Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 86 / Thursday, May 4, 1995 / Notices 22047

For two U.S. products, we found no

home market products sold in

contemporaneous periods which had an

adjustment for differences in physical

characteristics of merchandise that was

less than 20 percent of the cost of

manufacture of the U.S. product. For

sales of one U.S. product, we deemed it

inappropriate to match a twisted with

an untwisted crankshaft (see Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Certain Forged Steel

Crankshafts from the United Kingdom

(52 FR 32951, 32953 (September 1,

1987)). For the second U.S. product,

there were no contemporaneous sales of

comparable home market products. For

these products, we based FMV on CV.

We calculated CV based on the sum of

the respondent’s submitted cost of

materials, fabrication, general expenses,

U.S. packing and profit. In addition, we

increased the respondent’s submitted

general and administrative expenses

(G&A) to include certain forging

division G&A items (see August 18,

1994, verification report for a further

discussion). According to section

773(e)(1)(B) (i) and (ii) of the Act, we

included the actual general expenses

which exceeded the statutory minimum

(ten percent of the cost of manufacturing

(COM)). We used the statutory

minimum profit, which is eight percent

of the sum of COM and general

expenses, because the actual profit

amount was less than the statutory

minimum.

We made adjustments to CV, in

accordance with 19 CFR 353.56, for

differences in circumstances of sale.

These adjustments were made for

differences in credit expenses,

warranties, and warehousing.

Currency Conversion

We made currency conversions in

accordance with 19 CFR 353.60(a). All

currency conversions were made at the

rates certified by the Federal Reserve

Bank.

Verification

As provided in section 776(b) of the

Act, we verified information provided

by respondent by using standard

verification procedures, including onsite inspection of the manufacturer’s

facilities, examination of relevant sales

and financial records, and selection of

original source documentation

containing relevant information.

Preliminary Results of Review

As a result of our review, we

preliminarily determine that the

following margin exists for the period

September 1, 1992, through August 31,

1993:

Manufacturer/exporter Review period

Margin

(percent)

UEF ............. 9/01/92—8/31/93 0.36

Interested parties may request a

disclosure within 5 days of publication

of this notice and may request a hearing

within 10 days of the date of

publication. Any hearing, if requested,

will be held 44 days after the date of

publication, or the first workday

thereafter. Interested parties may submit

case briefs within 30 days of the date of

publication. Rebuttal briefs, limited to

issues raised in the case briefs, may be

filed not later than 37 days after the date

of publication. The Department will

publish a notice of the final results of

this administrative review, which will

include the results of its analysis of

issues raised in any such case briefs.

The Department shall determine, and

the Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. Individual differences between

USP and FMV may vary from the

percentages stated above. The

Department will issue appraisement

instructions directly to the Customs

Service.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirement will be effective for all

shipments of CFSCs from the United

Kingdom entered, or withdrawn from

warehouse, for consumption on or after

the publication date of the final results

of this administrative review, as

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

Tariff Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for

UEF will be the rate established in the

final results of this review, except if the

rate is less than 0.50 percent and,

therefore, de minimis, the cash deposit

will be zero; (2) for previously reviewed

or investigated companies not listed

above, the cash deposit rate will

continue to be the company-specific rate

published for the most recent period; (3)

if the exporter is not a firm covered in

this review, a prior review, or the

original LTFV investigation, but the

manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate

will be the rate established for the most

recent period for the manufacturer of

the merchandise; and (4) if neither the

exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm

covered in this or any previous review

conducted by the Department, the cash

deposit rate will be the ‘‘all others’’ rate,

as set forth below.

On March 25, 1993, the Court of

International Trade (CIT), in Floral

Trade Council v. United States, 822

F.Supp. 766 (CIT 1993), and FederalMogul Corporation v. United States, 822

F.Supp. 782 (CIT 1993), decided that

once an ‘‘all others’’ rate is established

for a company, it can only be changed

through an administrative review. The

Department has determined that in

order to implement this decision, it is

appropriate to reinstate the original ‘‘all

others’’ rate from the LTFV investigation

(or that rate as amended for correction

of clerical errors or as a result of

litigation) in proceedings governed by

antidumping duty orders. In

proceedings governed by antidumping

findings, unless we are able to ascertain

that ‘‘all others’’ rate from the original

investigation, the Department has

determined that it is appropriate to

adopt the ‘‘new shipper’’ rate

established in the first final results of

administrative review published by the

Department (or that rate as amended for

correction of clerical errors or as a result

of ligitation) as the ‘‘all others’’ rate for

the purposes of establishing cash

deposits in all current and future

administrative reviews. Because this

proceeding is governed by an

antidumping duty order, the ‘‘all

others’’ rate for the purposes of this

review will be 14.67 percent, the ‘‘all

others’’ rate established in the LTFV

investigation.

These cash deposit requirements,

when imposed, shall remain in effect

until publication of the final results of

the next administrative review.

This notice serves as a preliminary

reminder to importers of their

responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26 to

file a certificate regarding the

reimbursement of antidumping duties

prior to liquidation of the relevant

entries during this review period.

Failure to comply with this requirement

could result in the Secretary’s

presumption that reimbursement of

antidumping duties occurred and the

subsequent assessment of double

antidumping duties.

This administrative review and notice

are in accordance with section 751(a)(1)

of the Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1))

and 19 CFR 353.22.

Dated: April 27, 1995.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 95–11056 Filed 5–3–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P