Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 110 / Thursday, June 7, 2001 / Notices 30699

LTFV investigation. These

requirements, when imposed, shall

remain in effect until publication of the

final results of the next administrative

review.

This new shipper review and notice

are published in accordance with

sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the

Act and 19 CFR 351.214.

Dated: May 31, 2001.

Faryar Shirzad,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 01–14380 Filed 6–6–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–580–831]

Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From the

Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results

of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of

antidumping duty administrative review

of stainless steel plate in coils from the

Republic of Korea.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

(‘‘the Department’’) is conducting an

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on stainless

steel plate in coils from the Republic of

Korea in response to a request from

respondent, Pohang Iron & Steel Co.,

Ltd. (‘‘POSCO’’). This review covers

imports of subject merchandise from

POSCO. The period of review (‘‘POR’’)

is November 4, 1998 through April 30,

2000.

Our preliminary results of review

indicate that respondent POSCO has

sold subject merchandise at less than

normal value (‘‘NV’’) during the POR. If

these preliminary results are adopted in

our final results of this administrative

review, we will instruct the U.S.

Customs Service to assess antidumping

duties on suspended entries for POSCO.

We invite interested parties to

comment on these preliminary results.

Parties who submit arguments in this

segment of the proceeding should also

submit with each argument (1) a

statement of the issue and (2) a brief

summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 7, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Brandon Farlander, Laurel LaCivita or

Rick Johnson, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–0182,

(202) 482–4243 or (202) 482–3818,

respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

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’s regulations are to

the regulations codified at 19 CFR part

351 (2000).

Background

On May 16, 2000, the Department

published in the Federal Register a

notice of ‘‘Opportunity to Request

Administrative Review’’ of the

antidumping duty order on stainless

steel plate in coils from the Republic of

Korea (65 FR 31141). On May 31, 2000,

petitioners (Allegheny Ludlum, AK

Steel Corporation (formerly Armco,

Inc.), J&L Specialty Steel, Inc., North

American Stainless, Butler-Armco

Independent Union, Zanesville Armco

Independent Union, and the United

Steelworkers of America, AFL–CIO/

CLC) and POSCO, a producer and

exporter of subject merchandise during

the POR, in accordance with 19 CFR

351.213(b)(1) and 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2),

respectively, requested an

administrative review of the

antidumping order covering the period

November 4, 1998, through April 30,

2000. On July 7, 2000, the Department

published in the Federal Register a

notice of initiation of administrative

review of this order (65 FR 41942).

Under section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act,

the Department may extend the

deadline for completion of an

administrative review if it determines

that it is not practicable to complete the

review within the statutory time limit.

On December 18, 2000, the Department

extended the time limit for the

preliminary results in this review to

March 19, 2001. See Stainless Steel

Plate in Coils From the Republic of

Korea: Extension of Time Limit for the

Preliminary Results of the Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review, 65 FR

81488 (December 26, 2000). On March

7, 2001, the Department extended the

time limit for the preliminary and final

results in this review. The preliminary

results are now due on May 31, 2001.

The final results are due 180 days after

the date of the publication of the

preliminary results. See Stainless Steel

Plate in Coils From the Republic of

Korea: Extension of Time Limit for the

Preliminary and Final Results of the

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 66 FR 14891 (March 14, 2001).

The Department is conducting this

administrative review in accordance

with section 751 of the Act.

Verification

As provided in section 782(i) of the

Act, we verified sales and cost

information provided by POSCO, from

February 2, 2001, to February 14, 2001,

and February 19, 2001, to February 23,

2001, respectively, using standard

verification procedures, including an

examination of relevant sales, cost, and

financial records, and selection of

original documentation containing

relevant information. Our verification

results are outlined in the public

version of the verification report and are

on file in the Central Records Unit

(‘‘CRU’’) located in room B–099 of the

main Department of Commerce

Building, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.

Scope of the Review

The product covered by this order is

certain stainless steel plate in coils.

Stainless steel is an alloy steel

containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or

less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more

of chromium, with or without other

elements. The subject plate products are

flat-rolled products, 254 mm or over in

width and 4.75 mm or more in

thickness, in coils, and annealed or

otherwise heat treated and pickled or

otherwise descaled. The subject plate

may also be further processed (e.g.,

cold-rolled, polished, etc.) provided that

it maintains the specified dimensions of

plate following such processing.

Excluded from the scope of this order is

the following: (1) Plate not in coils, (2)

plate that is not annealed or otherwise

heat treated and pickled or otherwise

descaled, (3) sheet and strip, and (4) flat

bars. In addition, certain cold-rolled

stainless steel plate in coils is also

excluded from the scope of this order.

The excluded cold-rolled stainless steel

plate in coils is defined as that

merchandise which meets the physical

characteristics described above that has

undergone a cold-reduction process that

reduced the thickness of the steel by 25

percent or more, and has been annealed

and pickled after this cold reduction

process.

The merchandise subject to this order

is currently classifiable in the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (HTS) at subheadings:

7219.11.00.30, 7219.11.00.60,

30700 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 110 / Thursday, June 7, 2001 / Notices

7219.12.00.06, 7219.12.00.21,

7219.12.00.26, 7219.12.00.51,

7219.12.00.56, 7219.12.00.66,

7219.12.00.71, 7219.12.00.81,

7219.90.00.10, 7219.90.00.20,

7219.90.00.25, 7219.90.00.60,

7219.90.00.80, 7220.11.00.00,

7220.90.00.10, 7220.90.00.15,

7220.90.00.60, and 7220.90.00.80.

Although the HTS subheadings are

provided for convenience and Customs

purposes, the written description of the

scope of the orders is dispositive.

Normal Value Comparisons

To determine whether POSCO’s sales

of subject merchandise from South

Korea to the United States were made at

less than fair value, we compared the

constructed export price (‘‘CEP’’) to the

NV, as described in the ‘‘Constructed

Export Price’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’

sections of this notice, below. In

accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of

the Act, we calculated monthly

weighted-average prices for NV and

compared these to individual CEP

transactions. We made corrections to

reported U.S. and home market sales

data based on the Department’s findings

at verification, as appropriate.

Transactions Reviewed

We compared the aggregate volume of

POSCO’s home market sales of the

foreign like product and U.S. sales of

the subject merchandise to determine

whether the volume of the foreign like

product POSCO sold in South Korea

was sufficient, pursuant to section

773(a)(1)(C) of the Act, to form a basis

for NV. Because POSCO’s volume of

home market sales of the foreign like

product was greater than five percent of

its U.S. sales of subject merchandise, in

accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i)

of the Act, we have based the

determination of NV upon POSCO’s

home market sales of the foreign like

product. Thus, we based NV on the

prices at which the foreign like product

was first sold for consumption in South

Korea, in the usual commercial

quantities, in the ordinary course of

trade, and, to the extent possible, at the

same level of trade (‘‘LOT’’) as the CEP

sales.

Product Comparisons

In accordance with section 771(16) of

the Act, we considered all products

covered by the Scope of the Review

section above, which were produced

and sold by the POSCO in the home

market during the POR, to be foreign

like products for purposes of

determining appropriate comparisons to

U.S. sales. Where there were no sales of

identical merchandise in the home

market to compare to U.S. sales, we

compared U.S. sales to the next most

similar foreign like product on the basis

of the characteristics and reporting

instructions listed in the Department’s

questionnaire.

Export Price and Constructed Export

Price

In accordance with section 772(a) of

the Act, export price is the price at

which the subject merchandise is first

sold (or agreed to be sold) before the

date of importation by the producer or

exporter of the subject merchandise

outside of the United States to an

unaffiliated purchaser in the United

States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for

exportation to the United States, as

adjusted under subsection (c). In

accordance with section 772(b) of the

Act, constructed export price is the

price at which the subject merchandise

is first sold (or agreed to be sold) in the

United States before or after the date of

importation by or for the account of the

producer or exporter of such

merchandise or by a seller affiliated

with the producer or exporter, to a

purchaser not affiliated with the

producer or exporter, as adjusted under

subsections (c) and (d). For purposes of

this review, POSCO has classified its

sales as export price (‘‘EP’’) sales.

However, after an analysis of POSCO’s

information on the record, we

preliminarily determine that POSCO’s

sales should be classified as constructed

export price sales.

POSCO identified two channels of

distribution for U.S. sales. For U.S. sales

channel one (i.e., POSCO sales through

Pohang Steel America Corp.

(‘‘POSAM’’), POSCO’s wholly owned

U.S. subsidiary, to an unaffiliated

customer in the United States) and for

U.S. sales channel two (i.e., POSCO

sales through POSCO Steel Sales &

Services Co., Ltd. (‘‘POSTEEL’’),

POSCO’s affiliated trading company in

South Korea, to POSAM, POSCO’s

wholly owned U.S. subsidiary, and

finally, to an unaffiliated customer in

the United States), we based our

calculation on CEP, in accordance with

subsections 772(b), (c), and (d) of the

Act, for those sales to the first

unaffiliated purchaser that took place

after importation into the United States.

As noted above, POSCO has indicated

that sales through channels one and two

should be treated as EP sales. Based on

the information on the record, however,

we preliminarily determine that such

sales are CEP sales. First, POSCO stated

that POSAM, and not POSCO, bears the

credit risk on all subject sales to the

unaffiliated U.S. customers. See

POSCO’s October 2, 2000, Section A

supplemental questionnaire response, at

15. Second, POSAM takes title to the

subject merchandise and, when it sold

the subject merchandise to the

unaffiliated U.S. customer, POSAM

issued an invoice to the U.S. customer.

See POSCO’s October 2, 2000, Section A

supplemental questionnaire response, at

10. Based upon all the information on

the record, we find that sales in both

channels must be considered as having

taken place in the United States. These

facts were also present in the original

less than fair value investigation in

which we determined POSCO’s sales

through POSAM to be CEP sales (see

Notice of Final Determination of Sales

at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel

Plate in Coils (‘‘SSPC’’) from the

Republic of Korea, 64 FR 15443, 15453

(March 31, 1999)). Therefore, we

determine that POSCO’s sales are

appropriately classified as CEP sales.

We calculated CEP based on packed

prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the

United States. We made deductions for

movement expenses in accordance with

section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; these

included, where appropriate, foreign

inland freight from the plant to the port

of export, foreign brokerage and Korean

customs clearance fees, international

freight, marine insurance, U.S. customs

duty, and U.S. brokerage and wharfage

expenses (classified as other U.S.

transportation expenses). Also, in

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

the Act, we deducted packing expenses

because packing expenses are included

in the constructed export price. In

accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the

Act, we deducted those selling expenses

associated with economic activities

occurring in the United States,

including direct selling expenses

(imputed credit expenses, postage and

term credit expenses, and letter of credit

and remittance expenses) and indirect

selling expenses, including inventory

carrying costs. For POSAM’s indirect

selling expenses, we adjusted POSCO’s

imputed credit expense calculation to

include only the sum of POSAM’s

imputed credit expenses as an offset, as

reported in POSCO’s Section C U.S.

sales database. For CEP sales, we also

made an adjustment for profit in

accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the

Act. Additionally, we added to the U.S.

price an amount for duty drawback

pursuant to section 772(c)(1)(B) of the

Act.

Normal Value

After testing home market viability

and whether home market sales were at

below-cost prices, we calculated NV as

noted in the ‘‘Price-to-Price

Comparisons’’ and ‘‘Price-toVerDate 11<MAY>2000 16:52 Jun 06, 2001 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07JNN1.SGM pfrm04 PsN: 07JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 110 / Thursday, June 7, 2001 / Notices 30701

Constructed Value (‘‘CV’’) Comparison’’

sections of this notice.

Cost of Production (‘‘COP’’) Analysis

Because the Department determined

that POSCO made sales in the home

market at prices below the cost of

producing the subject merchandise in

the investigation and therefore excluded

such sales from normal value (see, e.g.,

Notice of Final Determination of Sales

at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel

Plate in Coils from the Republic of

Korea, 64 FR 15446 (March 31, 1999)),

the Department determined that there

are reasonable grounds to believe or

suspect that POSCO made sales in the

home market at prices below the cost of

producing the merchandise in this

review. See section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of

the Act. As a result, the Department

initiated a cost of production inquiry in

this case on July 10, 2000, to determine

whether POSCO made home market

sales during the POR at prices below

their respective COPs within the

meaning of section 773(b) of the Act.

We conducted the COP analysis

described below.

A. Calculation of COP

In accordance with section 773(b)(3)

of the Act, we calculated COP based on

the sum of POSCO’s cost of materials

and fabrication for the foreign like

product, plus amounts for home market

selling, general and administrative

expenses (‘‘SG&A’’), interest expenses,

and packing costs. We used home

market sales and COP information

provided by POSCO in its questionnaire

responses, with the following

exceptions:

1. POSCO purchased a major input

from an affiliate and used the input’s

transfer prices in its calculation of COP

and CV. For the preliminary results, we

have increased the transfer price of

these purchases to a market price in

accordance with section 773(f)(2) and

(3) of the Act. This major input is

business proprietary information. See

the May 31, 2001, memo to Neal Halper,

Director, Office of Accounting

(proprietary version).

2. In 1999, POSCO wrote off all of its

deferred foreign exchange losses

through retained earnings. POSCO

originally capitalized these losses with

the intention of recognizing the loss

over time on its income statement.

Subsequently, POSCO expensed these

deferred losses directly to equity in

1999. Therefore, we adjusted POSCO’s

reported COP to include the entire

amount of the remaining deferred

foreign exchange losses. See the May 31,

2001, memo to Neal Halper, Director,

Office of Accounting (proprietary

version).

3. We adjusted POSCO’s reported

foreign exchange ratio to include gains

and losses associated with cash and

‘‘other’’ accounts in the numerator. See

the May 31, 2001, memo to Neal Halper,

Director, Office of Accounting

(proprietary version).

B. Test of Home Market Prices

We compared the weighted-average

COP from January 1, 1999, through

March 31, 2000 (‘‘cost reporting

period’’) for POSCO, adjusted where

appropriate (see above), to its home

market sales of the foreign like product

as required under section 773(b) of the

Act. In determining whether to

disregard home market sales made at

prices less than the COP, we examined

whether: (1) within an extended period

of time, such sales were made in

substantial quantities; and (2) such sales

were made at prices which permitted

the recovery of all costs within a

reasonable period of time.

C. Results of the COP Test

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the

Act, where less than 20 percent of a

respondent’s sales of a given product

within an extended period of time are

at prices less than the COP, we do not

disregard any below-cost sales of that

product because the below-cost sales are

not made in ‘‘substantial quantities.’’

Where 20 percent or more of a

respondent’s sales of a given product

during the extended period are at prices

less than the COP, we determine such

sales to have been made in ‘‘substantial

quantities.’’ See section 773(b)(2)(C)(i)

of the Act. The extended period of time

for this analysis is the POR. See section

773(b)(2)(B) of the Act. Because each

individual price was compared against

the weighted average COP for the cost

reporting period, any sales that were

below cost were also at prices which did

not permit cost recovery within a

reasonable period of time. See section

773(b)(2)(D). We compared the COP for

subject merchandise to the reported

home market prices less any applicable

movement charges. Based on this test,

we disregarded below-cost sales. Where

all sales of a specific product were at

prices below the COP, we disregarded

all sales of that product.

D. Calculation of CV

In accordance with section 773(e)(1)

of the Act, we calculated POSCO’s CV

based on the sum of POSCO’s cost of

materials, fabrication, SG&A, interest

expenses and profit. We calculated the

COPs included in the calculation of CV

as noted above in the ‘‘Calculation of

COP’’ section of this notice. In

accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of

the Act, we based SG&A and profit on

the amounts incurred and realized by

POSCO in connection with the

production and sale of the foreign like

product in the ordinary course of trade,

for consumption in the foreign country.

Price-to-Price Comparisons

We based NV on the home market

prices to unaffiliated purchasers and

those affiliated customer sales which

passed the arm’s length test. We made

adjustments, where appropriate, for

physical differences in the merchandise

in accordance with section

773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act.

We calculated NV based on the home

market prices to unaffiliated home

market customers. We made

adjustments, where applicable, for

movement expenses (i.e., inland freight

from plant to distribution warehouse,

warehousing expense, and inland

freight from either plant/distribution

warehouse to customer) in accordance

with section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. We

made circumstance-of-sale adjustments

or deductions for credit, warranty

expense and interest revenue, where

appropriate. In accordance with section

773(a)(6), we deducted home market

packing costs and added U.S. packing

costs. Also, we added to NV an amount

for duty drawback.

Price-to-CV Comparisons

In accordance with section 773(a)(4)

of the Act, we base NV on CV if we are

unable to find suitable home market

sales of the foreign like product. Where

applicable, we would make adjustments

to CV in accordance with section

773(a)(8) of the Act. We did not use CV

for POSCO for these preliminary results

of review.

Level of Trade

In accordance with section

773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent

practicable, we determine NV based on

sales in the comparison market at the

same level of trade (‘‘LOT’’) as the EP or

CEP transaction. The NV LOT is that of

the starting-price sales in the

comparison market or, when NV is

based on CV, that of the sales from

which we derive SG&A expenses and

profit. For EP, the LOT is also the level

of the starting-price sale, which is

usually from the exporter to the

importer. For CEP, it is the level of the

constructed sale from the exporter to the

affiliated importer.

To determine whether NV sales are at

a different LOT than EP or CEP sales, we

examine stages in the marketing process

and selling functions along the chain of

30702 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 110 / Thursday, June 7, 2001 / Notices

distribution between the producer and

the unaffiliated customer. If the

comparison market sales are at a

different LOT, and the difference affects

price comparability, as manifested in a

pattern of consistent price differences

between the sales on which NV is based

and comparison-market sales at the LOT

of the export transaction, we make an

LOT adjustment under section

773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, for CEP

sales, if the NV level is more remote

from the factory than the CEP level and

there is no basis for determining

whether the differences in the levels

between NV and CEP sales affect price

comparability, we adjust NV under

section 773(A)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEP

offset provision). See Notice of Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Certain Carbon Steel Plate

from South Africa, 62 FR 61731

(November 19, 1997).

In the present review, POSCO

requested a LOT adjustment or a CEP

offset if the Department determines that

POSCO’s sales through POSAM are CEP

sales. (As noted above, we have

preliminarily determined that all of

POSCO’s U.S. sales through POSAM are

CEP sales.) To determine whether an

adjustment was necessary, in

accordance with the principles

discussed above, we examined

information regarding the distribution

systems in both the United States and

South Korean markets, including the

selling functions, classes of customer,

and selling expenses.

In both the home market (‘‘HM’’) and

U.S. market, POSCO reported one level

of trade. See POSCO’s August 14, 2000,

Section A response, at A–11–12. POSCO

sold through two channels of

distribution in the HM: (1) Directly from

its mill to unaffiliated end-users/OEM’s

and affiliated and unaffiliated service

centers; and (2) through POSTEEL to

unaffiliated end-users/OEM’s and

unaffiliated service centers. POSCO sold

through two channels of distribution in

the U.S. market: (1) Through POSAM to

unaffiliated trading companies; and (2)

through POSTEEL to POSAM, and then

to unaffiliated trading companies.

For sales in HM channel one, POSCO

performed all sales-related activities,

including arranging for freight and

delivery; providing computerized

accounting and sales systems; market

research; warranty; sales negotiation;

after-sales service; quality control; and

extending credit. The same selling

functions were performed in HM

channel two; however, it was POSTEEL,

not POSCO, which performed all the

major selling functions. Because these

selling functions are similar for both

sales channels, we preliminarily

determine that there is one LOT in the

home market.

For U.S. sales through either channel

one or two, POSCO or POSTEEL

performed many of the same major

selling functions, such as freight and

delivery; market research; warranty;

sales negotiation; after-sales service; and

quality control. In addition, for all U.S.

sales, POSAM performed several salesrelated activities, such as invoicing

customers; extending credit; acting as

importer of record; and paying U.S.

Customs duties and wharfage. Because

these selling functions are similar for

both sales channels, we preliminarily

determine that there is one LOT in the

U.S. market.

Based on our analysis of the selling

functions performed for sales in the HM

and CEP sales in the U.S. market, we

preliminarily determine that, despite

the additional selling functions (i.e.,

serving as importer of record, paying

U.S. Customs duties and wharfage,

arranging import documents) performed

by POSAM on POSCO’s U.S. sales, there

is not a significant difference in the

selling functions performed in the home

market and U.S. market and that these

sales are made at the same LOT.

Therefore, a LOT adjustment or CEP

offset is not appropriate.

Preliminary Results of Review

As a result of our review, we

preliminarily determine that the

following weighted-average dumping

margin exists for the period November

4, 1998 through April 30, 2000:

Manufacturer/exporter/reseller Margin

(percent)

POSCO ..................................... 1.56

The Department will disclose

calculations performed within five days

of the date of publication of this notice

to the parties to this proceeding in

accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). An

interested party may request a hearing

within 30 days of publication of these

preliminary results. See 19 CFR

351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested,

will be held 37 days after the date of

publication, or the first working day

thereafter. Interested parties may submit

case briefs and/or written comments no

later than 30 days after the date of

publication of these preliminary results

of review. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals

to written comments, limited to issues

raised in such briefs or comments, may

be filed no later than 37 days after the

date of publication. Further, we would

appreciate it if parties submitting

written comments also provide the

Department with an additional copy of

those comments on diskette. The

Department will issue the final results

of this administrative review, which

will include the results of its analysis of

issues raised in any such comments,

within 120 days of publication of these

preliminary results.

Assessment

Upon issuance of the final results of

this review, the Department shall

determine, and the U.S. Customs

Service shall assess, antidumping duties

on all appropriate entries. In accordance

with 19 CFR 351.212(b), we have

calculated exporter/importer-specific

assessment rates. We divided the total

dumping margins for the reviewed sales

by the total entered value of those

reviewed sales for each importer. We

will direct the U.S. Customs Service to

assess the resulting percentage margin

against the entered customs values for

the subject merchandise on each of that

importer’s entries under the relevant

order during the review period. Upon

completion of this review, the

Department will issue appraisement

instructions directly to the Customs

Service.

Cash Deposit

The following cash deposit

requirements will be effective upon

publication of these final results for all

shipments of the subject merchandise

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after the

publication date of these final results of

administrative review, as provided by

section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash

deposit rate for the reviewed company

will be the rate listed above (except that

if the rate for a particular product is de

minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent, a

cash deposit rate of zero will be

required for that company); (2) for

previously 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 less than fair value (‘‘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) the cash deposit

rate for all other manufacturers or

exporters will continue to be the ‘‘all

others’’ rate of 16.26 percent, which is

the all others rate established in the

LTFV investigation. These deposit

requirements, when imposed, shall

remain in effect until publication of the

final results of the next administrative

review.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 110 / Thursday, June 7, 2001 / Notices 30703

Notification to Interested Parties

This notice also serves as a

preliminary reminder to importers of

their responsibility under 19 CFR

351.402(f)(2) 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 the antidumping

duties occurred and the subsequent

assessment of double antidumping

duties.

This notice also serves as a reminder

to parties subject to administrative

protective orders (APOs) of their

responsibility concerning the

disposition of proprietary information

disclosed under APO in accordance

with 19 CFR 351.305, that continues to

govern business proprietary information

in this segment of the proceeding.

Timely written notification of the

return/destruction of APO materials or

conversion to judicial protective order is

hereby requested. Failure to comply

with the regulations and the terms of an

APO is a sanctionable violation.

This determination is issued and

published in accordance with sections

751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Dated: May 31, 2001.

Faryar Shirzad,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 01–14382 Filed 6–6–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

Quarterly Update to Annual Listing of

Foreign Government Subsidies on

Articles of Cheese Subject to an InQuota Rate of Duty

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Publication of quarterly update

to annual listing of foreign government

subsidies on articles of cheese subject to

an in-quota rate of duty.

SUMMARY: The Department of

Commerce, in consultation with the

Secretary of Agriculture, has prepared

its quarterly update to the annual list of

foreign government subsidies on articles

of cheese subject to an in-quota rate of

duty during the period January 1, 2001

through March 31, 2001. We are

publishing the current listing of those

subsidies that we have determined exist.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 7, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Tipten Troidl, Office of AD/CVD

Enforcement VI, Group II, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20230,

telephone: (202) 482–2786.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section

702(a) of the Trade Agreements Act of

1979 (as amended) (the Act) requires the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) to determine, in

consultation with the Secretary of

Agriculture, whether any foreign

government is providing a subsidy with

respect to any article of cheese subject

to an in-quota rate of duty, as defined

in section 702(g)(b)(4) of the Act, and to

publish an annual list and quarterly

updates of the type and amount of those

subsidies. We hereby provide the

Department’s quarterly update of

subsidies on cheeses that were imported

during the period January 1, 2001

through March 31, 2001.

The Department has developed, in

consultation with the Secretary of

Agriculture, information on subsidies

(as defined in section 702(g)(b)(2) of the

Act) being provided either directly or

indirectly by foreign governments on

articles of cheese subject to an in-quota

rate of duty. The appendix to this notice

lists the country, the subsidy program or

programs, and the gross and net

amounts of each subsidy for which

information is currently available.

The Department will incorporate

additional programs which are found to

constitute subsidies, and additional

information on the subsidy programs

listed, as the information is developed.

The Department encourages any

person having information on foreign

government subsidy programs which

benefit articles of cheese subject to an

in-quota rate of duty to submit such

information in writing to the Assistant

Secretary for Import Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20230.

This determination and notice are in

accordance with section 702(a) of the

Act.

Dated: May 31, 2001.

Faryar Shirzad,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

APPENDIX—SUBSIDY PROGRAMS ON CHEESE SUBJECT TO AN IN-QUOTA RATE OF DUTY

Country Program(s)

Gross 1

Subsidy

($/lb)

Net 2 Subsidy

($/lb)

Austria ............................................................................... European Union Restitution Payments ............................ 0.14 0.14

Belgium ............................................................................. EU Restitution Payments ................................................. 0.05 0.05

Canada .............................................................................. Export Assistance on Certain Types of Cheese .............. 0.23 0.23

Denmark ............................................................................ EU Restitution Payments ................................................. 0.05 0.05

Finland .............................................................................. EU Restitution Payments ................................................. 0.17 0.17

France ............................................................................... EU Restitution Payments ................................................. 0.10 0.10

Germany ........................................................................... EU Restitution Payments ................................................. 0.08 0.08

Greece .............................................................................. EU Restitution Payments ................................................. 0.00 0.00

Ireland ............................................................................... EU Restitution Payments ................................................. 0.06 0.06

Italy .................................................................................... EU Restitution Payments ................................................. 0.10 0.10

Luxembourg ...................................................................... EU Restitution Payments ................................................. 0.07 0.07

Netherlands ....................................................................... EU Restitution Payments ................................................. 0.04 0.04

Norway .............................................................................. Indirect (Milk) Subsidy ...................................................... 0.28 0.28

Consumer Subsidy ........................................................... 0.13 0.13

Total ........................................................................... ........................................................................................... 0.41 0.41

Portugal ............................................................................. EU Restitution Payments ................................................. 0.05 0.05

Spain ................................................................................. EU Restitution Payments ................................................. 0.04 0.04

Switzerland ........................................................................ Deficiency Payments ........................................................ 0.16 0.16