24832 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 10, 1995 / Notices

Period

Sweden: Viscose Rayon Staple Fiber (C–401–056) ....................................................................................................... 01/01/94–12/31/94

Thailand: Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof (C–549–802) ................................................................................................ 01/01/94–12/31/94

Venezuela: Ferrosilicon (C–307–808) .............................................................................................................................. 01/01/94–12/31/94

In accordance with sections 353.22(a)

and 355.22(a) of the regulations, an

interested party as defined by section

353.2(k) may request in writing that the

Secretary conduct an administrative

review. For antidumping reviews, the

interested party must specify for which

individual producers or resellers

covered by an antidumping finding or

order it is requesting a review, and the

requesting party must state why it

desires the Secretary to review those

particular producers or resellers. If the

interested party intends for the

Secretary to review sales of merchandise

by a reseller (or a producer if that

producer also resells merchandise from

other suppliers) which were produced

in more than one country of origin, and

each country of origin is subject to a

separate order, then the interested party

must state specifically which reseller(s)

and which countries of origin for each

reseller the request is intended to cover.

Seven copies of the request should be

submitted to the Assistant Secretary for

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, Room B–009,

U.S. Department of Commerce,

Washington, D.C. 20230. The

Department also asks parties to serve a

copy of their requests to the Office of

Antidumping Compliance, Attention:

Pamela Woods, in room 3065 of the

main Commerce Building. Further, in

accordance with section 353.31(g) or

355.31(g) of the regulations, a copy of

each request must be served on every

party on the Department’s service list.

The Department will publish in the

Federal Register a notice of ‘‘Initiation

of Antidumping (Countervailing) Duty

Administrative Review,’’ for requests

received by May 31, 1995. If the

Department does not receive, by May

31, 1995, a request for review of entries

covered by an order or finding listed in

this notice and for the period identified

above, the Department will instruct the

Customs Service to assess antidumping

or countervailing duties on those entries

at a rate equal to the cash deposit of (or

bond for) estimated antidumping or

countervailing duties required on those

entries at the time of entry, or

withdrawal from warehouse, for

consumption and to continue to collect

the cash deposit previously ordered.

This notice is not required by statute,

but is published as a service to the

international trading community.

Dated: May 3, 1995.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Compliance.

[FR Doc. 95–11531 Filed 5–9–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M

[A–588–815]

Gray Portland Cement and Clinker

From Japan; Court of International

Trade Decision and Suspension of

Liquidation

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: On March 28, 1995, in the

case of Nihon Cement Co., Ltd. et al. v.

United States, Slip Op. 95–53 (Nihon),

the United States Court of International

Trade (CIT) affirmed the Department of

Commerce’s (the Department)

redetermination on remand of the

original investigation of the

antidumping duty order on gray

portland cement and clinker from Japan

(56 FR 21658, May 10, 1991).

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 10, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michelle Frederick or John Brinkmann,

Office of Antidumping Investigations,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce,

Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone

(202) 482–0186 or 482–5288,

respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On May 10, 1991, the Department

published in the Federal Register the

Antidumping Duty Order and

Amendment to Final Determination of

Gray Portland Cement and Clinker from

Japan. In that order, the Department set

forth its finding of weighted-average

margins for two companies during the

period of investigation (December 1,

1989 through May 31, 1990), and

announced its intent to instruct the U.S.

Customs Service to assess antidumping

duties on all appropriate entries.

Subsequent to this determination, the

two companies which were the subject

of the investigation filed lawsuits with

the CIT challenging the determination.

Thereafter the CIT issued an order and

Opinion dated May 25, 1993, in Nihon

Cement Co., et. al. v. United States,

Court No. 91–06–00425, Slip Op. 93–80

(May 25, 1993) remanding the

Department’s final determination so that

the Department could: (1) Recalculate

the United States price for Onoda

Cement Co.’s (Onoda) sales through

Lone Star Northwest’s Oregon division;

(2) articulate its underlying reasoning

regarding every element of 19 U.S.C.

section 1677(16)(B) (1988) in its product

comparison analysis; (3) recalculate the

dumping margin assigned to Nihon

Cement Co., Ltd. (Nihon) without

collapsing Nihon and the related

entities Myojo Cement Co., Ltd. and

Daiichi Cement Co., Ltd; and (4)

conduct a substantive investigation of

the service stations used by Onoda in its

home market distribution system.

On September 10, 1993, the

Department submitted its Final Remand

Results to the CIT. The defendantintervenor (the petitioner) subsequently

filed a motion requesting

reconsideration of the court’s order of

remand in light of the decision in The

Ad Hoc Committee of AX–NM–TX–FL

Producers of Gray Portland Cement v.

United States, 13 F.3d 398 (Fed. Cir.

1994) (Ad Hoc Committee). In that

decision, the Ad Hoc Committee court

held that the Department had no

inherent, ‘‘gap filling’’ authority to

adjust for home market pre-sale

movement expenses. Thus, the CIT

remanded the Department’s adjustment

for home market pre-sale movement

expenses for both Nihon and Onoda. In

performing the instant remands,

however, the CIT agreed with the

Department that the authority exists to

make such an adjustment to foreign

market value (FMV) under the

circumstance-of-sale provision of the

Department’s regulations (19 C.F.R.

353.56). Under this regulation, the

Department will make the adjustment to

FMV only if the expenses are

determined to be directly related to the

sales under investigation. To determine

whether pre-sale movement expenses

are direct, the Department examines the

respondent’s pre-sale warehousing

expenses because the pre-sale

movement charges incurred in

positioning the merchandise at the

warehouse are considered, for analytical

purposes, to be ‘‘inextricably linked’’ to

pre-sale warehousing expenses.

The Department’s remand

determination to deduct these home

market pre-sale movement expenses
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 10, 1995 / Notices 24833

from FMV with respect to Nihon was

affirmed because, consistent with 19

C.F.R. 353.56, these expenses were

demonstrated to be direct expenses.

Similarly, the Department’s remand

determination not to deduct the

expenses from FMV associated with

Onoda purchase price transactions was

affirmed because these expenses were

indirect expenses. With respect to

Onoda’s exporter’s sales price

comparisons, the court affirmed the

Department’s decision not to deduct

these from FMV, but to include them in

the pool of home market indirect

expenses to offset indirect expenses in

the U.S. market.

By order dated May 18, 1994, the CIT

vacated and dismissed the May 25,

1993, remand with regard to the

following issues: (1) The recalculation

of United States Price for Onoda’s sales

through Lone Star Northwest’s Oregon

division; (2) the articulation of the

Department’s underlying reasoning

regarding every element of 19 U.S.C.

1677(16)(B) (1988) in its product

comparison analysis; and (3) the

conducting of a substantive

investigation of the service stations used

by Onoda in its home market

distribution system.

On July 5, 1994, the Department

submitted its Final Results of

Redetermination Pursuant To Court

Remand for Nihon. On September 8,

1994, the Department submitted its

Final Results of Redetermination

Pursuant to Court Remand with regard

to Onoda and the ‘‘All Others’’ rate. The

parties subsequently filed comments

upon the results of the Department’s

remand determinations. The

Department responded to the parties’

comments on January 6, 1995,

requesting that the CIT again remand

this action in order to provide the

Department an opportunity to

reexamine the calculation of Nihon’s

margin by taking into account the

October 3, 1990, Supplemental

Response submitted by Nihon during

the original investigation. By order

dated January 19, 1995, the CIT

sustained the Department’s remand

determination with respect to the

calculation of Onoda’s margin, and

ordered this action remanded to the

Department for reconsideration of its

calculation of Nihon’s margin. The

Department submitted its Final Results

of Redetermination Pursuant To Court

Remand on February 16, 1995, that

determined a recalculated weightedaverage antidumping duty rate of 69.89

percent for Nihon, and 70.23 percent for

‘‘All Others.’’ Pursuant to the September

8, 1994, Final Results of

Redetermination Pursuant to Court

Remand, the revised weighted-average

antidumping rate for Onoda is 70.52

percent. The CIT, in Nihon, affirmed all

redeterminations and dismissed this

action on March 28, 1995.

Suspension of Liquidation

In its decision in Timken Co. v.

United States, Court No. 89–1489

(January 4, 1990) (Timken), the Federal

Circuit held that the Department must

publish a notice of a decision of the CIT

or the Federal Circuit which is not ‘‘in

harmony’’ with the Department’s

determination. Publication of this notice

fulfills this obligation. The Federal

Circuit also held that in such a case, the

Department must suspend liquidation

until there is a ‘‘conclusive’’ decision in

the action. The option of appealing this

decision is being weighed, and a

‘‘conclusive’’ decision can not be

reached until the opportunity to appeal

expires, or any appeal is decided by the

Federal Circuit. Therefore, the

Department will continue to suspend

liquidation pending the expiration of

the period to appeal or pending a final

decision of the Federal Circuit if Nihon

is appealed.

Date: May 4, 1995.

Paul L. Joffe,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 95–11529 Filed 5–9–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[C–412–811]

Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth

Carbon Steel Products From the

United Kingdom; Preliminary Results

of Countervailing Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Review.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

(the Department) is conducting an

administrative review of the

countervailing duty order on certain

hot-rolled lead and bismuth carbon steel

products from the United Kingdom. We

have preliminarily determined the net

subsidy to be 20.33 percent ad valorem

for Allied Steel and Wire Limited (ASW

Limited) and 7.03 percent ad valorem

for all other companies for the period

September 17, 1992 through December

31, 1992. We have preliminarily

determined the net subsidy to be 20.33

percent ad valorem for ASW Limited,

2.68 percent ad valorem for United

Engineering Steels (UES), and 9.76

percent ad valorem for all other

companies for the periods January 1,

1993 through January 14, 1993, and

March 22, 1993 through December 31,

1993. If the final results remain the

same as these preliminary results of

administrative review, we will instruct

U.S. Customs to assess countervailing

duties as indicated above.

Interested parties are invited to

comment on these preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 10, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dana Mermelstein, Melanie Brown or

Christopher Cassel, Office of

Countervailing Compliance, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

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

telephone: (202) 482–2786.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On March 22, 1993, the Department

published in the Federal Register (58

FR 15327) the countervailing duty order

on certain hot-rolled lead and bismuth

carbon steel products from the United

Kingdom. On March 4, 1994, the

Department published a notice of

‘‘Opportunity to Request an

Administrative Review’’ (59 FR 10368)

of this countervailing duty order. We

received a timely request for review

from UES, a respondent company.

We initiated the review, covering the

period September 17, 1992 through

December 31, 1993, on April 15, 1994

(59 FR 18099). The review covers two

manufacturers/exporters of the subject

merchandise and fifteen programs.

Applicable Statute and Regulations

The Department is conducting this

administrative review in accordance

with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of

1930, as amended (the Act). 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. However, references to the

Department’s Countervailing Duties;

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and

Request for Public Comments, (54 FR

23366; May 31, 1989) (Proposed

Regulations), are provided solely for

further explanation of the Department’s

countervailing duty practice. Although

the Department has withdrawn the

particular rulemaking proceeding

pursuant to which the Proposed

Regulations were issued, the subject

matter of these regulations is being

considered in connection with an

ongoing rulemaking proceeding which,