices 41801

imports of subject merchandise that are

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after 90 days

prior to the date of publication of this

notice in the Federal Register. We will

instruct the Customs Service to require

a cash deposit or the posting of a bond

equal to the weighted-average amount

by which the NV exceeds the EP, as

indicated in the chart below. These

suspension of liquidation instructions

will remain in effect until further notice.

Exporter/manufacturer

Weighted-average margin

percentage

Critical circumstances

China Processed Food I&E Co./Xiamen Jiahua I&E Trading Company, Ltd ........................................................... 168.72 Yes.

Tak Fat Trading Co ................................................................................................................................................... 180.63 Yes.

Shenzhen Cofry Cereals, Oils, & Foodstuffs Co., Ltd .............................................................................................. 189.61 Yes.

Gerber (Yunnan) Food Co ........................................................................................................................................ 176.78 Yes.

Jiangsu Cereals, Oils & Foodstuffs Group Import & Export Corporation ................................................................. 176.78 Yes.

Fujian Provincial Cereals, Oils & Foodstuffs I&E Corp ............................................................................................. 176.78 Yes.

Putian Cannery Fujian Province ................................................................................................................................ 176.78 Yes.

Xiamen Gulong I&E Co., Ltd .............................................................................................................................. 176.78 Yes.

General Canned Foods Factory of Zhangzhou ........................................................................................................ 176.78 Yes.

Zhejiang Cereals, Oils & Foodstuffs I&E Corp ......................................................................................................... 176.78 Yes.

Shanghai Foodstuffs I&E Corp .................................................................................................................................. 176.78 Yes.

Canned Goods Co. of Raoping ................................................................................................................................. 176.78 Yes.

PRC-wide Rate .......................................................................................................................................................... 198.63 Yes.

The PRC-wide rate applies to all

entries of subject merchandise except

for entries from exporters/factories that

are identified individually above.

ITC Notification

In accordance with section 733(f) of

the Act, we have notified the ITC of our

determination. If our final

determination is affirmative, the ITC

will determine before the later of 120

days after the date of this preliminary

determination or 45 days after our final

determination whether these imports

are materially injuring, or threaten

material injury to, the U.S. industry.

Public Comment

Case briefs or other written comments

in at least ten copies must be submitted

to the Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration no later than October

16, 1998, and rebuttal briefs, no later

than October 23, 1998. A list of

authorities used and an executive

summary of issues should accompany

any briefs submitted to the Department.

Such summary should be limited to five

pages total, including footnotes. In

accordance with section 774 of the Act,

we will hold a public hearing, if

requested, to afford interested parties an

opportunity to comment on arguments

raised in case or rebuttal briefs.

Tentatively, the hearing will be held on

October 28, 1998, at the U.S.

Department of Commerce, 14th Street

and Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230. Parties should

confirm by telephone the time, date, and

place of the hearing 48 hours before the

scheduled time.

Interested parties who wish to request

a hearing, or to participate if one is

requested, must submit a written

request to the Assistant Secretary for

Import Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, Room 1870, within 30

days of the publication of this notice.

Requests should contain: (1) The party’s

name, address, and telephone number;

(2) the number of participants; and (3)

a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral

presentations will be limited to issues

raised in the briefs. If this investigation

proceeds normally, we will make our

final determination by 135 days after the

publication of this notice in the Federal

Register.

This determination is issued and

published in accordance with sections

733(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Dated: July 27, 1998.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–20912 Filed 8–4–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–570–601]

Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts

Thereof, Finished and Unfinished,

From the People’s Republic of China;

Notice of Intent Not To Revoke the

Antidumping Duty Order in Part

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of intent not to revoke

the antidumping duty order in part.

SUMMARY: This notice serves as a

supplement to the Department of

Commerce’s July 10, 1998, notice of

preliminary results of administrative

review and new shipper review of

tapered roller bearings and parts thereof,

finished and unfinished, from the

People’s Republic of China (see, 63 FR

37339). In those preliminary results of

review, we neglected to include our

decision as to whether there is a

reasonable basis to believe that the

requirements for revocation have been

met by Luoyang Bearing Factory.

Therefore, we are now publishing our

intent not to revoke the order with

respect to tapered roller bearings and

parts thereof, finished and unfinished,

from the People’s Republic of China

produced and/or exported by Luoyang

Bearing Factory. Interested parties are

invited to comment on the Department’s

intent not to revoke the order in part.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 5, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Zak

Smith, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW,

Washington DC 20230; telephone (202)

482–1279.

Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended (‘‘the Act’’), 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. In addition, all

references to the Department of

Commerce’s (‘‘the Department’s’’)

regulations are to 19 CFR 353 (April

1997).

Background

On May 27, 1987, the Department

published in the Federal Register (52

FR 19748) the antidumping duty order

on tapered roller bearings and parts

thereof, finished and unfinished