62816 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 235 / Thursday, December 7, 1995 / Notices

minimum of 10 percent of materials and

fabrication, whichever was greater; (2)

actual profit or the statutory minimum

of 8 percent of materials, fabrication

costs and general expenses, whichever

was greater; and (3) packing costs for

merchandise exported to the United

States. Where appropriate, we made

adjustments to CV in accordance with

19 C.F.R. 353.56 for differences in

circumstances of sale. For comparisons

to purchase price sales, we deducted

home market direct selling expenses

and added U.S. direct selling expenses.

For comparisons to ESP sales, we

deducted home market direct selling

expenses. We also made adjustments,

where applicable, for home market

indirect selling expenses to offset U.S.

commissions in purchase price and ESP

calculations. For comparisons involving

ESP transactions, we made further

deductions for CV for indirect selling

expenses in the home market, capped by

the indirect selling expenses incurred

on ESP sales in accordance with 19

C.F.R. 353.56(b)(2).

Preliminary Results of Reviews

As a result of our reviews, we

preliminarily determine the weightedaverage dumping margins (in percent)

for the period May 1, 1993, through

April 30, 1994 to be:

Company BBs CRBs

FAG .................................. 2.23 0.00

Meter ................................. 3.75 (1)

SKF ................................... 3.26 (2)

1 No review requested.

2Order partially revoked with respect to this

company.

Parties to this proceeding may request

disclosure within 5 days of the date of

publication of this notice. Any

interested party may request a hearing

within 10 days of the date of publication

of this notice. A general issues hearing,

if requested, and any hearings regarding

issues related solely to specific

countries, if requested, will be held in

accordance with the following schedule

and at the indicated locations in the

main Commerce building:

Date Time Room

No.

General issues.Jan. 22,

1996.

10 a.m . 1412

Italy .......... Jan. 22,

1996.

2 p.m ... 1412

Issues raised in hearings will be

limited to those raised in the respective

briefs or written comments, and rebuttal

briefs or rebuttals to written comments.

Briefs or written comments from

interested parties, and rebuttal briefs or

rebuttals to written comments, limited

to the issues raised in the respective

case briefs and comments, may be

submitted not later than the dates

shown below for general issues and the

respective country-specific cases. The

Department will subsequently publish

the final results of these administrative

reviews, including the results of its

analysis of issues raised in any such

written comments or hearings.

Case Briefs/comments due Rebuttals due

General issues.Jan. 8, 1996 Jan. 16, 1996

Italy ............. Jan. 8, 1996 Jan. 16, 1996

The Department shall determine, and

the Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. Because sampling prevents

calculation of duties on an entry-byentry basis, we will calculate an

importer-specific ad valorem duty

assessment rate for each class or kind of

merchandise based on the ratio of the

total value of antidumping duties

calculated for the examined sales made

during the POR to the total customs

value of the sales used to calculate those

duties. This rate will be assessed

uniformly on all entries of that

particular importer made during the

POR. (This is equivalent to dividing the

total value of antidumping duties,

which are calculated by taking the

difference between statutory FMV and

statutory USP, by the total statutory USP

value of the sales compared, and

adjusting the result by the average

difference between USP and customs

value for all merchandise examined

during the POR.)

In some cases such as purchase price

situations, the respondent does not

know the entered value of the

merchandise. Then, we will either

calculate an approximate entered value

or we will calculate an average per-unit

dollar amount of antidumping duty

based on all sales examined during the

POR. See AFBs I at 31694. The

Department will issue appropriate

appraisement instructions directly to

the Customs Service upon completion of

these reviews.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective for all

shipments of the subject merchandise

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after the

publication date of the final results of

these administrative reviews, as

provided by section 751(a)(1) of the

Tariff Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for

the reviewed companies will be those

rates established in the final results of

these reviews (except that no deposit

will be required for firms with zero or

de minimis margins; i.e., margins less

than 0.5 percent); (2) for previously

reviewed or 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 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 made effective by the final

results of the 1991–92 administrative

reviews of these orders (see Final

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Reviews and Revocation

in Part of an Antidumping Duty Order,

58 FR 39729 (July 26, 1993)). As noted

in those previous final results, these

rates are the ‘‘all others’’ rates from the

relevant LTFV investigations. These

deposit requirements, when imposed,

shall remain in effect until publication

of the final results of the next

administrative reviews.

This notice also serves as a

preliminary reminder to importers of

their responsibility under 19 C.F.R.

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.

These administrative reviews and

notice are in accordance with section

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

1675(a)(1)) and 19 C.F.R. 353.22(c)(5).

Dated: November 30, 1995.

Paul L. Joffe,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 95–29888 Filed 12–6–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 235 / Thursday, December 7, 1995 / Notices 62817

[A–427–801, A–428–801, A–588–804, A–559–

801, A–401–801, A–549–801, A–412–801]

Antifriction Bearings (Other Than

Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts

Thereof From France, Germany, Japan,

Singapore, Sweden, Thailand, and the

United Kingdom; Preliminary Results

of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Reviews, Partial Termination of

Administrative Reviews, and Notice of

Intent to Revoke Order

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of

antidumping duty administrative

reviews, partial termination of

administrative reviews, and notice of

intent to revoke order.

SUMMARY: In response to requests from

interested parties, the Department of

Commerce (the Department) is

conducting administrative reviews of

the antidumping duty orders on

antifriction bearings (other than tapered

roller bearings) and parts thereof from

France, Germany, Japan, Singapore,

Sweden, Thailand, and the United

Kingdom. The classes or kinds of

merchandise covered by these orders are

ball bearings, cylindrical roller bearings,

and spherical plain bearings. The

reviews cover 64 manufacturers/

exporters. The period of review (the

POR) is May 1, 1993, through April 30,

1994. Although we initiated reviews for

four other manufacturers/exporters, we

are terminating the reviews because the

requests for these reviews were

withdrawn in a timely manner. We

intend to terminate the reviews for five

other exporters because the Department

has preliminarily determined that these

exporters are not an appropriate subject

of review, as discussed below. We also

intend to revoke the order with respect

to ball bearings from Thailand based on

our preliminary determination that the

only known producer of ball bearings,

NMB/Pelmec, has had a three-year

period of no sales at less than foreign

market value (FMV).

Finally, we have preliminarily

determined that sales have been made

below FMV by various companies

subject to these reviews. If these

preliminary results are adopted in our

final results of the administrative

review, we will instruct U.S. Customs to

assess antidumping duties equal to the

difference between the United States

price (USP) and the FMV. We invite

interested parties to comment on these

preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 7, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The

appropriate case analyst, for the various

respondent firms listed below, at the

Office of Antidumping Compliance,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce,

Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone:

(202) 482–4733.

France

Andrea Chu (AVIAC, SNFA, SNR),

Davina Hashmi (INA), Hermes Pinilla

(Technofan), Matthew Rosenbaum

(Franke & Heydrich, Hoesch Rothe Erde,

Rollix Defontaine, SKF), or Michael Rill.

Germany

Kris Campbell (Cross-Trade, Delta,

EXTA Aussenhandel), Chip Hayes (NTN

Kugellagerfabrik), Andrea Chu (SNR),

Davina Hashmi (INA), Hermes Pinilla

(Hepa Walzlager, Schaumloffel),

Matthew Rosenbaum (Fichtel & Sachs,

Franke & Heydrich, Hoesch Rothe Erde,

Rollix Defontaine, SKF), Thomas

Schauer (FAG), Michael Rill, or Richard

Rimlinger.

Japan

J. David Dirstine (Koyo, NSK,

ITOCHU, Godo Kogyo, Santest Co.),

Joseph Fargo (Naniwa Kogyo, Nankai

Seiko, TOK Bearing Co.), Chip Hayes

(Mitsubishi, Nachi, NTN), Lyn Johnson

(Takeshita, Marubeni, I&OC, Kongo

Colmet, Sanken Trading, Taikoyo

Sangyo), Michael Panfeld (IKS, NisshoIwai, NPBS, Origin Electric), Michael

Rausher (Mihasi, Inc., Sanko Co.,

Tomen), Mark Ross (Asahi Seiko,

Minamiguchi, Nichimen, Nichinan

Sangyo, Nihon K.J., Shima Trading,

Sumitomo, Toei Buhin), Thomas

Schauer (Matsuo Bearing Co., Nippon

Thompson Co., Phoenix International,

THK Co., Tsubakimoto PP), or Richard

Rimlinger.

Singapore

Michael Rausher (NMB/Pelmec) or

Richard Rimlinger.

Sweden

Matthew Rosenbaum (SKF) or

Michael Rill.

Thailand

Michael Rausher (NMB/Pelmec) or

Richard Rimlinger.

United Kingdom

Hermes Pinilla (Barden/FAG,

Normalair-Garrett, NSK/RHP), or

Michael Rill.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute and to the

Department’s regulations are references

to the provisions as they existed on

December 31, 1994.

Background

On May 15, 1989, the Department

published in the Federal Register (54

FR 20909) the antidumping duty orders

on ball bearings (BBs), cylindrical roller

bearings (CRBs), and spherical plain

bearings (SPBs) and parts thereof from

France, Germany, Japan, Singapore,

Sweden, Thailand, and the United

Kingdom. Specifically, these orders

cover BBs, CRBs, and SPBs from France,

Germany, and Japan; BBs and CRBs

from Sweden and the U.K.; and BBs

from Singapore and Thailand. On June

22, 1994, and July 15, 1994, in

accordance with 19 C.F.R. 353.22(c), we

initiated administrative reviews of those

orders for the period May 1, 1993,

through April 30, 1994 (59 FR 32180

and 59 FR 36160). The Department is

now conducting these administrative

reviews in accordance with section 751

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended

(the Tariff Act).

Scope of Reviews

The products covered by these

reviews are antifriction bearings (other

than tapered roller bearings) and parts

thereof (AFBs), and constitute the

following classes or kinds of

merchandise:

1. Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof:

These products include all antifriction

bearings that employ balls as the rolling

element. Imports of these products are

classified under the following

categories: antifriction balls, ball

bearings with integral shafts, ball

bearings (including radial ball bearings)

and parts thereof, and housed or

mounted ball bearing units and parts

thereof.

Imports of these products are

classified under the following

Harmonized Tariff Schedules (HTS)

subheadings: 3926.90.45, 4016.93.00,

4016.93.10, 4016.93.50, 6909.19.5010,

8431.20.00, 8431.39.0010, 8482.10.10,

8482.10.50, 8482.80.00, 8482.91.00,

8482.99.05, 8482.99.10, 8482.99.35,

8482.99.6590, 8482.99.70, 8483.20.40,

8483.20.80, 8483.50.8040, 8483.50.90,

8483.90.20, 8483.90.30, 8483.90.70,

8708.50.50, 8708.60.50, 8708.60.80,

8708.70.6060, 8708.70.8050, 8708.93.30,

8708.93.5000, 8708.93.6000, 8708.93.75,

8708.99.06, 8708.99.31, 8708.99.4960,

8708.99.50, 8708.99.5800, 8708.99.8080,

8803.10.00, 8803.20.00, 8803.30.00,

8803.90.30, 8803.90.90.

2. Cylindrical Roller Bearings and

Parts Thereof: These products include

all AFBs that employ cylindrical rollers

as the rolling element. Imports of these
62818 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 235 / Thursday, December 7, 1995 / Notices

products are classified under the

following categories: antifriction rollers,

all cylindrical roller bearings (including

split cylindrical roller bearings) and

parts thereof, and housed or mounted

cylindrical roller bearing units and parts

thereof.

Imports of these products are

classified under the following HTS

subheadings: 3926.90.45, 4016.93.00,

4016.93.10, 4016.93.50, 6909.19.5010,

8431.20.00, 8431.39.0010, 8482.40.00,

8482.50.00, 8482.80.00, 8482.91.00,

8482.99.25, 8482.99.35, 8482.99.6530,

8482.99.6560, 8482.99.6590, 8482.99.70,

8483.20.40, 8483.20.80, 8483.50.8040,

8483.90.20, 8483.90.30, 8483.90.70,

8708.50.50, 8708.60.50, 8708.93.5000,

8708.99.4000, 8708.99.4960, 8708.99.50,

8708.99.8080, 8803.10.00, 8803.20.00,

8803.30.00, 8803.90.30, 8803.90.90.

3. Spherical Plain Bearings and Parts

Thereof: These products include all

spherical plain bearings that employ a

spherically shaped sliding element.

Imports of these products are

classified under the following HTS

subheadings: 3926.90.45, 4016.93.00,

4016.93.10, 4016.93.50, 6909.50.10,

8483.30.80, 8483.90.30, 8485.90.00,

8708.93.5000, 8708.99.50, 8803.10.00,

8803.20.00, 8803.30.00, 8803.90.30,

8803.90.90.

The size or precision grade of a

bearing does not influence whether the

bearing is covered by the order. For a

further discussion of the scope of the

orders being reviewed, including recent

scope determinations, see Antifriction

Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller

Bearings) and Parts Thereof from

France, et al.; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Reviews, Partial Termination of

Administrative Reviews, and

Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty

Orders, 60 FR 10900 (February 28,

1995). The HTS item numbers are

provided for convenience and Customs

purposes. The written descriptions

remain dispositive.

These reviews cover the following

firms and classes or kinds of

merchandise:

Name of firm Class or kind

FRANCE

AVIAC .................................... All.

Franke & Heydrich KG .......... BBs.

Hoesch Rothe Erde AG ........ BBs.

INA Roulements S.A ............. All.

Rollix Defontaine, S.A ........... BBs.

SKF (including all relevant affiliates).All.

SNFA ..................................... BBs, CRBs.

Societe Nouvelle Roulements

(SNR).

BBs, CRBs.

Name of firm Class or kind

TECNOFAN ........................... All.

GERMANY

Cross-Trade GmbH ............... All.

Delta Export GmbH ............... All.

EXTA Aussenhandel GmbH . All.

FAG Kugelfischer Georg

Schaefer KGaA (FAG).

All.

Fichtel & Sachs AG ............... BBs.

Franke & Heydrich KG .......... BBs.

Hepa Walzlager GmbH ......... All.

Hoesch Rothe Erde AG ........ BBs.

INA Walzlager Schaeffler KG

(INA).

All.

NTN Kugellagerfabrik

(Deutschland) GmbH

(NTN).

BBs.

Rollix & Defontaine, S.A ....... BBs.

Schaumloffel Technia GmbH All.

SKF GmbH ............................ All.

SNR Roulements .................. BBs, CRBs.

JAPAN

Asahi Seiko ........................... All.

Godo Kogyo Co. Ltd ............. All.

I & OC of Japan Co. Ltd ....... All.

ITOCHU ................................. All.

Izumoto Seiko Co., Ltd ......... All.

Kongo Colmet Mfg. Co., Ltd . All.

Koyo Seiko Co., Ltd .............. All.

Marubeni ............................... All.

Matsuo Bearing Co., Ltd ....... All.

Mihasi, Inc ............................. All.

Minamiguchi Bearing Mfg. Co All.

Nachi-Fujikoshi Corp. ............ BBs, CRBs.

Naniwa Kogyo Co., Ltd ......... All.

Nankai Seiko Co., Ltd ........... All.

Nichinan Sangyo Co., Ltd ..... All.

Nichimen ............................... All.

Nihon K.J ............................... All.

Nippon Pillow Block Sales

Company, Ltd (NPBS).

BBs.

NSK Ltd (formerly Nippon

Seiko K.K.).

All.

Nippon Thompson Co., Ltd ... All.

Nissho-Iwai ............................ All.

NTN Corp. ............................. All.

Origin Electric Co., Ltd .......... All.

Sanken Trading Co., Ltd ....... All.

Sanko Co., Ltd ...................... All.

Santest Co., Ltd .................... All.

Taikoyo Sangyo Co., Ltd ...... All.

Takeshita Seiko Co., Ltd ....... BBs.

THK Co., Ltd ......................... All.

Toei Buhin Co., Ltd ............... All.

TOK Bearing Co., Ltd ........... All.

Tomen ................................... All.

Tsubakimoto Precision Products Co., Ltd.

(Tsubakimoto).

BBs.

SINGAPORE

NMB Singapore Ltd./Pelmec

Ind. (Pte.) Ltd. (NMB/

Pelmec).

BBs.

SWEEDEN

SKF Sverige BBs, ................. CRBs.

Name of firm Class or kind

THAILAND

NMB Thai Ltd./Pelmec Thai

Ltd. (NMB/Pelmec).

BBs.

UNITED KINGDOM

Barden Corp .......................... BBs, CRBs.

FAG (U.K.) Ltd ...................... BBs, CRBs.

NSK Bearings Europe, Ltd./

RHP Bearings.

BBs, CRBs.

Subsequent to the publication of our

initiation notice, we received timely

withdrawals of all review requests for

ABG–SEMCA (France), BMW

(Germany), Fujino Iron Works (Japan)

and Normalair-Garrett (U.K.), and for

Tsubakimoto Precision Products Co.,

Ltd. (Japan) with respect to CRBs and

SPBs only. Because there were no other

requests for review of these companies

from any other interested parties, we are

terminating the reviews with respect to

these companies in accordance with 19

CFR 353.22(a)(5).

In addition, we initiated reviews for

Mitsubishi, Mitsui, Phoenix

International, Shima Trading and

Sumitomo with respect to subject

merchandise from Japan. Subsequent to

initiation, however, all five firms

informed us that although they are

resellers of Japanese-made bearings, all

of their suppliers had knowledge at the

time of sale that the merchandise was

destined for the United States.

Consequently, these firms are not

resellers as defined in 19 CFR 353.2(s)

because their sales cannot be used to

calculate the U.S. price. Therefore, we

are preliminarily terminating the

reviews with respect to Mitsubishi,

Mitsui, Phoenix International, Shima

Trading and Sumitomo.

Best Information Available

In accordance with section 776(c) of

the Tariff Act, we have preliminarily

determined that the use of the best

information available (BIA) is

appropriate for certain firms. Section

353.37(b) of our regulations provides

that we may take into account whether

a party refuses to provide information in

determining what is the best

information available. For purposes of

these reviews and in accordance with

our practice, we have used the most

adverse BIA—generally the highest rate

for any company for the class or kind of

merchandise from the same country

from this or any prior segment of the

proceeding, including the less-than-fairvalue (LTFV) investigation—whenever a

company refused to cooperate with the

Department or otherwise significantly

impeded the proceeding. When a
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 235 / Thursday, December 7, 1995 / Notices 62819

company substantially cooperated with

our requests for information, but failed

to provide all information requested in

a timely manner or in the form

requested, we used as BIA the higher of

(1) the highest rate (including the ‘‘all

others’’ rate) ever applicable to the firm

for the same class or kind of

merchandise from the same country

from either the LTFV investigation or a

prior administrative review; or (2) the

highest calculated rate in this review for

any firm for the class or kind of

merchandise from the same country (see

Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Reviews and Revocation

in Part of an Antidumping Duty Order,

58 FR 39728 (July 26, 1993), and

Empresa Nacional Siderurgica v. United

States, Slip Op. 95–33 (CIT March 6,

1995)).

Cross-Trade GmbH, INA France,

Naniwa Kogyo, Nichimen, Nissho Iwai,

Origin Electric, Sanken Trading, SNFA,

Taikoyo Sangyo, THK Co., TOK Bearing

Co., and Tomen failed to respond to the

Department’s questionnaire. Therefore,

we have applied first-tier BIA, which is

the highest rate ever found for each

relevant class or kind of merchandise

and country of origin.

Furthermore, Asahi Seiko provided

only invoices with respect to SPBs and

Nippon Thompson failed to provide

information on its sales of CRBs.

Therefore, both firms received the

highest rate ever found for these classes

or kinds of merchandise from Japan.

Minamiguchi provided a response to

Section A of the Department’s

questionnaire. However, the company

was notified through a deficiency letter

that the questionnaire response was

improperly filed. In response,

Minamiguchi requested Japanese

translations of all documents that the

Department served it. That request was

rejected and the company did not make

any further attempts to respond to the

Department’s deficiency letter, nor did

the company respond to any other

sections of the Department’s

questionnaire. Therefore, we

determined them to be uncooperative

and have applied first-tier BIA, which is

the highest rate ever found for each

relevant class or kind of merchandise

from Japan (for more information on the

use of BIA for Japanese companies, see

the November 29, 1995, Decision

memo).

Finally, NPBS and INA Germany

cooperated fully with our requests for

information and agreed to undergo

verification. However, at verification,

we discovered that both firms had failed

to report relevant sales and expense data

or could not adequately substantiate

important information.

With respect to NPBS, the Department

was not satisfied with the completeness

of the home market database.

Specifically, NPBS failed to report

certain sales in its home market sales

database, including sales to its largest

customer for a 12-month period. Also,

NPBS failed to properly report quantity

adjustments for selected sales.

Moreover, the Department was not

satisfied with the completeness of the

U.S. database. Specifically, NPBS failed

to explain why it did not include certain

sales in its U.S. sales database. There

were additional discrepancies regarding

adjustments to sales price. Specifically,

NPBS failed to include all loans in its

calculation of short-term interest rate in

the home market. Finally, NPBS failed

to report several categories of freight

expenses related to sales in the United

States (Verification reports on NPBS,

March 22, 1995, and March 24, 1995).

With respect to INA, the Department

was not satisfied that INA had reported

completely and accurately all of its U.S.

sales. At verification, INA was not able

to reconcile its financial statements to

the response, nor was INA able to

support the accuracy of sales of subject

merchandise reported during the POR

(Verification Report on INA Bearing

Company, June 15, 1995). Furthermore,

INA could not explain why a sale of

subject merchandise was not reported in

its response. While the Department was

not able to verify that INA reported all

of its sales of subject merchandise, INA

did cooperate with the Department’s

requests for information and agreed to

undergo verification. As a result, the

Department is assigning a second-tier

BIA rate to INA (Use of Best Information

Available memo, May 22, 1995).

Since both firms attempted to

cooperate, we have applied second-tier

BIA, which is their highest previous

rates, in this case the ‘‘all others’’ rate

from the LTFV investigation for NPBS

(BBs) and INA Germany (CRBs). For BBs

for INA Germany, the highest rate ever

calculated was for the second review

(see Antifriction Bearings (Other Than

Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts

Thereof From France, et al.; Final

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Reviews, 57 FR 28360

(June 24, 1992)).

Intent To Revoke

NMB/Pelmec submitted a request, in

accordance with 19 C.F.R. 353.25(b), to

revoke the order covering ball bearings

from Thailand with respect to NMB/

Pelmec’s sales of this merchandise.

In accordance with 19 C.F.R.

353.25(a)(2)(iii), this request was

accompanied by certifications from the

firm that it had not sold the relevant

class or kind of merchandise at less than

FMV for a three-year period including

this review period, and would not do so

in the future. NMB/Pelmec also agreed

to its immediate reinstatement in the

relevant antidumping order, as long as

any firm is subject to this order, if the

Department concludes under 19 C.F.R.

353.22(f) that, subsequent to revocation,

it sold the subject merchandise at less

than FMV.

In the two prior reviews of this order,

we determined that NMB/Pelmec did

not sell BBs from Thailand at less than

FMV. The Department conducted a

verification of NMB/Pelmec’s response

for this period of review. In this review,

we preliminarily determine that NMB/

Pelmec has not sold BBs at less than

FMV, which will satisfy the three-year

period of no sales at less than FMV.

Therefore, we intend to revoke the order

with respect BBs from Thailand, based

on our preliminary determination that

NMB/Pelmec is the only known

producer of BBs, if these preliminary

findings are affirmed in our final results.

United States Price

In calculating United States price

(USP), the Department used purchase

price (PP) or exporter’s sales price

(ESP), as defined in section 772 of the

Tariff Act, as appropriate.

Due to the extremely large number of

transactions that occurred during the

POR and the resulting administrative

burden involved in calculating

individual margins for all of these

transactions, we sampled sales to

calculate USP, in accordance with

section 777A of the Tariff Act. When a

firm made more than 2,000 ESP sales

transactions to the United States for a

particular class or kind of merchandise,

we reviewed ESP sales which occurred

during sample weeks. We selected one

week from each two-month period in

the review period, for a total of six

weeks, and analyzed each transaction

made in those six weeks. The sample

weeks included June 27–July 3, 1993,

July 4–10, 1993, October 10–16, 1993,

November 7–13, 1993, February 13–19,

1994, and April 24–30, 1994. We

reviewed all PP sales transactions

during the POR because there were few

PP sales.

USP was based on the packed f.o.b.,

c.i.f., or delivered price to unrelated

purchasers in, or for exportation to, the

United States. We made deductions, as

appropriate, from PP and ESP for

movement expenses, discounts, and

rebates.

We made additional deductions from

ESP for direct selling expenses, indirect

selling expenses, and repacking in the

United States.
62820 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 235 / Thursday, December 7, 1995 / Notices

In light of the Federal Circuit’s

decision in Federal Mogul v. United

States, CAFC No. 94–1097, the

Department has changed its treatment of

home market consumption taxes. Where

merchandise exported to the United

States is exempt from the consumption

tax, the Department will add to the U.S.

price the absolute amount of such taxes

charged on the comparison sales in the

home market. This is the same

methodology that the Department

adopted following the decision of the

Federal Circuit in Zenith v. United

States, 988 F. 2d 1573, 1582 (1993), and

which was suggested by that court in

footnote 4 of its decision. The Court of

International Trade (CIT) overturned

this methodology in Federal Mogul v.

United States, 834 F. Supp. 1391 (1993),

and the Department acquiesced in the

CIT’s decision. The Department then

followed the CIT’s preferred

methodology, which was to calculate

the tax to be added to U.S. price by

multiplying the adjusted U.S. price by

the foreign market tax rate; the

Department made adjustments to this

amount so that the tax adjustment

would not alter a ‘‘zero’’ pre-tax

dumping assessment.

The foreign exporters in the Federal

Mogul case, however, appealed that

decision to the Federal Circuit, which

reversed the CIT and held that the

statute did not preclude the Department

from using the ‘‘Zenith footnote 4’’

methodology to calculate tax-neutral

dumping assessments (i.e., assessments

that are unaffected by the existence or

amount of home market consumption

taxes). Moreover, the Federal Circuit

recognized that certain international

agreements of the United States, in

particular the General Agreement on

Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the Tokyo

Round Antidumping Code, required the

calculation of tax-neutral dumping

assessments. The Federal Circuit

remanded the case to the CIT with

instructions to direct the Department to

determine which tax methodology it

will employ.

The Department has determined that

the ‘‘Zenith footnote 4’’ methodology

should be used. First, as the Department

has explained in numerous

administrative determinations and court

filings over the past decade, and as the

Federal Circuit has now recognized,

Article VI of the GATT and Article 2 of

the Tokyo Round Antidumping Code

required that dumping assessments be

tax-neutral. This requirement continues

under the new Agreement on

Implementation of Article VI of the

General Agreement on Tariffs and

Trade. Second, the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act (URAA) explicitly

amended the antidumping law to

remove consumption taxes from the

home market price and to eliminate the

addition of taxes to U.S. price, so that

no consumption tax is included in the

price in either market. The Statement of

Administrative Action (p. 159)

explicitly states that this change was

intended to result in tax neutrality.

While the ‘‘Zenith footnote 4’’

methodology is slightly different from

the URAA methodology, in that section

772(d)(1)(C) of the pre-URAA law

required that the tax be added to U.S.

price rather than subtracted from home

market price, it does result in taxneutral duty assessments. In sum, the

Department has elected to treat

consumption taxes in a manner

consistent with its longstanding policy

of tax-neutrality and with the GATT.

With respect to subject merchandise

to which value was added in the United

States prior to sale to unrelated U.S.

customers, e.g., parts of bearings that

were imported and further processed

into finished bearings by U.S. affiliates

of foreign exporters, we deducted any

increased value in accordance with

section 772(e)(3) of the Tariff Act.

Those bearings which are otherwise

subject to the order that are imported

into the United States and incorporated

into nonbearing products by or for the

exporter, and which collectively

comprise less than one percent of the

value of the finished products sold to

unrelated customers in the United

States are not subject to the assessment

of antidumping duties (see Antifriction

Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller

Bearings) and Parts Thereof from the

Federal Republic of Germany; Final

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 56 FR 31694

(July 11, 1991) (AFBs I)). In Roller

Chain, Other Than Bicycle, from Japan

48 FR 51801 (November 14, 1983), roller

chain, which was subject to an

antidumping duty finding, was

imported by a related party and

incorporated into finished motorcycles.

The finished motorcycles were the first

products sold by the exporter to

unrelated purchasers in the United

States. Because the roller chain did not

constitute a significant percentage of the

value of the completed product, the

Department found that a USP could not

reasonably be determined for the roller

chain. The Department, therefore, did

not assess antidumping duties on these

transactions. We have applied this same

principle to these reviews.

Foreign Market Value

The home markets were viable for all

companies and all classes or kinds of

merchandise pursuant to 19 C.F.R.

353.48. The Department used home

market prices or constructed value (CV),

as defined in section 773 of the Tariff

Act, as appropriate, to calculate foreign

market value (FMV).

Due to the extremely large number of

transactions that occurred during the

POR and the resulting administrative

burden involved in examining all of

these transactions, we sampled sales to

calculate FMV, in accordance with

section 777A of the Tariff Act. When a

firm had more than 2,000 home market

sales transactions for a particular class

or kind of merchandise, we used sales

from sample months that corresponded

to the sample weeks selected for U.S.

sales sampling plus one

contemporaneous month prior to the

POR and one following the POR. The

sample months included April, June,

July, October, and November of 1993,

and February, April, and May of 1994.

In general, the Department relies on

monthly weighted-average prices in the

calculation of FMV in administrative

reviews. Because of the significant

volume of home market sales involved

in these reviews, we examined whether

it was appropriate to average, in

accordance with section 777A of the

Tariff Act, all of each respondent’s

home market sales on an annual basis.

In this case, the use of POR weightedaverage prices results in significant time

and resource savings for the

Department. To determine whether a

POR weighted-average price was

representative of the transactions under

consideration, we performed a threestep test.

We first compared each monthly

weighted-average home market price for

each model with the weighted-average

POR price of that model. We calculated

the proportion of each model’s sales

whose POR weighted-average price did

not vary meaningfully (i.e., was within

plus or minus 10 percent) from the

monthly weighted-average prices. We

did this for each model within each

class or kind of merchandise. We then

compared the volume of sales of all

models within each class or kind of

merchandise whose POR weightedaverage price did not vary meaningfully

from the monthly weighted-average

price with the total volume of sales of

that class or kind of merchandise. If the

POR weighted-average price of at least

90 percent of sales in each class or kind

of merchandise did not vary

meaningfully from the monthly

weighted-average price, we considered

the POR weighted-average prices to be

representative of the transactions under

consideration. Finally, we tested

whether there was any correlation

between fluctuations in price and time
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 235 / Thursday, December 7, 1995 / Notices 62821

for the home market sales. Where the

absolute value of the correlation

coefficient was less than 0.05 (where a

coefficient approaching 1.0 means a

direct relation between price and time,

i.e., that prices consistently rise from

month to month, and a coefficient

approaching zero means no relation

between prices and time), we concluded

that there was no significant relation

between price and time. We calculated

a weighted-average POR FMV only for

those classes or kinds that satisfied our

three-step test for the factors of price,

volume, and time.

We compared U.S. sales with sales of

such or similar merchandise in the

home market. We considered all nonidentical products within a bearing

family to be equally similar. As defined

in the questionnaire, a bearing family

consists of all bearings within a class or

kind of merchandise that are the same

in the following physical characteristics:

load direction, bearing design, number

of rows of rolling elements, precision

rating, dynamic load rating, outer

diameter, inner diameter, and width.

Home market prices were based on

the packed, ex-factory or delivered

prices to related or unrelated purchasers

in the home market. Where applicable,

we made adjustments for movement

expenses, differences in cost attributable

to differences in physical characteristics

of the merchandise pursuant to

773(a)(4)(C) of the Tariff Act, and

differences in packing. We also made

adjustments for differences in

circumstances of sale in accordance

with 19 CFR 353.56. For comparisons to

PP sales, we deducted home market

direct selling expenses and added U.S.

direct selling expenses. For comparisons

to ESP sales, we deducted home market

direct selling expenses. We also made

adjustments, where applicable, for home

market indirect selling expenses to

offset U.S. commissions in PP and ESP

calculations and to offset U.S. indirect

selling expenses deducted in ESP

calculations, but not exceeding the

amount of the indirect U.S. expenses.

For comparisons to both ESP and PP

sales, we adjusted FMV for taxes

consistent with our change in practice

as stated above.

We used sales to related customers

only where we determined such sales

were made at arm’s-length prices, i.e., at

prices comparable to prices at which the

firm sold identical merchandise to

unrelated customers.

Where we found home market sales

below the cost of production in prior

administrative reviews, we concluded

that reasonable grounds exist to believe

or suspect that home market sales

during the POR were made at prices

below the cost of production, and we

initiated cost investigations.

In accordance with section 773(b) of

the Tariff Act, in determining whether

to disregard home market sales made at

prices below the cost of production, we

examined whether such sales were

made in substantial quantities over an

extended period of time. When less than

10 percent of the home market sales of

a particular model were at prices below

the cost of production, we found that

there were not substantial quantities of

that model sold below cost and did not

disregard any sales of that model. When

10 percent or more, but not more than

90 percent, of the home market sales of

a particular model were determined to

be below cost, we determined that

substantial quantities of that model

were sold below cost and excluded the

below-cost home market sales from our

calculation of FMV, provided that these

below-cost sales were made over an

extended period of time. When more

than 90 percent of the home market

sales of a particular model were made

below cost over an extended period of

time, we disregarded all home market

sales of that model from our calculation

of FMV and used CV (see Polyethylene

Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip

from Korea, 56 FR 16306 (1991)).

To determine if sales below cost had

been made over an extended period of

time, we compared the number of

months in which sales below cost had

occurred for a particular model to the

number of months in which the model

was sold. If the model was sold in three

or fewer months, we did not find that

below-cost sales were made over an

extended period of time unless there

were sales below cost of that model in

each month. If a model was sold in more

than three months, we did not find that

below-cost sales were made over an

extended period of time unless there

were sales below cost in at least three

of the months in which the model was

sold (see Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Reviews; Tapered

Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof,

Finished and Unfinished, From Japan

and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four

Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and

Components Thereof, From Japan, 58 FR

64729 (December 9, 1993)).

Since none of the respondents has

submitted information indicating that

any of its sales below cost were at prices

which would have permitted ‘‘recovery

of all costs within a reasonable period

of time in the normal course of trade’’

within the meaning of section 773(b)(2)

of the Tariff Act, we were unable to

conclude that the costs of production of

such sales were recovered within a

reasonable period of time. As a result,

we disregarded below-cost sales when

the conditions described above were

met.

In accordance with sections 773(a)(1)

and 773(b)(2) of the Tariff Act, we used

CV as the basis for FMV when there

were no usable sales of such or similar

merchandise for comparison.

We calculated CV in accordance with

section 773(e) of the Tariff Act. We

included the cost of materials,

fabrication, general expenses, profit, and

packing. To calculate CV we used: (1)

Actual general expenses or the statutory

minimum of 10 percent of materials and

fabrication, whichever was greater; (2)

actual profit or the statutory minimum

of 8 percent of materials, fabrication

costs and general expenses, whichever

was greater; and (3) packing costs for

merchandise exported to the United

States. Where appropriate, we made

adjustments to CV in accordance with

19 C.F.R. 353.56 for differences in

circumstances of sale. For comparisons

to PP sales, we deducted home market

direct selling expenses and added U.S.

direct selling expenses. For comparisons

to ESP sales, we deducted home market

direct selling expenses. We also made

adjustments, where applicable, for home

market indirect selling expenses to

offset U.S. commissions in PP and ESP

calculations. For comparisons involving

ESP transactions, we made further

deductions from CV for indirect selling

expenses in the home market, capped by

the indirect selling expenses incurred

on ESP sales in accordance with 19

C.F.R. 353.56(b)(2).

Preliminary Results of Reviews

As a result of our reviews, we

preliminarily determine the weightedaverage dumping margins (in percent)

for the period May 1, 1993, through

April 30, 1994 to be:

Company BBs CRBs SPBs

FRANCE

AVIAC ............. 5.18 (2) (2)

Franke & Heydrich ............. 1 66.42 (3) (3)

Hoesch Rothe

Erde ............. (2) (3) (3)

INA .................. 66.42 18.37 42.79

Rollix

Defontaine ... (2) (3) (3)

SKF ................. 3.77 (2) 19.33

SNFA .............. 66.42 18.37 (3)

SNR ................ 0.73 2.08 (3)

TECNOFAN .... 14.59 (2) (2)

GERMANY

Cross-Trade

GmbH .......... 132.25 76.27 118.98

Delta Export

GmbH .......... (2) (2) (2)
62822 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 235 / Thursday, December 7, 1995 / Notices

Company BBs CRBs SPBs

EXTA

Aussenhandel GmbH ...... 68.89 55.65 114.52

FAG ................. 12.47 10.79 2.09

Fichtel & Sachs 19.60 (3) (3)

Franke & Heydrich ............. 1 132.25 (3) (3)

Hepa

Walzlager

GmbH .......... (2) (2) (2)

Hoesch Rothe

Erde ............. (2) (3) (3)

INA .................. 31.29 52.43 (2)

NTN ................. 12.57 (3) (3)

Rollix &

Defontaine ... (2) (3) (3)

Schaumloffel

Technik

GmbH .......... (2) (2) (2)

SKF ................. 38.18 16.61 16.03

SNR ................ 4.44 6.05 (3)

JAPAN

Asahi Seiko ..... 1.60 (2) 92.00

Godo Kogyo .... (2) (2) (2)

I & OC ............. (2) (2) (2)

ITOCHU .......... (2) (2) (2)

Izumoto Seiko . 2.28 (2) (2)

Kongo Colmet . (2) (2) (2)

Koyo Seiko ...... 14.89 6.53 1 0.00

Marubeni ......... (2) (2) (2)

Matsuo Bearing (2) (2) (2)

Mihasi .............. (2) (2) (2)

Minamiguchi

Bearing ........ 106.61 51.82 92.00

Nachi-Fujikoshi 13.79 9.72 (3)

Naniwa Kogyo . 106.61 51.82 92.00

Nankai Seiko ... 18.46 (2) (2)

Nichinan

Sangyo ........ (2) (2) (2)

Nichimen ......... 106.61 51.82 92.00

Nihon K.J. ....... (2) (2) (2)

NPBS .............. 45.83 (3) (3)

NSK Ltd. ......... 20.39 16.27 (2)

Nippon Thompson ............... 10.16 51.82 59.63

Nissho-Iwai ..... 106.61 51.82 92.00

NTN ................. 13.69 12.78 35.43

Origin Electric . 106.61 51.82 92.00

Sanken Trading 106.61 51.82 92.00

Sanko .............. (2) (2) (2)

Santest ............ (2) (2) (2)

Taikoyo

Sangyo ........ 106.61 51.82 92.00

Takeshita

Seiko ........... 0.89 (3) (3)

THK ................. 106.61 51.82 92.00

Toei Buhin ....... (2) (2) (2)

TOK Bearing ... 106.61 51.82 92.00

Tomen ............. 106.61 51.82 92.00

Tsubakimoto ... 7.77 (3) (3)

SINGAPORE

NMB/Pelmec ... 4.32 (3) (3)

SWEDEN

SKF ................. 33.74 24.51 (3)

Company BBs CRBs SPBs

THAILAND

NMB/Pelmec ... 0.18 (3) (3)

UNITED KINGDOM

Barden/FAG .... 1.49 1 8.22 (3)

NSK/RHP ........ 17.26 19.36 (3)

1 No shipments or sales subject to this review. Rate is from the last relevant segment of

the proceeding in which the firm had shipments/sales. 2 No shipments or sales subject to this review. The firm has no individual rate from any

segment of this proceeding. 3 No review requested.

Parties to this proceeding may request

disclosure within 5 days of the date of

publication of this notice. Any

interested party may request a hearing

within 10 days of the date of publication

of this notice. A general issues hearing,

if requested, and any hearings regarding

issues related solely to specific

countries, if requested, will be held in

accordance with the following schedule

and at the indicated locations in the

main Commerce building:

Date Time Room

No.

General issues.Jan. 22,

1996.

10 a.m. 1412

Thailand ... Jan. 23,

1996.

10 a.m . 1412

Singapore Jan. 23,

1996.

10 a.m . 1412

Germany .. Jan. 23,

1996.

1 p.m ... 1412

Japan ....... Jan. 24,

1996.

10 a.m . 1412

United

Kingdom.

Jan. 24,

1996.

1 p.m ... 1412

France ..... Jan. 25

1996.

10 a.m . 1412

Sweden .... Jan. 25,

1996.

1 p.m ... 1412

Issues raised in hearings will be

limited to those raised in the respective

briefs or written comments, and rebuttal

briefs or rebuttals to written comments.

Briefs or written comments from

interested parties, and rebuttal briefs or

rebuttals to written comments, limited

to the issues raised in the respective

case briefs and comments, may be

submitted not later than the dates

shown below for general issues and the

respective country-specific cases. The

Department will subsequently publish

the final results of these administrative

reviews, including the results of its

analysis of issues raised in any such

written comments or hearings.

Case Briefs/comments due Rebuttals due

General Issues.Jan. 8, 1996 Jan. 15, 1996.

Thailand ...... Jan. 9, 1996 Jan. 17, 1996.

Singapore ... Jan. 9, 1996 Jan. 17, 1996.

Germany ..... Jan. 9, 1996 Jan. 17, 1996.

Japan .......... Jan. 10,

1996.

Jan. 18, 1996.

U.K. ............. Jan. 10,

1996.

Jan. 18, 1996.

France ........ Jan. 11,

1996.

Jan. 19, 1996.

Sweden ....... Jan. 11,

1996.

Jan. 19, 1996.

The Department shall determine, and

the Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. Because sampling prevents

calculation of duties on an entry-byentry basis, we will calculate an

importer-specific ad valorem duty

assessment rate for each class or kind of

merchandise based on the ratio of the

total value of antidumping duties

calculated for the examined sales made

during the POR to the total customs

value of the sales used to calculate those

duties. This rate will be assessed

uniformly on all entries of that

particular importer made during the

POR. (This is equivalent to dividing the

total value of antidumping duties,

which are calculated by taking the

difference between statutory FMV and

statutory USP, by the total statutory USP

value of the sales compared, and

adjusting the result by the average

difference between USP and customs

value for all merchandise examined

during the POR.)

In some cases, such as PP situations,

the respondent does not know the

entered value of the merchandise. Then,

we will either calculate an approximate

entered value or we will calculate an

average per-unit dollar amount of

antidumping duty based on all sales

examined during the POR. See AFBs I

at 31694. The Department will issue

appropriate appraisement instructions

directly to the Customs Service upon

completion of these reviews.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective for all

shipments of the subject merchandise

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after the

publication date of the final results of

these administrative reviews, as

provided by section 751(a)(1) of the

Tariff Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for

the reviewed companies will be those

rates established in the final results of

these reviews (except that no deposit

will be required for firms with zero or

de minimis margins, i.e., margins less

than 0.5 percent); (2) for previously
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 235 / Thursday, December 7, 1995 / Notices 62823

reviewed or 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 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 made effective by the final

results of the LTFV. As noted in those

previous final results, these rates are the

‘‘all others’’ rates from the relevant

LTFV investigations. These deposit

requirements, when imposed, shall

remain in effect until publication of the

final results of the next administrative

reviews.

This notice also serves as a

preliminary reminder to importers of

their responsibility under 19 C.F.R.

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.

These administrative reviews and

notice are in accordance with section

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

1675(a)(1)) and 19 C.F.R. 353.22(c)(5).

Dated: November 29, 1995.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 95–29889 Filed 12–6–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[A–580–008]

Color Television Receivers from the

Republic of Korea; Amended Final

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of amended final results

of antidumping duty administrative

review.

SUMMARY: On July 1, 1988, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) published the final results

of the third administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on color

television receivers (CTVs) from the

Republic of Korea (Korea) (53 FR

24975). The review covered the period

April 1, 1985, through March 31, 1986.

On September 19, 1994, the Court of

International Trade (CIT) issued an

order (Slip Op. 94–146) remanding to

the Department the final results of the

third administrative review of Samsung

Electronics Co., Ltd. (Samsung). On

March 13, 1995, the CIT affirmed the

Department’s redetermination (Slip Op.

95–38). Since the CIT’s ruling was not

appealed, and the CIT’s decision

affirming our redetermination has

therefore become final and conclusive,

we are amending our final results of the

third administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on CTVs from

Korea with respect to Samsung.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 7, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Joseph Hanley or Zev Primor, Office of

Antidumping Compliance, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW., Washington, D.C. 20230;

telephone: (202) 482–5253.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Scope of the Review

Imports covered by this review

include CTVs, complete and

incomplete, from the Republic of Korea.

This merchandise is currently classified

under item numbers 8528.10.80,

8529.90.15, 8529.90.20, and 8540.11.00

of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule

(HTS). Since the order covers all CTVs

regardless of HTS classification, the

HTS subheading is provided for

convenience and for the U.S. Customs

Service purposes. Our written

description of the scope of the order

remains dispositive. The period of

review is April 1, 1985 through March

31, 1986.

Amended Final Results of Review

The CIT ordered the Department to:

(1) Recalculate the value-added tax

(VAT) adjustment according to its new

methodology, (2) re-classify SYPM

credit rebates as direct selling expenses,

(3) reconsider our classification of

warranty-related fees to outside service

agents as indirect selling expenses, (4)

reconsider the use of best information

available (BIA) to determine freight

allowance discounts, and (5) reconsider

the adjustment for free merchandise and

parts. As a result of our recalculations,

we have determined that the following

percentage weighted-average margin

exists for the period April 1, 1985

through March 31, 1986:

Manufacturer/exporter Percent

margin

Samsung ..................................... 0.27

Because the CIT’s decision affirming

our redetermination has become final

and conclusive, the Department will

order the immediate lifting of the

suspension of liquidation and instruct

the U.S. Customs Service to assess

antidumping duties on entries subject to

this review, as appropriate. Individual

differences between foreign market

value and U.S. price may vary from the

percentage stated above. The

Department will issue appraisement

instructions concerning these entries

directly to the U.S. Customs Service.

This notice serves as a 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 the 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 amendment of final results of

review and notice are in accordance

with section 751(f) of the Tariff Act (19

U.S.C. 1673(d)(1994)) and 19 CFR

353.28(c).

Dated: November 21, 1995.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 95–29890 Filed 12–6–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[A–580–008]

Color Television Receivers From the

Republic of Korea; Amended Final

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of amended final results

of antidumping duty administrative

review.

SUMMARY: On November 14, 1986, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) published the final results

of the second administrative review of

the antidumping duty order on color

television receivers (CTVs) from the

Republic of Korea (Korea) (51 FR

41365). The review covered the period

April 25, 1984, through March 31, 1985.

On September 16, 1994, the Court of

International Trade (CIT) issued an