Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 83 / Monday, May 1, 1995 / Notices 21067

allegedly sold at less than fair value.

Therefore, we are initiating an

antidumping duty investigation to

determine whether imports of bicycles

from the PRC are being, or are likely to

be, sold in the United States at less than

fair value. Unless extended, we will

make our preliminary determination by

September 12, 1995.

Distribution of Copies of the Petition

In accordance with section

732(b)(3)(A) of the Act, copies of the

public version of the petition have been

provided to the representatives of the

PRC.

ITC Notification

We have notified the International

Trade Commission (ITC) of our

initiation, as required by section 732(d)

of the Act.

Preliminary Determination by the ITC

The ITC will determine by May 22,

1995, whether there is a reasonable

indication that imports of bicycles from

the PRC are causing material injury, or

threaten to cause material injury to, a

U.S. industry. A negative ITC

determination will result in the

investigation being terminated;

otherwise, this investigation will

proceed according to statutory and

regulatory time limits.

This notice is published pursuant to

section 732(c)(2) of the Act.

Dated: April 25, 1995.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 95–10647 Filed 4–28–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[A–429–601]

Solid Urea From the German

Democratic Republic; Preliminary

Results of Changed Circumstances

Review and Initiation of Changed

Circumstances Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of

changed circumstances review and

initiation of changed circumstances

antidumping duty administrative

review.

SUMMARY: On February 12, 1992, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) published in the Federal

Register (57 FR 5130) a notice of

initiation of a changed circumstances

review to examine the effect, if any, that

the reunification of Germany (by

combination of the former German

Democratic Republic (GDR) and the

Federal Republic of Germany (FRG))

had on the antidumping duty order

covering solid urea from the former GDR

(53 FR 2636). Specifically, we reviewed

the order’s applicability to postunification shipments of the subject

merchandise from producers located in

the pre-unification territory of the FRG.

The Department preliminarily

determines to maintain the order on

solid urea from the five German states

(Brandenburg, MecklenburgVorpommern, Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt,

and Thuringia (plus any other territory

included in the former GDR)) that

formerly constituted the GDR

(hereinafter ‘‘the Five States’’) and to

allow entry of shipments from the preunification territory of the FRG (the

remaining German states) without

regard to antidumping duties. We have

also determined that there is good cause

for conducting a second changed

circumstances review to calculate a new

cash deposit rate using a market

economy analysis for any shipments of

solid urea from the Five States occurring

after October 2, 1990 and before the

effective date of this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 1, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Wendy Frankel, Office of Antidumping

Compliance, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and

Constitution Avenue NW., Washington,

D.C. 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On July 14, 1987, the Department

published in the Federal Register (53

FR 2636) an antidumping duty order on

solid urea from the GDR that established

a cash deposit rate of 44.80 percent. On

October 3, 1990, the GDR and the preunification territory of the FRG were

unified into the single jurisdiction of the

Federal Republic of Germany. On

October 1, 1990, the U.S. Customs

Service issued instructions that it would

be appropriate to treat goods that would

have been considered products from the

former GDR, and were entered or

withdrawn from warehouse for

consumption on or after October 3,

1990, as products of the unified FRG for

customs purposes. In response, on

October 10, 1990, the Department

instructed the U.S. Customs Service to

suspend liquidation of all entries of

solid urea from the unified FRG but not

to collect cash deposits on solid urea

from any company located in what was

the pre-unification territory of the FRG.

Thus, entries of solid urea from the preunification territory of the FRG were

suspended at what was in effect a zero

cash deposit rate. We further instructed

U.S. Customs officials to continue

collecting cash deposits from

manufacturers located in what had been

the GDR.

On February 12, 1992, the Department

published in the Federal Register (57

FR 5130) the initiation of a changed

circumstances review on solid urea from

the former GDR (Notice of Initiation). At

the time of initiation, companies

producing solid urea in the preunification territory of the FRG were

shipping to the United States.

Accordingly, the Department initiated

its review to determine whether the

order on solid urea from the former GDR

is applicable to shipments from

producers located in the pre-unification

territory of the FRG.

Scope of the Review

Imports covered by this review are

those of solid urea. At the time of the

publication of the antidumping duty

order, such merchandise was

classifiable under item 480.30 of the

Tariff Schedules of the United States

Annotated (TSUSA). This merchandise

is currently classified under the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (HTS) item number

3102.10.00. These TSUSA and HTS item

numbers are provided for convenience

and Customs purposes only. The written

description remains dispositive.

Analysis

Although the Department normally

administers antidumping proceedings

on a country-by-country basis, neither

the statute, the regulations, nor the

GATT expressly require such an

approach. Indeed, as the Department

stated in connection with the special

circumstances surrounding the breakup

of the Soviet Union and its potential

effect on the then-pending antidumping

duty investigation concerning uranium,

the focus of the law is on merchandise,

not countries. See Postponement of

Preliminary Antidumping Duty

Determination; Uranium from the

Former Union of Soviet Socialist

Republics (USSR), 57 FR 11064 (1992)

(incorporating by reference,

memorandum from F. Sailer to A. Dunn

dated March 24, 1992); see also

Techsnabexport, Ltd. v. United States,

802 F. Supp. 469, 471–72 (Ct. Int’l Trade

1992).

In the present case, there are special

circumstances that justify maintaining

the subject order on the Five States, but

not on the remaining German states. The

geopolitical entity that was known as
21068 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 83 / Monday, May 1, 1995 / Notices

the GDR no longer exists. On October 3,

1990, the former GDR and the preunification territory of the FRG were

unified into the single jurisdiction of the

FRG. However, no less-than-fair-value

(LTFV) investigation or injury test

covering solid urea has been conducted

for producers located in the preunification territory of the FRG. Thus,

expansion of the order to the territory of

the unified FRG would raise serious

legal questions under the GATT and

U.S. law—both regimes contemplate the

assessment of antidumping duties only

after injury and LTFV determinations

that provide affected parties with

certain procedural safeguards, including

adequate notice and the opportunity to

comment.

By maintaining the order on solid

urea from the Five States, we believe we

are reaching a result that is consistent

with U.S. law and our international

obligations. First, this result comports

with the holding in the Techsnabexport

case. Specifically, it preserves,

notwithstanding the change in political

borders, the original geographic scope of

the order. 802 F. Supp. at 472–74.

Second, as noted above, nothing in the

GATT or U.S. law expressly precludes

the maintenance of a region- or

province-specific order where, as here,

the country originally subject to the

order has combined with another

country. Expansion of the order to cover

all shipments from the unified FRG, on

the other hand, would subject producers

to antidumping duties on merchandise

which was never covered by injury and

LTFV determinations at the

International Trade Commission and the

Department. Finally, revocation of the

order, while avoiding the concerns

raised by a country-wide order, would,

as a result of a change in government or

political borders, deprive the petitioners

of relief they sought and obtained. As in

the Techsnabexport case, 802 F. Supp.

at 472, where the breakup of the Soviet

Union did not justify the termination of

the then-pending antidumping duty

investigation of uranium, the change in

government and political borders in this

case does not provide a basis for

revocation of the order.

Preliminary Results

According, due to the unique

circumstances of this case, the

Department preliminarily determines

that the appropriate action is to

maintain the order and the existing

44.80 percent cash deposit rate on solid

urea from the five German states that

formerly constituted the GDR

(Brandenburg, MecklenburgVorpommern, Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt,

and Thuringia (plus any other territory

included in the former GDR)) and to

allow entry of shipments from the preunification territory of the FRG without

regard to antidumping duties.

Initiation of Changed Circumstances

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review

Pursuant to section 751(b) of the

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the

Tariff Act) and 19 CFR 353.22(f), the

Department may review a determination

whenever changed circumstances are

sufficient to warrant such a review. In

the instant case, the current cash

deposit rate is based upon the nonmarket economy analysis provided for

in section 773(c) of the Act. However,

the Department has determined that as

of October 3, 1990, producers located in

the five German states that formerly

constituted the GDR have been

operating in a market-oriented economy.

See Final Affirmative Countervailing

Duty Determinations; Certain Steel

Products from Germany, 58 FR 37315,

37324 (July 9, 1993).

Therefore, the Department is initiating

a second changed circumstances review

pursuant to section 751(b) of the Tariff

Act and 19 CFR 353.22(f). In the next

review, the Department will calculate a

new cash deposit rate using a market

economy analysis for any shipments of

solid urea from the Five States occurring

after October 2, 1990 and before the

effective date of this notice. See

Antidumping Duty Order and Initiation

of a Changed Circumstances

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon

Steel Plates from Poland, 58 FR 44166

(1993) (change from a non-market to

market economy justified a changed

circumstances review to calculate a new

cash deposit rate).

Suspension of Liquidation

The following deposit requirements

will be effective for all shipments of the

subject merchandise entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after publication

date of the final results of this changed

circumstances review, as provided for

by section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act. A

cash deposit of estimated antidumping

duties shall be required on shipments of

the subject merchandise as follows:

(1) No cash deposit will be required

for shipments of solid urea produced by

firms located in the pre-unification

territory of the FRG.

(2) The existing 44.80 percent cash

deposit rate will remain in effect,

pending the results of the second

changed circumstances review, for

shipments of solid urea produced by

firms located in the five German states

that formerly constituted the GDR

(Brandenburg, MecklenburgVorpommern, Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt,

and Thuringia (plus any other territory

included in the former GDR)).

Public Comment

Case briefs and/or written comments

from interested parties on the

preliminary results of this changed

circumstances review (initiated Feb. 12,

1992) may be submitted no later than 25

days after the date of publication of this

notice. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to

written comments, limited to issues

raised in those comments, may be filed

no later than 32 days after the date of

publication. All written comments shall

be submitted in accordance with 19 CFR

353.31(e) and shall be served on all

interested parties on the Department’s

service list in accordance with 19 CFR

353.31(g). Interested parties may also

request a hearing within ten days of the

date of publication of this notice. Any

hearing, if requested, will be held no

later than 39 days after the date of

publication of this notice. The

Department will publish the final

results of this changed circumstances

review, including the results of its

analysis of any written comments.

This administrative review and notice

are in accordance with section 751(b) of

the Tariff Act and 19 CFR 353.22(f).

Dated: April 21, 1995.

Paul L. Joffe,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 95–10638 Filed 4–28–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M

[C–333–402]

Certain Apparel from Peru; Notice of

Scope Amendment

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of amendment to the

existing conversion of the scope of the

order from the Tariff Schedules of the

United States annotated to the

harmonized tariff schedule.

SUMMARY: On January 1, 1989, the

United States fully converted to the

international harmonized system of

tariff classification. On January 11,

1989, the Department of Commerce (the

Department) published the Conversion

to Use of the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of Classifications for

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty

Proceedings (54 FR 993; January 11,

1989) (1989 Conversion) for all

antidumping and countervailing duty