Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 1995 / Notices 22557

Producer/manufacturer/exporter

Margin

percentage

Illovo Sugar Limited ...................... 15.48

All Others ...................................... 15.48

ITC Notification

In accordance with section 735(d) of

the Act, we have notified the ITC of our

determination. The ITC will make its

determination whether these imports

materially injure, or threaten injury to,

a U.S. industry within 45 days of the

publication of this notice. If the ITC

determines that material injury or threat

of material injury does not exist, the

proceeding will be terminated and all

securities posted as a result of the

suspension of liquidation will be

refunded or canceled.

However, if the ITC determines that

such injury does exist, we will issue an

antidumping duty order directing the

Customs Service officers to assess an

antidumping duty on furfuryl alcohol

from South Africa, that are entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after the date of

suspension of liquidation, equal to the

amount by which the foreign market

value of the merchandise exceeds the

United States price.

This determination is published

pursuant to section 735(d) of the Act (19

U.S.C. 1673(d)) and 19 CFR 353.20.

Dated: May 1, 1995.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 95–11261 Filed 5–5–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[A–549–812]

Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol From

Thailand

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 8, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John

Brinkmann or Greg Thompson, Office of

Antidumping Investigations, Import

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

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

telephone (202) 482–5288 or 482–2336,

respectively.

Final Determination

We determine that furfuryl alcohol

from Thailand is being, or is likely to be,

sold in the United States at less than fair

value (LTFV), as provided in section

735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended (the Act). The estimated

margins are shown in the ‘‘Suspension

of Liquidation’’ section of this notice.

Case History

Since the preliminary determination

of sales at LTFV on December 9, 1994

(59 FR 65014, December 16, 1994), the

following events have occurred.

At the request of the petitioner, QO

Chemicals, the Department postponed

the final determination until May 1,

1995 (59 FR 66901, December 28, 1994).

Pursuant to the Department’s request,

on January 17, 1995, the respondent,

Indo-Rama Chemicals (Thailand) Ltd.

(IRCT), submitted additional

information pertaining to its potential

exports sales price (ESP) transactions. In

addition, IRCT submitted its response to

Section D of the questionnaire, which

requests information on the cost of

production (COP) and constructed value

(CV). The petitioner commented on this

response, which IRCT later

supplemented pursuant to our request

on February 6, 1995.

Verification of IRCT’s sales and COP/

CV questionnaire responses was

conducted during the months of

February and March, 1995. The

Department issued reports concerning

these verifications on March 21, 1995.

IRCT and the petitioner submitted

case briefs on March 29, 1995, and

rebuttal briefs on March 31, 1995. At the

petitioner’s request, the Department

held a hearing on April 4, 1995.

Scope of Investigation

The product covered by this

investigation is furfuryl alcohol

(C4H3OCH2OH). Furfuryl alcohol is a

primary alcohol, and is colorless or pale

yellow in appearance. It is used in the

manufacture of resins and as a wetting

agent and solvent for coating resins,

nitrocellulose, cellulose acetate, and

other soluble dyes.

The product subject to this

investigation is classifiable under

subheading 2932.13.00 of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (HTSUS). Although the

HTSUS subheading is provided for

convenience and customs purposes, our

written description of the scope of this

proceeding is dispositive.

Period of Investigation

The period of investigation (POI) is

December 1, 1993, through May 31,

1994.

Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute and to the

Department’s regulations are in

reference to the provisions as they

existed on December 31, 1994.

Such or Similar Comparisons

For purposes of the final

determination, we have determined that

furfuryl alcohol constitutes a single

‘‘such or similar’’ category of

merchandise. Since the respondent sold

merchandise in the home market

identical to that sold in the United

States during the POI, we made

identical merchandise comparisons.

Fair Value Comparisons

To determine whether sales of

furfuryl alcohol from Thailand to the

United States were made at less than

fair value, we compared the United

States price (USP) to the foreign market

value (FMV), as specified in the ‘‘United

States Price’’ and ‘‘Foreign Market

Value’’ sections of this notice. In

accordance with 19 CFR 353.58 (1994),

we made comparisons at the same level

of trade, where possible.

United States Price

We based USP on purchase price, in

accordance with section 772(b) of the

Act, because the subject merchandise

was sold to an unrelated purchaser

before importation into the United

States and because exporter’s sales price

methodology was not otherwise

indicated (see Comment 2 below).

With regard to the calculation of

movement expenses, we made

deductions from the U.S. sales price,

where appropriate, for foreign

brokerage, foreign inland freight, ocean

freight, and marine insurance in

accordance with section 772(d)(2)(A) of

the Act.

Since IRCT discounts all account

receivables pertaining to its U.S. sales,

we calculated U.S. credit expenses

based on IRCT’s average short-term

interest rate. In accordance with section

772(d)(1)(B) of the Act, we added to

USP the amount of the Thai import

duties, not collected on material inputs,

by reason of exportation of the subject

merchandise to the United States.

In accordance with our standard

practice, pursuant to the decision of the

U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT)

in Federal-Mogul Corporation and The

Torrington Company v. United States,

834 F. Supp. 1391 (CIT 1993), our

calculations include an adjustment to

U.S. price for the consumption tax

levied on comparison sales in Thailand

(See Preliminary Antidumping Duty

Determination: Color Negative

Photographic Paper and Chemical

Components from Japan, 59 FR 16177,

16179 (April 6, 1994), for an

explanation of this methodology).
22558 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 1995 / Notices

Cost of Production

As we indicated in our preliminary

determination, the Department initiated

an investigation of potential below-cost

home market sales on November 21,

1994. In order to determine whether

home market sales prices were below

COP within the meaning of section

773(b) of the Act, we calculated COP

based on the sum of the respondent’s

cost of materials, fabrication, general

expenses and packing, in accordance

with 19 CFR 353.51(c). We made the

following adjustments to the

respondent’s reported COP data:

1. We recalculated IRCT’s corn cob

consumption based on the weightedaverage cost of corn cobs used in the

production of furfuryl alcohol during

the POI;

2. We recalculated depreciation

expense based on the fixed asset lives

reported in IRCT’s 1993 audited

financial statements; and

3. We allocated annual general and

administrative expenses based on

annual cost of sales.

After computing COP, we added the

sales-specific VAT and home market

packing to the COP figure. We compared

COP to reported prices that were net of

movement charges, direct and indirect

selling expenses, and inclusive of VAT

and home market packing. In

accordance with section 773(b) of the

Act, we followed our standard

methodology to determine whether the

home market sales of each product were

made at prices below COP in substantial

quantities over an extended period of

time, and whether such sales were made

at prices that would permit recovery of

all costs within a reasonable period of

time in the normal course of trade.

To satisfy the requirement of section

773(b)(1) that below-cost sales be

disregarded only if made in substantial

quantities, we apply the following

methodology. Where we find that over

90 percent of a respondent’s sales were

at prices above the COP, we do not

disregard any below-cost sales because

we determine that a respondent’s belowcost sales are not made in substantial

quantities. If between ten and 90

percent of a respondent’s sales were at

prices above the COP, we disregard only

the below-cost sales if made over an

extended period of time. Where we find

that more than 90 percent of a

respondent’s sales were at prices below

the COP and were sold over an extended

period of time, we disregard all sales

and calculate FMV based on CV, in

accordance with section 773(b) of the

Act. In this case, we found that between

ten and 90 percent of the sales were

made below the COP. As a result, we

tested whether those below cost sales

had been made over an extended period

of time.

In accordance with section 773(b)(1)

of the Act, in order to determine

whether below-cost sales had been

made over an extended period of time,

we compare the number of months in

which below-cost sales occurred to the

number of months in the POI in which

the product was sold. If a product was

sold in three or more months of the POI,

we do not exclude below-cost sales

unless there were below-cost sales in at

least three months during the POI.

When we find that sales occurred in one

or two months, the number of months

in which the sales occurred constitutes

the extended period of time; i.e., where

sales were made in only two months,

the extended period of time was two

months, where sales were made in only

one month, the extended period of time

was one month. (See Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Certain Carbon Steel ButtWeld Pipe Fittings from the United

Kingdom (60 FR 10558, 10560, February

27, 1995)). In this case, we found that

the respondent had made sales of

furfuryl alcohol at prices below the COP

in two of the months that sales were

made. As a result, none of the sales

made below the COP were disregarded.

Foreign Market Value

As stated in the preliminary

determination, we found that the home

market was viable for sales of furfuryl

alcohol, in accordance with 19 CFR

353.48(a). We calculated FMV based on

delivered prices, and deducted home

market inland freight, unloading charges

and insurance in accordance with 19

CFR 353.56(a).

FMV was reduced by home market

packing costs and increased by U.S.

packing costs in accordance with

section 773(a)(1) of the Act. The

Department also made circumstance-ofsale adjustments for home market direct

selling expenses, which included

imputed credit expenses and technical

services in accordance with 19 CFR

353.56(a)(2). We also deducted

commissions incurred on home market

sales and added total U.S. indirect

selling expenses, capped by the amount

of home market commissions in

accordance with 19 CFR 353.56(b). The

total U.S. indirect selling expenses

included U.S. inventory carrying costs,

and indirect selling expenses incurred

in Thailand on U.S. sales.

We adjusted for the consumption tax

in accordance with our practice (see

‘‘United States Price’’ section of this

notice).

Currency Conversion

We have made currency conversions

based on the official exchange rates, as

certified by the Federal Reserve Bank of

New York, in effect on the dates of the

U.S. sales, pursuant to 19 CFR 353.60.

Verification

As provided in section 776(b) of the

Act, we verified the information used in

making our final determination.

Interested Party Comments

What follows are summaries of the

parties’ arguments, followed by the

Department’s positions on each of the

issues raised.

Comment 1: Using Best Information

Otherwise Available (BIA)

The petitioner states that the

Department should use BIA for

purposes of the final determination

because IRCT impeded the conduct of

the investigation by failing to divulge

the extent of its relationship with the

U.S. importer, Indo-Rama Chemicals

(America), Inc. (IRCA). The petitioner

claims that IRCT should have reported

its U.S. sales as ESP rather than on a

purchase price basis, and only reported

ESP data after the Department

specifically requested it to do so.

The respondent states that it provided

the Department with all the necessary

ESP data in a timely manner when it

was requested and, further, that it fully

cooperated in the investigation

regarding the relationship between

IRCA and IRCT.

DOC Position

We agree with the respondent that

IRCT and IRCA cooperated with the

Department throughout this

investigation. They submitted all

requested information, and documented

it during verification. Because IRCT did

not impede our investigation, we have

used the respondent’s data for purposes

of the final determination.

Comment 2: ESP or Purchase Price

IRCT contends that its categorization

of IRCA as an unrelated party is

consistent with the Department’s

definition of related parties pursuant to

section 771(13), was verified by the

Department, and that the U.S. price

should be based upon the purchase

price methodology. The respondent’s

argument is fully discussed in the

proprietary version of its case brief.

The petitioner argues that the record

evidence indicates that IRCT and IRCA

are related parties and, therefore, if the

Department decides not to resort to BIA,

it should base USP on ESP. The

petitioner’s argument is fully discussed
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 1995 / Notices 22559

in the proprietary version of its case

brief. The following are some of the

non-proprietary points that the

petitioner raises: (1) The owner of IRCA

is also president and director to a sister

company of IRCT; and (2) the ESP

response was filed on behalf of IRCT by,

and the entire response was certified

only by, IRCT’s counsel.

DOC Position

We determined that the information

on the record, as verified by the

Department, does not satisfy the criteria

set forth in section 771(13) of the Act for

recognizing the U.S. sales as ESP

transactions. An analysis of the

individual criteria considered requires

reference to proprietary information and

is discussed in the proprietary version

of the concurrence memorandum, dated

May 1, 1995. Because we found that

IRCA does not act as IRCT’s principal or

agent, under 771(13), at least one of the

parties would have to own or control an

interest in the other, or some other

person or persons would have to own or

control sufficient interest in both, for

the Department to determine USP on the

basis of ESP data (see Small Business

Telephone Systems from Korea, 54 FR

53141 (1989) and/or Certain Forged

Steel Crankshafts from Japan, 52 FR

36984 (1987)). The Department

confirmed at verification that there was

no ownership or controlling interest

between IRCT and IRCA, and no

common ownership or controlling

interest by a third party. Therefore, we

have based the USP on purchase price.

Comment 3: Indirect Selling Expenses

The petitioner argues that, because

the respondent failed to provide the

Department with information

concerning additional indirect selling

expenses and storage charges incurred

in the United States, the Department

should use BIA to determine the

indirect selling expenses for the POI. As

BIA, the petitioner requests that the

Department rely on information in the

petition.

The respondent asserts that it did not

understate any selling expenses

incurred in the importation, storage, or

sale of furfuryl alcohol. The respondent

argues that the Department verified both

IRCT and IRCA with respect to these

expenses. Therefore, in the event the

Department makes its final

determination based on ESP, the

respondent argues that the Department

should calculate U.S. indirect selling

expenses on the information provided.

The respondent further states that many

of the indirect selling expenses that the

petitioner referenced simply do not

exist.

DOC Position

Based on the Department’s decision to

use the purchase price methodology,

this issue has been rendered moot.

Comment 4: Interest Rate

The petitioner argues that the

Department should use the appropriate

interest rate from IRCA’s response in

computing any credit expenses and

inventory carrying cost. The petitioner’s

argument is fully discussed in the

proprietary version of its March 29,

1995 case brief.

The respondent states that it is not

related to IRCA. However, should the

Department base its determination on

ESP sales, the respondent argues that

the Department should not use IRCA’s

interest rate. The respondent’s argument

is fully discussed in the proprietary

version of its case brief.

DOC Position

The use of the importers’s interest rate

in the calculation of credit expense and

inventory carrying cost for U.S. sales is

not at issue because the calculation of

USP is based on the purchase price

methodology. Therefore, the interest

rate used to calculate both expenses for

U.S. sales is based on IRCT’s short-term

borrowing experience. Because the U.S.

sales are made in U.S. dollars, the

interest rate used to calculate the credit

expense and inventory carrying cost is

the rate that IRCT incurs for its U.S.

dollar denominated short-term

borrowing for the POI (see Final

Determination of Sales at Less than Fair

Value: Disposable Pocket Lighters from

Thailand, 51 FR 14270, 14265 (March

16, 1995)).

Comment 5: Technical Service

IRCT contends that home market

‘‘outside’’ technical service expenses are

directly related to specific sales, and are

properly deductible as direct selling

expenses.

DOC Position

This issue is moot because the

expenses were incurred on sales which

are not included in our final

calculations, having occurred at a level

of trade different than that of the U.S.

sales.

Comment 6: Home Market Sale Outside

the Ordinary Course of Trade

In its original sales listing, IRCT

categorized one home market sale as

outside of the ordinary course of trade.

IRCT states that the sale was

inadvertently reported as a normal sale

in the revised sales listing. IRCT states

that this sale was (1) a single isolated

trial sale for a different application, (2)

of a quantity far smaller than the

standard quantity sold for all other

home market sales, and (3) at a price

substantially higher than that charged to

IRCT’s regular customers.

DOC Position

We agree with the respondent.

Section 771(15) of the Act defines

‘‘ordinary course of trade’’ as those

conditions and practices which are

‘‘normal in the trade under

consideration.’’ The documents for this

sale were verified and the sale was

found to be an isolated, non-recurring

sale, and at a quantity inconsistent with

the standard quantity shipped.

Therefore, because the sale was not

normal in the trade under consideration,

we found it to be made outside the

ordinary course of trade under section

771(15) of the Act. Accordingly, we

have not included it in our margin

analysis.

Comment 7: Allocation of Indirect

Selling Expenses

IRCT argues that the Department

should use the revised allocation

percentages for unassigned indirect

selling expenses (e.g., office rental,

phone, etc.) that were presented during

verification because these percentages

more accurately reflect the actual time

spent by the sales personnel.

The petitioner contends that this

revised allocation constitutes a

submission of untimely, unsupported

data in the middle of verification and,

therefore, should not be relied upon by

the Department.

DOC Position

Based on the fact that neither IRCT’s

original allocation nor its revised

allocation of indirect selling expenses

was supported by documentation,

neither was used in our final

determination. Instead, the Department

allocated these expenses based on the

quantity of furfuryl alcohol sold in the

domestic and export markets. Given the

lack of information, this was the most

reasonable allocation methodology

available (see concurrence

memorandum dated, May 1, 1995).

Comment 8: Corn Cob Costs

The petitioner asserts that the cost of

corn cobs, a primary direct material of

furfuryl and furfuryl alcohol, should be

calculated based on the respondent’s

actual corn cob expenses incurred

during the POI, rather than on the

annual weighted-average methodology

submitted by IRCT. Further, the

petitioner argues for the use of actual

expenses because the respondent’s corn

cob prices vary according to competitive
22560 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 1995 / Notices

market conditions, rather than the

seasonality of corn production claimed

by the respondent.

The respondent contends that its

methodology accurately reflects corn

cob consumption because it eliminates

seasonal trends in pricing, availability,

and purchases. Additionally, the

respondent states its submission

methodology is consistent with its

normal accounting system. Moreover,

the petitioner’s proposed methodology

ignores the value of corn cob in

beginning inventory. Therefore, the

respondent argues that the Department

should reject the petitioner’s claim.

DOC Position

The most appropriate cost calculation

methodology for corn cobs used in the

production of furfuryl alcohol should

take into account the actual corn cobs

used during the POI based on IRCT’s

normal weighted-average inventory cost

flow assumption. Therefore, we have

recalculated IRCT’s corn cob cost based

on the weighted-average cost of corn cob

inventories at the beginning of the POI,

plus all purchases of the input made

during the POI.

Comment 9: Depreciation

The petitioner argues that the

Department should reject IRCT’s

claimed increase in the useful lives of

its buildings and machinery which was

submitted in accordance with a change

in IRCT’s depreciation policy.

According to the petitioner, IRCT’s

proposed change in its depreciation

policy was approved after the initiation

of this case. It maintains that, at a

minimum, the Department should

recompute depreciation expense for

IRCT’s buildings and machinery based

on the original useful lives of the assets.

However, the petitioner claims that even

these useful lives, as well as the useful

lives of other assets owned by IRCT, are

inconsistent with U.S. generally

accepted accounting principals (GAAP)

and thus distort the costs associated

with the production of furfuryl alcohol.

IRCT argues that its submitted

depreciation expense reflects its normal

record keeping for the period that most

closely corresponds to the POI. It claims

that it extended the useful lives of its

buildings and machinery because the

assets were constructed of ‘‘highquality, long-lasting’’ materials. The

decision to change the estimated useful

lives of its assets, IRCT states, was made

prior to the initiation of this

investigation.

DOC Position

In computing COP for the subject

merchandise, the Department generally

relies on the accounting records

maintained by respondent in the normal

course of its operations. These records,

however, must be kept in accordance

with respondent’s home country GAAP

if those GAAP reasonably reflect the

costs associated with producing the

subject merchandise.

In IRCT’s case, the change in the

useful lives of buildings and machinery

assets, although reflected in the

company’s accounting records during

1994, had yet to be approved by the

company’s independent auditors or the

Thai government as of the date of our

verification. Thus, we believe that it is

inappropriate for us to determine

whether IRCT’s change in the useful

lives of these assets reasonably reflects

the company’s depreciation expense for

the POI since it is impossible for us to

conclude that the new policy is in

accordance with Thai GAAP.

We disagree with the petitioner’s

argument that the original useful lives of

IRCT’s assets are not in accordance with

U.S. GAAP and thus distort furfuryl

alcohol production costs. U.S. GAAP

allows companies to determine the

useful lives of production assets based

on the estimated economic lives of those

assets. In IRCT’s case, we have no

reason to believe that the depreciable

lives historically utilized by the

company fail to reflect the economic

lives of the underlying assets. Therefore,

we have calculated depreciation

expense based on the original useful

lives of the assets.

Comment 10: General and

Administrative Expense (‘‘G&A’’)

Allocation

The petitioner contends that IRCT

provided no justification for deviating

from the Department’s normal G&A

calculation methodology by allocating

G&A expenses to non-productive cost

centers. According to the petitioner,

IRCT’s methodology distorts the cost of

production for furfuryl alcohol.

Therefore, as BIA, the petitioner asserts

the Department should allocate all G&A

expenses solely to furfuryl alcohol.

IRCT argues that its G&A allocation

methodology is consistent with GAAP

and appropriate for this investigation.

According to IRCT, the Department’s

normal methodology of allocating G&A,

on the basis of cost of sales, overstates

furfuryl alcohol production costs. IRCT

contends that, its G&A allocation

methodology more properly matches

benefits received from G&A

expenditures to the appropriate

business cost centers.

DOC Position

We agree with the petitioner that

IRCT did not adequately support is G&A

allocation methodology. To compute

G&A expense for COP, IRCT allocated

its G&A expense equally among its four

cost centers. Two of those cost centers

did not produce any products during

the POI.

During verification, IRCT provided no

evidence to support its allocation

methodology for G&A expenditures, nor

did IRCT demonstrate that the

allocation methodology was used in its

normal accounting system. Instead, we

found that IRCT’s submitted G&A

allocation methodology was based on

subjective factors. We have, therefore,

recalculated IRCT’s G&A expenses by

allocating reported fiscal year 1993

company-wide G&A expense based on

the company’s cost of sales for that year.

This is in accordance with our normal

G&A methodology, as stated in section

D of the Department’s questionnaire.

Comment 11: G&A Expense Calculation

Period

IRCT reported G&A expenses based

on the six-month POI rather than on an

annual basis. IRCT contends its sixmonth G&A expense calculation

accurately reflects the actual G&A costs

incurred during the POI.

DOC Position

Ordinarily, G&A expenses are

considered to be period costs for

accounting purposes. As such, they

differ from product costs like direct

materials, labor, and overhead in that

G&A expenses are not included in

inventory costs but, instead, are

accounted for as expenses during the

period in which they are incurred. This

is because, unlike product costs, G&A

can neither be easily nor accurately

matched to the revenues generated from

the sales of an individual unit of

production. Instead, G&A expenses are

typically incurred in connection with a

company’s overall operations. Many

expenses categorized as G&A, such as

insurance and bonus payments, are

incurred sporadically throughout the

fiscal year. Moreover, G&A expenses are

often accrued during the fiscal year

based on estimates that are then

adjusted to actual expenses at year-end.

Because of their nature as period costs,

and due to the irregular manner in

which many companies record G&A

expenses, the Department generally

looks to a full-year period in computing

G&A expenses for COP and CV. Such a

period encompasses operating results

over a longer time span than the POI

and typically reports the results of at
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 1995 / Notices 22561

1The preliminary determination was negative in

this case.

least one business cycle. Under ordinary

circumstances, the most appropriate

full-year G&A period is that represented

by the latest fiscal year for which the

respondent has complete and audited

financial statements.

IRCT provided no evidence to justify

deviating from the Department’s normal

practice of using annual financial data

for G&A. As of the last day of

verification, IRCT’s 1994 audited

financial statements were not available.

Consequently, we calculated G&A

expense based on IRCT’s 1993 annual

audited financial statements.

Comment 12: Waste Water

The petitioner states that IRCT

excluded certain waste water treatment

expenses from its submitted COP. As

BIA, the petitioner suggests that the

Department include the accounts

payable amount reported in IRCT’s May

1994 Trial Balance.

The respondent asserts that it has

properly included all waste water

treatment costs in its submitted COP. It

states that the particular account noted

by the petitioner reflects costs

associated with the purchase of waste

water treatment equipment.

DOC Position

We agree with the respondent. The

respondent included all waste water

treatment expenses incurred during the

POI in its COP submission. Therefore,

no adjustment is required.

Comment 13: Insurance Proceeds

IRCT offset its submitted COP for

furfuryl alcohol by insurance proceeds

received due to an unexpected

equipment failure during the POI. IRCT

contends that it properly included

insurance revenue received for both

equipment repair costs and for the

increase in per-unit costs resulting from

the equipment failure.

The petitioner concedes that IRCT

tied part of the insurance settlement

directly to equipment repair costs and

should be allowed a partial offset for

these costs. According to the petitioner,

however, IRCT did not show how the

remaining proceeds relate to the

company’s claimed increase in per-unit

costs.

DOC Position

We agree with the respondent that the

insurance proceeds should be used to

offset IRCT’s furfuryl alcohol costs.

During verification, we found that the

insurance proceeds were paid to IRCT

for equipment failure and overhead

costs incurred during the period in

which the equipment was under repair.

Thus, these proceeds relate directly to

the equipment failure which occurred

during the POI. Due to this equipment

failure, IRCT incurred higher per-unit

production costs in addition to the cost

of repairs. Accordingly, we consider it

reasonable for IRCT to offset its

submitted COP by all proceeds received

for the insurance claim.

Suspension of Liquidation

In accordance with section 735(d) of

the Act, we are directing the Customs

Service to suspend liquidation of all

entries of furfuryl alcohol from

Thailand, as defined in the ‘‘Scope of

Investigation’’ section of this notice, that

are entered, or withdrawn from

warehouse, for consumption on or after

the date of publication of our final

determination 1 in the Federal Register.

The Customs Service shall require a

cash deposit or posting of a bond on all

entries equal to the estimated amount by

which the FMV exceeds the USP, as

shown below. The suspension of

liquidation will remain in effect until

further notice.

Producer/manufacturer/exporter

Margin

percentage

IRCT ............................................. 5.94

All Others ...................................... 5.94

ITC Notification

In accordance with section 735(d) of

the Act, we have notified the ITC of our

determination. The ITC will make its

determination whether these imports

materially injure, or threaten injury to,

a U.S. industry within 45 days of the

publication of this notice. If the ITC

determines that material injury or threat

of material injury does not exist, the

proceeding will be terminated and all

securities posted as a result of the

suspension of liquidation will be

refunded or cancelled.

However, if the ITC determines that

such injury does exist, we will issue an

antidumping duty order directing the

Customs Service officers to assess an

antidumping duty on furfuryl alcohol

from Thailand, entered, or withdrawn

from warehouse, for consumption on or

after the date of suspension of

liquidation, equal to the amount by

which the foreign market value of the

merchandise exceeds the United States

price.

This determination is published

pursuant to section 735(d) of the Act (19

U.S.C. 1673(d)) and 19 CFR 353.20.

Dated: May 1, 1995.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 95–11263 Filed 5–5–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[A–588–807]

Industrial Belts and Components and

Parts Thereof, Whether Cured or

Uncured, From Japan; Partial

Termination and Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of partial termination

and preliminary results of antidumping

duty administrative review.

SUMMARY: In response to requests from

Mitsuboshi Belting Limited (MBL) and

Nakamichi America Corporation

(Nakamichi), the respondents, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) initiated an administrative

review of the antidumping duty order

on industrial belts and components and

parts thereof, whether cured or uncured

(hereinafter referred to as industrial

belts), from Japan. Subsequently,

Nakamichi made a timely request to

withdraw its request for an

administrative review, and since there

were no other requests for review of

Nakamichi’s exports to the United

States, the Department is terminating its

1993/94 administrative review of

Nakamichi. Therefore, this review

covers one manufacturer/exporter, MBL,

during the period June 1, 1993, through

May 31, 1994.

As a result of this review, the

Department has preliminarily

determined to assess antidumping

duties for MBL based upon the best

information otherwise available (BIA).

Interested parties are invited to

comment on the preliminary results of

this administrative review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 8, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Charles Vannatta in the Office of

Antidumping Compliance; Import

Administration; International Trade

Administration; 14th & Constitution

Avenue, N.W.; U.S. Department of

Commerce; Washington, D.C. 20230;

telephone number (202) 482–5253.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute and to the

Department’s regulations are references