Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 6, 1995 / Notices 62389

VAT on expenses is deducted from

FMV, the petitioner argues that the

alleged error has the effect of lowering

FMV and thereby improperly decreasing

Excel’s margin.

Excel contends that it would be

incorrect to include commissions in the

calculation of U.S. expenses because

commissions were not included in the

calculation of the VAT amount that was

added to U.S. price. If the Department

were to include commissions in the

equation for U.S. expenses, Excel argues

that the Department should also include

commissions in the calculation of the

VAT amount that is added to U.S. price.

DOC Position

In accordance with the CAFC decision

(see the ‘‘United States Price’’ section of

this notice), the Department has

changed its VAT calculation

methodology. Therefore, the comments

made by the petitioner and Excel are

moot.

Comment 2: Pulton’s Dumping Margin

Pulton states that the Department’s

preliminary results correctly indicated

that Pulton reported no U.S. sales

during this review period. However,

Pulton contends that the Department

incorrectly cited the dumping margin

from the most recent review when

Pulton had U.S. sales. Instead of the rate

of 0.01 percent published by the

Department, Pulton contends the rate

should be 0.00 percent (see 58 FR

52264, 52267 (October 7, 1993)).

DOC Position

We agree with Pulton and have

corrected this inadvertent error for these

final results.

Final Results of Review

As a result of our analysis of the

comments received, we determine that

the following weighted-average margins

exist for the April 1, 1992 through

March 31, 1993 period:

Manufacturer/exporter Margin

(percent)

Hitachi ........................................... 112.68

Izumi ............................................. 0.52

Pulton ............................................ 10.00

Excel ............................................. 0.10

All Others ...................................... 15.92

1 No sales during the period. Rate is from

the last period in which there were sales.

The Department shall determine, and

the Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. Individual differences between

USP and FMV may vary from the

percentages stated above. The

Department will issue appraisement

instructions directly to the Customs

Service.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective for all

shipments of roller chain, other than

bicycle, from Japan 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 Tariff Act: (1)

The cash deposit rates for Pulton and

Excel will be zero because the margins

for these firms are zero or de minimus.

The cash deposit rates for Izumi and

Hitachi will be 0.52 and 12.68 percent,

respectively; (2) for merchandise

exported by manufacturers or exporters

not covered in this review but covered

in previous reviews or the original lessthan-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, the

cash deposit rate will continue to be the

rate published in the most recent final

results or determination for which the

manufacturer or exporter received a

company-specific rate; (3) if the exporter

is not a firm covered in this review,

earlier review, or the LTFV

investigation, but the manufacturer is,

the cash deposit rate will be that

established for the manufacturer of the

merchandise in the final results of this

review, earlier reviews, or the LTFV

investigation, whichever is the most

recent; (4) if neither the exporter nor the

manufacturer is a firm covered in this or

any previous review conducted by the

Department, the cash deposit rate will

be the ‘‘new shipper’’ rate established in

the first review conducted by the

Department in which a ‘‘new shipper’’

rate was established, as discussed

below.

On May 25, 1993, the CIT in Floral

Trade Council v. United States, 822 F.

Supp. 766 (CIT 1993), and FederalMogul Corporation and the Torrington

Company v. United States, 822 F. Supp.

782 (CIT 1993), decided that once an

‘‘all others’’ rate is established for a

company it can only be changed

through an administrative review. The

Department has determined that in

order to implement these decisions, it is

appropriate to reinstate the ‘‘all others’’

rate from the LTFV investigation (or that

rate as amended for correction of

clerical errors or as a result of litigation)

in proceedings governed by

antidumping duty orders. In

proceedings governed by antidumping

findings, unless we are able to ascertain

the ‘‘all others’’ rate from the Treasury

LTFV investigation, the Department has

determined that it is appropriate to

adopt the ‘‘new shipper’’ rate

established in the first final results of

administrative review published by the

Department (or that rate as amended for

correction of clerical errors or as a result

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

the purposes of establishing cash

deposits in all current and future

administrative reviews.

Because this proceeding is governed

by an antidumping finding, and we are

unable to ascertain the ‘‘all others’’ rate

from the Treasury LTFV investigation,

the ‘‘all others’’ rate for the purposes of

this review would normally be the ‘‘new

shipper’’ rate established in the first

notice of final results of administrative

review published by the Department (46

FR 44488, September 4, 1981). However,

a ‘‘new shipper’’ rate was not

established in that notice. Therefore, the

‘‘all others’’ rate of 15.92 percent comes

from Roller Chain, Other Than Bicycle,

from Japan, Final Results of

Administrative Review of Antidumping

Finding, 48 FR 51801 (November 14,

1983), the first review conducted by the

Department in which a ‘‘new shipper’’

rate was established.

These deposit requirements, when

imposed, shall remain in effect until

publication of the final results of the

next administrative review.

This notice also serves as a final

reminder to importers of their

responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26 to

file a certificate regarding the

reimbursement of antidumping duties

prior to liquidation of the relevant

entries during this review period.

Failure to comply with this requirement

could result in the Secretary’s

presumption that reimbursement of

antidumping duties occurred and the

subsequent assessment of double

antidumping duties.

This notice also serves as the only

reminder to parties subject to

administrative protective order (APO) of

their responsibility concerning the

disposition of proprietary information

disclosed under APO in accordance

with 19 CFR 353.34(d). Timely written

notification of return/destruction of

APO materials or conversion to judicial

protective order is hereby requested.

Failure to comply with the regulations

and terms of the APO is a sanctionable

violation.

This administrative review and notice

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

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

and 19 CFR 353.22.

Dated: November 29, 1995

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 95–29728 Filed 12–5–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
62390 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 6, 1995 / Notices

Applications for Duty-Free Entry of

Scientific Instruments

Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the

Educational, Scientific and Cultural

Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub.

L. 89–651; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part

301), we invite comments on the

question of whether instruments of

equivalent scientific value, for the

purposes for which the instruments

shown below are intended to be used,

are being manufactured in the United

States.

Comments must comply with 15 CFR

301.5(a)(3) and (4) of the regulations and

be filed within 20 days with the

Statutory Import Programs Staff, U.S.

Department of Commerce, Washington,

D.C. 20230. Applications may be

examined between 8:30 A.M. and 5:00

P.M. in Room 4211, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

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

Docket Number: 95–106. Applicant:

Pennsylvania State University,

Department of Chemistry, 152 Davey

Laboratory, University Park, PA 16802.

Instrument: Cold Stage for Time-ofFlight SIMS. Manufacturer: Kore

Technology, Ltd., United Kingdom.

Intended Use: The instrument will be

used for studies of organic, inorganic

and biological solids to determine

whether a certain biological molecule is

bound inside or outside the nucleus of

a frozen biological cell. Application

Accepted by Commissioner of Customs:

October 24, 1995.

Docket Number: 95–107. Applicant:

U.S. Department of Commerce, National

Institute of Standards and Technology,

Bldg. 222, Rm A113, Gaithersburg, MD

20899. Instrument: Electron Microscope,

Model CM300. Manufacturer: Philips,

The Netherlands. Intended Use: The

instrument will be used to study the

chemical and crystallographic

composition, morphology, and their

related spatial placement of a variety of

inorganic and organic materials, such as

ceramics, metals, minerals, and

polymers. Application Accepted by

Commissioner of Customs: October 26,

1995.

Docket Number: 95–108. Applicant:

VA Medical Center of Gainesville, 1601

SW Archer Road, Gainesville, FL 32608-

1197. Instrument: Electron Microscope,

Model CM100. Manufacturer: Philips,

The Netherlands. Intended Use: The

instrument will be used for studies of

tissue from different organs, cultured

cells, and cell blocks prepared from

body cavity fluids. The studies will

involve investigations of cell

characterizations such as cytoplasmic

membrane projections, presence or

absence of cell junctions, type of

junctions, and cytoplasmic organelles at

the ultrastructural level to differentiate

between cell types and their origin. In

addition, the instrument will be used for

training pathology residents.

Application Accepted by Commissioner

of Customs: October 26, 1995.

Docket Number: 95–109. Applicant:

University of California, Room 301,

McCone Hall, Berkeley, CA 94720.

Instrument: Energy Dispersive

Spectrometer. Manufacturer: Oxford

Instruments, United Kingdom. Intended

Use: The instrument will be used for

studies of various materials including

mineral grain separates, whole rock thin

sections, soil particles, meteorites,

archeological artifacts, experimental

glass and crystalline charges, volcanic

ashes, rare earth semiconductors,

superconducting oxides, silicide and

nitride ceramics, and super alloys. In

addition, the instrument will be used for

educational purposes in the course

Geology 401. Application Accepted by

Commissioner of Customs: October 25,

1995.

Docket Number: 95–110. Applicant:

National Institute of Standards and

Technology, Quince Orchard Road,

Gaithersburg, MD 20899. Instrument:

Mass Spectrometer, Model JMS-700.

Manufacturer: JEOL, Japan. Intended

Use: The instrument will be used for the

quantitative and qualitative

determination of compounds of

biomedical interest in complex matrices

through studies of the properties of

concentration, molecular weight,

molecular structure, and ion structure.

Application Accepted by Commissioner

of Customs: October 26, 1995.

Docket Number: 95–111. Applicant:

University of Wisconsin-Madison,

Integrated Microscopy Resource, 1525

Linden Drive, Madison, WI 53706.

Instrument: Mode-locked Solid State

Laser. Manufacturer: Microlase Optical

Systems, Ltd., United Kingdom.

Intended Use: The instrument will be

used as a fluorescence excitation source

for the study of the dynamics of the

internal cellular architecture of living

biological specimens. The objective of

these experimental observations is to

understand how the internal machinery

of a cell functions during development.

In addition, the instrument will be used

in courses for advanced microscopy

techniques for undergraduates, graduate

students and visiting academic research

workers. Application Accepted by

Commissioner of Customs: October 26,

1995.

Docket Number: 95–112. Applicant:

The Scripps Research Institute, 10666

North Torrey Pines Road, La Jolla, CA

92037. Instrument: Electron Microscope,

Model CM100. Manufacturer: Philips,

The Netherlands. Intended Use: The

instrument will be used for electron

microscopic studies of the structure of

the following biological materials which

have been isolated from various plants

and tissue and culture cells: (1)

endoplasmic reticulum and Golgi

membranes, (2) plant cells, (3) actin

cytoskeletal complexes, (4) nuclear

envelope membranes, (5) plasma

membranes, and (6) clathin, dynamin,

and GAP junctions. Application

Accepted by Commissioner of Customs:

October 16, 1995.

Frank W. Creel

Director, Statutory Import Programs Staff

[FR Doc. 95–29729 Filed 12–5–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–F

Indiana University Medical Center,

Notice of Decision on Application for

Duty-Free Entry of Scientific

Instrument

This decision is made pursuant to

Section 6(c) of the Educational,

Scientific, and Cultural Materials

Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89–

651, 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301).

Related records can be viewed between

8:30 AM and 5:00 PM in Room 4211,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and

Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C.

Docket Number: 95–043. Applicant:

Indiana University Medical Center,

Indianapolis, IN 46202-5289.

Instrument: Radiation Therapy

Simulator, Model Simulix-MC.

Manufacturer: Oldelft, The Netherlands.

Intended Use: See notice at 60 FR

33190, June 27, 1995.

Comments: None Received. Decision:

Denied. Reasons: In its justification for

duty exemption, the applicant states:

The structural, performance and

operational characteristics of the

foreign and domestic units are

similar. However, the foreign unit

possessed a greater number of the

structural and operational

characteristics required, without

incurring a greater expense.

The applicant lists the structural and

operational features of the foreign

instrument which led to the purchase

decision. The applicant states that each

feature of the foreign instrument is also

available on the domestic instrument

(manufactured by Varian Corporation)

and provides cost data as follows:

Shadow Tray: ... With the domestic unit,

an additional cost of $6495.00 would

have to be incurred by the institution.

Lasers: ...With the domestic unit, an

additional cost of $15,000 would have

to be incurred by the institution.