65284 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 1995 / Notices

This administrative review and notice

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

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

CFR 353.22.

Dated: December 12, 1995.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 95–30784 Filed 12–18–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[A–580–815]

Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat

Products From 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.

SUMMARY: In response to requests by two

respondents, the Department of

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) is

conducting an administrative review of

the antidumping duty order on certain

cold-rolled carbon steel flat products

from Korea. The review covers two

manufacturers/exporters of the subject

merchandise to the United States during

the period of review (‘‘POR’’) from

August 18, 1993, through July 31, 1994.

We have preliminarily determined

that sales have been made below the

foreign market value (‘‘FMV’’). If these

preliminary results are adopted in our

final results of 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.

Interested parties are invited to

comment on these preliminary results.

Parties who submit argument in this

proceeding are requested to submit with

the argument (1) a statement of the

issue, and (2) a brief summary of the

argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 19, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Alain Letort or Linda Ludwig, Office of

Agreements Compliance, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

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

telephone (202) 482–3793 or fax (202)

482–1388.

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 July 9, 1993, the Commerce

Department published in the Federal

Register (58 FR 37176) the final

affirmative antidumping duty

determination on certain cold-rolled

carbon steel flat products from Korea,

for which we published an antidumping

duty order on August 19, 1993 (58 FR

44159). On August 3, 1994, the

Department published the ‘‘Notice of

Opportunity to Request an

Administrative Review’’ of this order for

the period August 18, 1993 through July

31, 1994 (59 FR 39543). We received a

request for an administrative review

from Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd. (‘‘Dongbu’’)

and Union Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd.

(‘‘Union’’). We initiated the

administrative review on September 8,

1994 (59 FR 46391).

In a letter dated February 1, 1995,

petitioners formally requested that the

Department consider Union and

Dongkuk Industries Co., Ltd. (‘‘DKI’’),

which was not a respondent initially, as

related parties and ‘‘collapse’’ them as a

single producer of cold-rolled carbon

steel flat products.

In accordance with section 771(13) of

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the

Act’’), the Department, in determining

whether parties are related, considers

whether the alleged related party:

1. Is an agent or principal of the exporter,

manufacturer, or producer;

2. Owns or controls, directly or indirectly,

through stock ownership or control or

otherwise, any interest in the business of the

exporter, manufacturer or producer;

3. Is a party in whose business the

exporter, manufacturer, or producer owns or

controls, directly or indirectly, any interest,

through stock ownership or control or

otherwise; or

4. Owns or controls, jointly or severally,

directly or indirectly, through stock

ownership or control or otherwise, 20

percent or more in the aggregate of the voting

power or control in the business carried on

by the person by whom or for whose account

the merchandise is imported into the United

States, and also 20 percent or more of such

power or control in the business of the

exporter, manufacturer or producer.

Factual information provided on the

record by Union, and supplemented by

petitioners, indicates that DKI and

Union are both affiliated with Dongkuk

Steel Mill (‘‘DSM’’). The record shows

that DSM holds, directly or indirectly, a

controlling share in Union’s equity.

DSM is in turn controlled by the Korean

family which owns the largest block of

shares in the company. That same

family controls, directly or indirectly, a

majority of DKI’s equity. The

Department therefore determined that

Union and DKI are related to each other

by virtue of their common affiliation

with the same ‘‘parents.’’ (See the

Department’s internal memorandum

from Joseph A. Spetrini to Susan G.

Esserman, dated May 22, 1995, and

entered onto the record of this

proceeding on September 28, 1995—

hereinafter referred to as ‘‘the collapsing

memo’’).

It is the Department’s practice to

collapse related parties when the facts

demonstrate that the relationship is

such that there is a strong possibility of

manipulation of prices and production

decisions that would result in

circumvention of antidumping law. In

determining whether to collapse related

parties, the Department considers the

following factors:

1. The level of common ownership;

2. Whether there are interlocking officers

and directors, (e.g., whether managerial

employees or board members of one

company sit on the board(s) of directors of

the other related party(ies));

3. The existence of production facilities for

similar or identical products that would not

require retooling either plant’s facilities to

implement a decision to restructure either

company’s manufacturing priorities; and

4. Whether the operations of the companies

are intertwined (e.g., sharing of sales

information; involvement in production and

pricing decisions; sharing of facilities or

employees; transactions between companies).

With respect to the first factor, the

Department has determined that there is

a significant level of common

ownership of both Union and DKI

through DSM and the family that

controls it. As noted above, factual

information provided on the record by

Union, and supplemented by

petitioners, indicates that DKI and

Union are both affiliated with the DSM

group. The same family owns by far the

largest block of shares in DSM and is

listed in DSM’s annual filing to the

Korean Securities and Exchange

Commission (‘‘KSEC’’) as ‘‘controlling’’

the company. DSM, in turn, directly and

indirectly (through its affiliated

companies), own a majority of the

equity in Union. The same family also

owns, directly and indirectly, a

controlling share of DKI’s equity.

With respect to the second factor,

evidence on the record demonstrates

that Union, DSM and DKI have

interlocking officers and directors. Two

of DKI’s board are family members and

members of DSM’s board. Five of

Union’s 18 board members are members

of DSM’s board; of those five, one is a

member of the family in question. The

president of DKI sits on the boards of

both DKI and Union. These interlocking
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 1995 / Notices 65285

board members and officers participate

in board meetings, vote, and voice their

opinions on proposals before the board.

Because the interlocking directors

actively participate in the decisionmaking process, the potential for these

interlocking directors to influence

pricing and production decisions for

both Union and DKI exists.

With respect to the third factor, the

Department has recently clarified that,

although not necessarily determinative,

this factor is essential. The information

presented indicates that DKI and Union

produce the identical types of products

for the major characteristics that are

relevant to production and price

decisions for cold-rolled material. They

make the same grades and qualities of

cold-rolled steel, and material in

overlapping thicknesses and thickness

tolerances. In regards to thickness

tolerances, DKI can relax its rolling

practices to make material to Union’s

tolerances, and Union has the capability

to produce material comparable to DKI,

yet is not supplying it in the home

market. The very existence of DKI

suggests that there is a domestic market

for tight tolerance material in many of

the grades and qualities of steel being

supplied by Union. With Union not

supplying this material in the home

market, it indicates that DKI is meeting

domestic demand for this material.

With respect to the fourth factor,

Union and DKI have overlapping board

members who serve in multiple roles.

KSEC filings indicate that both DKI and

Union are controlled by DSM. Union’s

1993 financial data was combined with

DSM’s on an ‘‘equity-method’’ basis.

(The equity method is used when an

investor has the ability to exercise

significant influence over the operating

and financial policies of the

investment.) Union sold subject

merchandise through DKI during the

POR, and DKI slit sheet into narrower

widths for Union during the POR.

On May 22, 1995, for the reasons

outlined above, the Department decided

to ‘‘collapse’’ Union and DKI for

purposes of this review. (For further

details, see the collapsing memo.)

The Department is conducting this

review in accordance with section 751

of the Act.

Scope of the Review

These products include cold-rolled

(cold-reduced) carbon steel flat-rolled

products, of rectangular shape, neither

clad, plated nor coated with metal,

whether or not painted, varnished or

coated with plastics or other

nonmetallic substances, in coils

(whether or not in successively

superimposed layers) and of a width of

0.5 inch or greater, or in straight lengths

which, if of a thickness less than 4.75

millimeters, are of a width of 0.5 inch

or greater and which measures at least

10 times the thickness or if of a

thickness of 4.75 millimeters or more

are of a width which exceeds 150

millimeters and measures at least twice

the thickness, as currently classifiable in

the HTS under item numbers

7209.11.0000, 7209.12.0030,

7209.12.0090, 7209.13.0030,

7209.13.0090, 7209.14.0030,

7209.14.0090, 7209.21.0000,

7209.22.0000, 7209.23.0000,

7209.24.1000, 7209.24.5000,

7209.31.0000, 7209.32.0000,

7209.33.0000, 7209.34.0000,

7209.41.0000, 7209.42.0000,

7209.43.0000, 7209.44.0000,

7209.90.0000, 7210.70.3000,

7210.90.9000, 7211.30.1030,

7211.30.1090, 7211.30.3000,

7211.30.5000, 7211.41.1000,

7211.41.3030, 7211.41.3090,

7211.41.5000, 7211.41.7030,

7211.41.7060, 7211.41.7090,

7211.49.1030, 7211.49.1090,

7211.49.3000, 7211.49.5030,

7211.49.5060, 7211.49.5090,

7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000,

7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000,

7217.11.1000, 7217.11.2000,

7217.11.3000, 7217.19.1000,

7217.19.5000, 7217.21.1000,

7217.29.1000, 7217.29.5000,

7217.31.1000, 7217.39.1000, and

7217.39.5000. Included are flat-rolled

products of nonrectangular cross-section

where such cross-section is achieved

subsequent to the rolling process (i.e.,

products which have been ‘‘worked

after rolling’’)—for example, products

which have been bevelled or rounded at

the edges. Excluded is certain shadow

mask steel, i.e., aluminum-killed, coldrolled steel coil that is open-coil

annealed, has a carbon content of less

than 0.002 percent, is of 0.003 to 0.012

inch in thickness, 15 to 30 inches in

width, and has an ultra flat, isotropic

surface. These HTS item numbers are

provided for convenience and customs

purposes. The written description

remains dispositive.

The POR is August 18, 1993 through

July 31, 1994. This review covers sales

of certain cold-rolled carbon steel flat

products by Dongbu and Union.

Verification

As provided in section 776(b) of the

Act, we verified information provided

by the respondent using standard

verification procedures, including onsite inspection of the manufacturers’

facilities, the examination of relevant

sales and financial records, and

selection of original documentation

containing relevant information. Our

verification results are outlined in the

public versions of the verification

reports.

United States Price

The Department used purchase price,

in accordance with section 772(b) of the

Act, because the subject merchandise

was sold to unrelated purchasers in the

United States. As described below in the

‘‘Foreign Matket Value’’ section of this

notice, we added the Korean valueadded tax to USP.

Dongbu

All of Dongbu’s U.S. sales were based

on the price to the first unrelated

purchaser in the United States. The

Department determined that purchase

price, as defined in section 772(b) of the

Act, was the appropriate basis for

calculating USP. Depending on the

channel of trade, we treated the date of

either the purchase order, the internal

confirmation or the date of the

production order as date of sale. We

made adjustments to purchase price,

where appropriate, for home-market

value-added tax, foreign inland freight,

foreign brokerage, ocean freight,

containerization, U.S. duty and U.S.

brokerage and handling.

No other adjustments were claimed or

allowed.

Union

All of Union’s U.S. sales were based

on the price to the first unrelated

purchaser in the United States. The

Department determined that purchase

price, as defined in section 772(b) of the

Act, was the appropriate basis for

calculating USP. Because quantities

were not finalized until the

merchandise was actually shipped to

the United States, we treated the date of

shipment as date of sale (see the

Department’s analysis memorandum

dated September 28, 1995). We made

adjustments to purchase price, where

appropriate, for cash discounts and

rebates, home-market value-added tax,

foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage

and handling, ocean freight, marine

insurance, U.S. duty, U.S. brokerage and

handling, U.S. inland freight, and duty

drawback. Because Union had

understated its U.S. credit expenses by

not including bank charges therein, we

increased Union’s U.S. credit expense

by the amount of those charges, which

we obtained from the audited financial

statement of Union’s U.S. subsidiary.

No other adjustments were claimed or

allowed.
65286 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 1995 / Notices

Foreign Market Value

Based on a comparison of the volume

of home-market sales and third-country

sales, we determined that Dongbu’s and

Union’s home markets were viable.

Therefore, in accordance with section

773(a)(1)(A) of the Act, we based FMV

on the packed, delivered price to

unrelated purchasers in the home

market, using the date of the invoice as

the date of sale.

Based on a review of Dongbu’s and

Union’s submissions, the Department

determined that only a small percentage

of those companies’ home-market sales

were made to related parties who, in

turn, resold the merchandise

(‘‘downstream sales’’). The Department

determined that Dongbu and Union

need not report their home-market

downstream sales because of their low

volume.

On December 15, 1994, petitioners

alleged that Dongbu and Union sold

cold-rolled carbon steel flat products in

the home market at prices below their

cost of production (‘‘COP’’). Based on

this allegation, the Department

determined, on January 17, 1995 (for

Dongbu), and on January 18, 1995 (for

Union), that it had reasonable grounds

to believe or suspect that Dongbu and

Union had sold the subject merchandise

in the home market at prices below the

COP. We therefore initiated cost

investigations, in accordance with

section 773(b) of the Act. As a result, we

investigated whether Dongbu and Union

sold such or similar merchandise in the

home market at prices below the COP.

In accordance with 19 CFR § 353.51(c)

we calculated COP for Dongbu and

Union as the sum of reported materials,

labor, factory overhead, and general

expenses, and compared COP to homemarket prices, net of price adjustments,

discounts and movement expenses.

In accordance with section 773(b) of

the Act, in determining whether to

disregard home-market sales made at

prices below the COP, we examined

whether such sales were made in

substantial quantities over an extended

period of time, and whether such sales

were made at prices which permitted

recovery of all costs within a reasonable

period of time in the normal course of

trade.

To satisfy the requirement of section

773(b)(1) that below-cost sales be

disregarded only if made in substantial

quantities, we applied the following

methodology. For each model for which

less than 10 percent, by quantity, of the

home-market sales during the POR were

made at prices below the COP, we

included all sales of that model in the

computation of FMV. For each model

for which 10 percent or more, but less

than 90 percent, of the home-market

sales during the POR were priced below

the COP of the merchandise, we

excluded from the calculation of FMV

those home-market sales which were

priced below the COP, provided that

they were made over an extended

period of time. For each model for

which 90 percent or more of the homemarket sales during the POR were

priced below the COP and were made

over an extended period of time, we

disregarded all sales of that model in

our calculation and, in accordance with

section 773(b) of the Act, we used the

constructed value (‘‘CV’’) of those

models, as described below. See, e.g.,

Mechanical Transfer Presses from

Japan; Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review, 59 FR 9958

(March 2, 1994).

In accordance with section 773(b)(1)

of the Act, to determine whether sales

below cost had been made over an

extended period of time, we compared

the number of months in which sales

below cost occurred for a particular

model to the number of months in

which that model was sold. If the model

was sold in fewer than three months, we

did not disregard below-cost sales

unless there were below-cost sales of

that model in each month sold. If a

model was sold in three or more

months, we did not disregard belowcost sales unless there were sales below

cost in at least three of the months in

which the model was sold. We used CV

as the basis for FMV when an

insufficient number of home-market

sales were made at prices above COP.

See 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; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Reviews, 58 FR 64720, 64729 (December

8, 1993).

Because Dongbu and Union provided

no indication that their below-cost sales

of models within the ‘‘greater than 90

percent’’ and the ‘‘between 10 and 90

percent’’ categories were at prices that

would permit recovery of all costs

within a reasonable period of time and

in the normal course of trade, we

disregarded those sales within the ‘‘10

to 90 percent’’ category which were

made below cost over an extended

period of time. In addition, as a result

of our COP test for home-market sales of

models within the ‘‘greater than 90

percent’’ category, we based FMV on CV

for all U.S. sales for which there were

insufficient sales of the comparison

home-market model at or above COP.

Finally, where we found, for certain of

Dongbu’s and Union’s models, homemarket sales for which less than 10

percent were made below COP, we used

all home-market sales of those models

in our comparisons.

We also used CV as FMV for those

U.S. sales for which there was no

contemporaneous sale of such or similar

merchandise in the home market. We

calculated CV in accordance with

section 773(e) of the Act. We included

the cost of materials, labor, and factory

overhead in our calculations. Where the

general expenses were less than the

statutory minimum of 10 percent of the

cost of manufacture (‘‘COM’’), we

calculated general expenses as 10

percent of the COM. Where the actual

profits were less than the statutory

minimum of 8 percent of the COM plus

general expenses, we calculated profit

as 8 percent of the sum of COM plus

general expenses. Based on our

verification of Dongbu’s and Union’s

cost response, we adjusted Dongbu’s,

Union’s, and DKI’s reported COP and

CV to reflect certain adjustments to

general and administrative expenses

and interest expenses. See the

Department’s separate cost calculation

memoranda for Dongbu (dated August

10, 1995) and Union/DKI (dated

September 21, 1995).

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
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 1995 / Notices 65287

statute did not preclude Commerce 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 Commerce 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 United

States 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.

Dongbu

In accordance with section 773 of the

Act, for those U.S. models for which we

were able to find a home-market such or

similar match that had sufficient abovecost sales, we calculated FMV based on

the packed, f.o.b., ex-factory, or

delivered prices to unrelated purchasers

in the home market. We made

adjustments, where applicable, for

certain rebates tied to specific sales,

post-sale inland freight, home-market

value-added tax, and for home market

direct selling expenses, i.e., credit and

warranty expenses. We also adjusted

FMV for differences in physical

characteristics of the merchandise.

Finally, we adjusted FMV for

differences in packing by deducting

home-market packing expenses from,

and adding U.S. packing expenses to,

FMV.

Union

Because the Department is treating

Union and DKI as a single producer of

certain cold-rolled carbon steel flat

products for purposes of this review, we

combined Union’s and DKI’s homemarket sales and cost-of-production data

bases in our preliminary calculations. In

accordance with section 773 of the Act,

for those U.S. models for which we were

able to find a home-market such or

similar match that had sufficient abovecost sales, we calculated FMV based on

the packed, f.o.b., ex-factory, or

delivered prices to unrelated purchasers

in the home market. We made

adjustments, where applicable, for postsale inland freight, home-market valueadded tax, and for home-market direct

selling expenses, i.e., credit expenses.

We treated Union’s warehousing

expense as an indirect selling expense,

rather than direct, as Union had

claimed, because Union evenly

allocated this expense to all homemarket sales across-the-board, rather

than calculating a discrete warehousing

expense for each home-market sale.

We also treated Union’s pre-sale

inland freight as an indirect selling

expense, rather than direct, as Union

had claimed, pursuant to the decision

by the Court of Appeals for the Federal

Circuit in Ad Hoc Committee v. United

States, 13 F.3d 398 (Fed. Cir. 1994). The

Department considers pre-sale

movement expenses as direct selling

expenses only if the movement

expenses in question are directly related

to the home-market sales under

consideration. In order to determine

whether pre-sale movement expenses

are direct under the facts of a particular

case, the Department examines the

respondent’s pre-sale warehousing

expenses, since the pre-sale movement

charges incurred in positioning the

merchandise at the warehouse are, for

analytical purposes, linked to pre-sale

warehousing expenses. If the pre-sale

warehousing constitutes an indirect

expense, the expense involved in getting

the merchandise to the warehouse must

also be indirect. Conversely, a direct

pre-sale warehousing expense

necessarily implies a direct pre-sale

movement expense. We note that,

although pre-sale warehousing expenses

in most cases have been found to be

indirect selling expenses, these

expenses may be deducted from FMV as

a circumstance-of-sale adjustment in a

particular case if the respondent is able

to demonstrate that the expenses are

directly related to the sales under

consideration. In the instant review,

Union did not distinguish between preand post-sale warehousing expenses,

nor did it demonstrate that these

expenses were directly tied to the homemarket sales under consideration. The

Department, therefore, determined to

treat home-market warehousing

expenses as indirect selling expenses.

We also adjusted FMV for differences

in packing by deducting home-market

packing expenses from, and adding U.S.

packing expenses to, FMV.

During the verification of Union’s

responses, the Department was unable

to fully verify the accuracy of Union’s

reported home-market product

characteristics, because Union did not

retain the relevant information in its

records. It is the Department’s

preference to calculate antidumping

duties on the basis of price-to-price

comparisons whenever possible. It is

also the Department’s preference to use

as much of respondent’s data as

possible. For purposes of these

preliminary results, therefore, the

Department has decided to use Union’s

model-matching product characteristics,

but to apply to all of Union’s price-toprice sales comparisons a flat, acrossthe-board adjustment for differences in

physical characteristics of the

merchandise (‘‘difmer’’) of 20 percent as

the best information otherwise available

(‘‘BIA’’). Twenty percent is the

maximum difmer allowed between U.S.

and home-market models for the

purposes of comparison. See the

Department’s internal memorandum

from Joseph A. Spetrini to Susan G.

Esserman, dated August 8, 1995.

We were able, by contrast, to verify

DKI’s reported product characteristics.

In the model-match program, therefore,

we programmed the computer,

whenever DKI sales were used as a basis

for comparison with Union’s U.S. sales,

to apply the difmers reported by DKI,

rather than an across-the-board difmer

of 20 percent, as we did when Union’s

home-market sales were used as a basis

for comparison. We disagree, however,

with DKI’s categorization of its

thickness tolerances as ‘‘standard.’’

Based on the Department’s modelmatching criteria, we have concluded

that DKI’s thickness tolerances are much

closer to U.S. ‘‘half-mill’’ tolerances

than to Union’s ‘‘standard’’ tolerances.

We have therefore created a new

category of thickness tolerance—called

‘‘other’’—for DKI, permitting the
65288 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 1995 / Notices

comparison of Union’s U.S. sales of

‘‘half-mill’’ to DKI’s home-market sales.

Preliminary Results of Review

As a result of our comparison of USP

to FMV, we preliminarily determine

that the following margins exist for the

period August 18, 1993, through July 31,

1994:

CERTAIN COLD-ROLLED CARBON

STEEL FLAT PRODUCTS

Producer/manufacturer/exporter

Weightedaverage

margin (percent)

Dongbu ..................................... 6.07

Union ........................................ 1.21

Interested parties may request

disclosure within 5 days of the date of

publication of this notice and may

request a hearing within 10 days of

publication. Any hearing, if requested,

will be held 44 days after the date of

publication or the first business day

thereafter. Case briefs and/or written

comments from interested parties may

be submitted no later than 30 days after

the date of publication. Rebuttal briefs

and rebuttals to written comments,

limited to issues raised in those

comments, may be filed not later than

37 days after the date of publication of

this notice. The Department will

publish the final results of this

administrative review including the

results of its analysis of issues raised in

any such written comments or at a

hearing.

The Department shall determine, and

the Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. Individual differences between

the USP and FMV may vary from the

percentages stated above.

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

this administrative review, as provided

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

cash deposit of estimated antidumping

duties shall be required on shipments of

certain cold-rolled carbon steel flat

products from Korea as follows: (1) The

cash deposit rates for the reviewed

company will be the rate established in

the final results of this review; (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 or the original less-than-fairvalue (‘‘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) if neither the

exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm

covered in this review, the cash deposit

rate for this case will be 14.53 percent,

which is the ‘‘all others’’ rate for the

LTFV investigation. See Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon

Steel Flat Products from Korea, 58 FR

37176 (July 9, 1993).

This notice also serves as a

preliminary 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 administrative review and this

notice are in accordance with section

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

1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR § 353.22.

Dated: December 8, 1995.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 95–30799 Filed 12–18–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

Determination Not to Revoke

Antidumping Duty Orders and

Findings Nor to Terminate Suspended

Investigations

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Determination Not to Revoke

Antidumping Duty Orders and Findings

Nor to Terminate Suspended

Investigations.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

is notifying the public of its

determination not to revoke the

antidumping duty orders and findings

nor to terminate the suspended

investigations listed below.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 19, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael Panfeld or the analyst listed

under Antidumping Proceeding at:

Office of Antidumping Compliance,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution

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

telephone (202) 482–4737.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Department of Commerce (the

Department) may revoke an

antidumping duty order or finding or

terminate a suspended investigation,

pursuant to 19 CFR § 353.25(d)(4)(iii), if

no interested party has requested an

administrative review for four

consecutive annual anniversary months

and no domestic interested party objects

to the revocation or requests an

administrative review.

We had not received a request to

conduct an administrative review for

the most recent four consecutive annual

anniversary months. Therefore,

pursuant to § 353.25(d)(4)(i) of the

Department’s regulations, on November

1, 1995, we published in the Federal

Register a notice of intent to revoke

these antidumping duty orders and

findings and to terminate the suspended

investigations and served written notice

of the intent to each domestic interested

party on the Department’s service list in

each case. Within the specified time

frame, we received objections from

domestic interested parties to our intent

to revoke these antidumping duty orders

and findings and to terminate the

suspended investigations. Therefore,

because domestic interested parties

objected to our intent to revoke or

terminate, we no longer intend to revoke

these antidumping duty orders and

findings or to terminate the suspended

investigations.

Antidumping Proceeding

A–357–405

Argentina

Barbed Wire and Barbless Fencing

Wire

Objection Date: November 30, 1995;

November 20, 1995

Objector: Oklahoma Steel & Wire Co.;

Insteel Industries, Inc.; Keystone

Steel & Wire Company

Contact: Tom Killiam at (202) 482–

2704

A–357–007

Argentina

Carbon Steel Wire Rods

Objection Date: November 30, 1995

Objector: GS Industries, Inc.; GST

Steel Company; North Star Steel

Texas, Inc.; Co-Steel Raritan, Inc.;

Atlantic Steel Company

Contact: Tom Killiam at (202) 482–

2704

A–559–502

Singapore

Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and

Tube

Objection Date: November 20, 1995

Objector: Hannibal Industries, Inc.

Contact: Tom Killiam at (202) 482–

2704