64416 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 241 / Friday, December 15, 1995 / Notices

Antidumping duty proceedings Period to be

reviewed

Wu Han China Cereal Imp./Exp. Corp.

Huhu Imp./Exp. Co.

Xi An Native and Animal Products Imp./Exp. Corp.

Xiamen Huashun Food Indust. Ltd.

Xin Xian Henan International Trading Corp.

Xin Xiang Henan International Trading Corp.

Xinyang Prefectural Foreign Trade Corporation of Henan Province

Xing Tai, Hebei Imp./Exp. Corp.

Xinjiang Cereal, Food, Medical Products Imp./Exp. Corp. (Urumuqi)

Xuzhou Foreign Trade Corp.

Xuzhou Cereals, Oils and Foodstuffs Imp. & Exp. Corp.

Xuzhou Foreign Trade Company

Yantai Development Zone Imp./Exp. Co.

Yantai Foodstuffs Imp./Exp. Corp.

Yantai Hualin Food Industrial Co. Ltd.

Yantai Native Produce & Animal By-Products Imp./Exp. Corp.

Zhonghai Trading (Chongqing) Overseas Trading Corp.

Zhongji Jiahua Imp./Exp. Corp.

Zhongyuan International Economic Trade Co.

Zhun Hua Hebei Imp./Exp. Corp.

Zaoshuang MINMETAL Imp./Exp. Corp.

All other exporters of fresh garlic from the People’s Republic of China are conditionally covered by this review.

ARGENTINA:

Oil Country Tubular Goods

C–357–403

Siderca S.A.I.C. .................................................................................................................................................................. 01/01/94–12/31/94

Suspension Agreements SINGAPORE:

Certain Refrigeration Compressors

C–559–001 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 04/01/94–03/31/95

Interested parties must submit

applications for disclosure under

administrative protective orders in

accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(b) and

355.34(b).

These initiations and this notice are

in accordance with section 751(a) of the

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19

U.S.C. 1675(a)) and 19 CFR 353.22(c)(1)

and 355.22(c)(1).

Dated: December 8, 1995.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Compliance.

[FR Doc. 95–30607 Filed 12–14–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M

[A–351–605]

Silicon Metal From Argentina; Final

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review and

Termination in Part

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, and Termination in Part.

SUMMARY: On August 9, 1995, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) published the preliminary

results of its administrative review of

the antidumping duty order on silicon

metal from Argentina, and its

termination in part (60 FR 40566). Since

petitioners withdrew their request for

review of Andina Electrometalurgical

(Andina) within 90 days from the date

of publication of the notice of initiation

in accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(a)(5),

and no other party requested a review

of Andina, we terminated the review

with respect to this firm. This review

covers Silarsa, S.A. (Silarsa), a

manufacturer/exporter of this

merchandise to the United States. We

have now completed this review and

have continued to assign to Silarsa the

BIA rate of 24.62 percent for the period

September 1, 1993 through August 31,

1994.

We gave interested parties the

opportunity to comment on the

preliminary results. Based on our

analysis of the comments received, we

have concluded that Silarsa’s margin

should remain at 24.62 percent

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 15, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Maureen McPhillips or John Kugelman,

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:

Background

On August 9, 1995, the Department

published in the Federal Register (60

FR 40566) the preliminary results of its

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on silicon

metal from Argentina (56 FR 48779,

September 26, 1991). The Department

has not completed this review in

accordance with section 751 of the

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the

Tariff Act).

Applicable Statute and Regulations

The Department is conducting this

administrative review in accordance

with section 751 of the Tariff Act.

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations

to the statute and to the Department’s

regulations are in reference to the

provisions as they existed on December

31, 1994.

Scope of Review

Imports covered by this

administrative review are shipments of

silicon metal from Argentina. During

this less-than-fair-value (LTFV)

investigation, silicon metal was

described as containing at least 96.00,

but less than 99.99 percent silicon by

weight. In response to a request by

petitioners for clarification of the scope

of the antidumping duty order on

silicon metal from the People’s Republic

of China (PRC), the Department

determined that material with a higher

aluminum content containing between

89 and 96 percent silicon by weight is

the same class or kind of merchandise
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 241 / Friday, December 15, 1995 / Notices 64417

as silicon metal described in the LTFV

investigation (Final Scope RulingsAntidumping Duty Orders on Silicon

Metal from the People’s Republic of

China, Brazil, and Argentina (February

3, 1993)). Therefore, such material is

within the scope of the orders on silicon

metal from the PRC, Brazil, and

Argentina. Silicon metal is currently

provided for under subheadings

2804.69.10 and 2804.69.50 of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) and

is commonly referred to as a metal.

Semiconductor-grade silicon (silicon

metal containing by weight not less than

99.99 percent of silicon metal and

provided for in subheading 2804.61.00

of the HTS) is not subject to this order.

The HTS subheadings are provided for

convenience and U.S. Customs Service

purposes only. The written description

remains dispositive.

This review covers one manufacturer/

exporter of the subject merchandise to

the United States, Silarsa, and the

period September 1, 1993 through

August 31, 1994.

Best Information Available (BIA)

In accordance with section 776(c) of

the Tariff Act, we have determined that

the use of BIA is appropriate for Silarsa.

Our regulations that is selecting BIA we

may take into account whether a party

refuses to provide information (19 CFR

353.37(b)). Generally, whenever a

company refuses to cooperate with the

Department or otherwise significantly

impedes the proceeding, as Silarsa did

here, the Department uses as BIA the

highest rate for any company for the

same class or kind of merchandise from

the current or any prior segment of the

proceeding. When a company

substantially cooperates with our

requests for information, but fails to

provide all the information requested in

a timely manner or in the form

requested, we use 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 the LTFV investigation or a prior

administrative review; or (2) the highest

calculated rate in the review of any firm

for the same class or kind of

merchandise from the same country. See

Antifriction Bearings (Other Than

Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts

Thereof From the Federal Republic of

Germany, et. al.; Final Results of

Antidumping Administrative Review,

57 FR 28360, 28379 (June 24, 1992), and

Allied-Signal Aerospace Co. v. United

States, 996 F.2d 1185 (Fed. Cir. 1993).

Analysis of Comments Received

We invited interested parties to

comment on the preliminary results. We

received written comments from

American Silicon Technologies, Elkem

Metals Company, Globe Metallurgical,

Inc., and SKW Metals & Alloys, Inc., the

petitioners, and Silarsa, S.A., a

respondent. On September 15, 1995, we

received written rebuttal comments

from petitioners and Hunter Douglas, an

importer of silicon metal from Argentina

and an interested party as defined in

section 771(9)(A).

Comments on the Use of BIA

The petitioners assert that Silarsa’s

failure to participate in this third

administrative review occurred within

the context of a continuing pattern of

noncooperation by Silarsa in this

proceeding, and they point out that their

allegation of sales below cost with

respect to Silarsa in the 1991–1992

period of review (the first administrative

review) precipitated Silarsa’s

withdrawal. The Department

subsequently assigned a BIA rate of

54.67 percent, which was computed

from constructed value information

submitted by the petitioners and

Silarsa’s reported U.S. sales data. The

petitioner state that the Department

explained in the final results of that

review that it could not ‘‘presume that

the highest prior margins {were} the

best information available and that

following the two-tier methodology

would be significant to induce the

respondent to cooperate.’’ See Silicon

Metal from Argentina; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 58 FR 65336 (December 14,

1993) (Argentina Silicon Metal I). On

remand, the Department recalculated

the margin taking into account Silarsa’s

ministerial error allegations, and

derived a margin of 24.62 percent which

was affirmed by the Court of

International Trade (CIT) on March 24,

1994.

The petitioners note that Silarsa failed

to respond by the deadline date to the

Department’s questionnaire for the

second administrative review, covering

the period September 1, 1992 through

August 31, 1993, and has had no

subsequent contact with the Department

with respect to the second

administrative review.

For this third administrative review

the petitioners reiterate their objection

to Silarsa’s request to be ‘‘excused from

responding to’’ the Department’s

questionnaire because it (1) exported

only 331 metric tons of subject imports

during the period of review (POR) in

October 1993; (2) had stopped

manufacturing silicon metal in January

1994, and had no near-term plans to

resume production; (3) would contact

the Department should it resume

production; and (4) did not have the

personnel to prepare the response. See

Letter from Alberto Stein, President,

Silarsa, to the Department of Commerce

(December 29, 1994) Letter from Silarsa)

on file in Central Records, Room B–099.

Petitioners note that PIERS data and

Census Bureau import data indicate that

Silarsa did import silicon metal into the

United States during the POR and that

a temporary cessation of production

does not relieve Silarsa of its obligation

to respond to the questionnaire.

Petitioners state that to be an effective

tool, the application of BIA to a

recalcitrant party must result in a

margin that is less desirable to the

respondent than that which would have

been obtained had the party chosen to

cooperate. Citing N.A.R., S.p.A. v.

United States, 741 F.Supp. 936 (CIT

1990), in support of their argument,

petitioners assert that the best

information rule may be used to prevent

a respondent from controlling the

results of an antidumping investigation

‘‘by selectively providing the ITA with

information’’, (Id. at 941). Petitioners

state that the Department normally

includes within the pool of BIA rates (1)

the highest rate assigned to any

company in a previous review of

investigation and (2) the highest rate for

a responding company with shipments

during the review period. Petitioners

contend, however, that the Department

has gone beyond these rates when the

higher of the two was not ‘‘sufficiently

adverse to induce respondents to submit

timely, accurate, and complete

responses’’ (Sodium Thiosulfate From

the People’s Republic of China;

Preliminary Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review, 57 FR

58792 (December 11, 1992) (PRC

Sodium Thiosulfate)).

According to petitioners, Silarsa’s

failure to cooperate in the first, second,

and in this third administrative review

demonstrates that the current rate, the

BIA rate from the first administrative

review, is not sufficiently adverse to

induce Silarsa’s cooperation. Since the

rates established in the investigation

and prior completed reviews are no

more adverse than the 24.62 percent

deposit rate currently in effect, the

petitioners assert that the Department

must go beyond those rates to find a rate

sufficiently adverse to induce

cooperation. Citing Replacement Parts

for Self-Propelled Bituminous Paving

Equipment From Canada; Final Results

of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 56 FR 47454 (September 19,
64418 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 241 / Friday, December 15, 1995 / Notices

1991) (Canadian Replacement Parts) and

Krupp Stahl A.G. v. United States, 822

F. Supp. 789 (CIT 1993) (Krupp Stahl)

as precedent, the petitioners believe the

Department must expand its choices

and include the petition rates in its BIA

pool.

The petitioners point out that in

Certain Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings

From Brazil; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 60 FR 41876 (August 14, 1995)

(Brazil Cast Iron Pipe Fittings) the

Department assigned as BIA the average

of the petition rates, as adjusted by the

Department, reasoning that

[in] not responding to our requests for

information, [the respondent] could be

relying upon our normal BIA practice to lock

in a rate that is capped at its LTFV rate. Such

a capped BIA rate would allow [the

respondent] to practice injurious price

discrimination to a greater degree than at the

time of the LTFV investigation without fear

of adverse consequences. With such a capped

rate, [the respondent] would no longer have

an incentive to participate in an

administrative review which would

determine the extent to which [the

respondent] is actually dumping subject

merchandise in the United States.

The petitioners state that similarly in

this review Silarsa’s current BIA rate is

the highest rate established for any

respondent in this or any prior segment

of the proceeding. Therefore, in the

petitioners’ opinion, the Department

should assign to Silarsa, as BIA, the

average of the petition rates, 81.31

percent, or, at a minimum, the lowest

petition rate of 49.35 percent.

Silarsa counters that it generally

supports the Department’s preliminary

results and urges the Department to

assign to Silarsa in the final results a

rate no greater than the highest rate ever

established by the Department in

Argentine Silicon Metal I, i.e., 24.62

percent. Silarsa maintains that the

Department’s use of this rate as BIA is

firmly rooted in established agency

practice and is commonly referred to as

the two-tiered BIA methodology. In this

case the Department uses as BIA the

highest previous margin ever

established by the Department in

Silicon Metal from Argentina. Silarsa

cites Allied Signal Co. v. U.S. (996 F.2d

1185, 1192 (Fed. Cir. 1993), aff’d, 28

F.3d 1188, cert denied, 115 S. Ct.

722(1995)) as evidence that the

Department’s two-tiered BIA

methodolgy and its application in

administrative reviews have been

upheld by the Court of Appeals for the

Federal Circuit.

Silarsa dismisses the petitioners’

claim that Silarsa’s failure to cooperate

in the second and third administrative

reviews demonstrates that the current

rate is not sufficiently adverse to induce

Silarsa’s cooperation, contending that

this conclusion is clearly refuted by the

record. In fact, Silarsa maintains that the

24.62 percent margin constitutes an

insurmountable barrier, which

precluded Silarsa from participating in

the U.S. silicon metal market, and

precipitated the company’s decision to

cease production of silicon metal

effective January 1, 1994. According to

Silarsa, economic constraints and the

lack of a sufficient administrative

structure have precluded Silarsa’s

participation in the administrative

proceedings, not the petitioners’

purported ineffectiveness of the margin.

Silarsa characterizes the petitioners’

claim that the use of the 24.62 percent

margin as BIA would ‘‘reward’’ Silarsa

for its inability to participate in the

administrative proceedings as baseless,

stating that this margin is not ‘‘neutral

or even favorable’’ to Silarsa.

Silarsa contends that the Department

has no basis to assign to Silarsa a rate

greater than the 24.62 percent rate

determined to constitute BIA in the first

administrative review. Silarsa asserts

that the petitioners’ cite to Canadian

Replacement Parts to support the

application of a rate from the petition as

the BIA rate for purposes of an

administrative review is incorrect. In

that case, the Department ‘‘included the

petition rate in the BIA pool,’’ as

petitioners contend, but ultimately

rejected this rate and applied the BIA

rate in effect for the respondent in a

preceding review.

Silarsa states that the petitioners’ cite

to PRC Sodium Thiosulfates is ‘‘equally

inapt’’ because, unlike that case where

the petitioner placed on the record

documentation indicating that costs and

prices had changed substantially since

the investigation, the petitioners in this

case have not introduced evidence of

increased costs or prices that might

warrant the application of a higher

dumping margin. Silarsa also rejects the

petitioners’ cite to Krupp Stahl, where

the CIT upheld the Department’s choice

of the rate established in the

preliminary phase of the LTFV

investigation as BIA. Silarsa points out

that the administrative review at issue

in Krupp Stahl was the first review and

the only BIA alternatives available to

the Department were the petition-based

preliminary LTFV rate for the

respondent and the respondent’s own

final LTFV rate. The Court specified that

‘‘under the circumstances of limited BIA

data in [that] review,’’ the Department’s

use of the only other information

available, i.e., the preliminary LTFV

rate, was not arbitrary. Silarsa argues

that this is the third administrative

review of silicon metal from Argentina

and the information available to the

Department is not ‘‘limited.’’ In

addition, Silarsa notes that the rate used

by the Department as BIA in Krupp

Stahl was a rate established in the

preliminary LTFV investigation, not a

petition rate as proposed by the

petitioners in this case.

Silarsa also distinguishes the facts in

Brazil Cast Iron Pipe Fittings from those

in this review. In Brazil Cast Iron Pipe

Fittings there was only one respondent,

with a relatively low margin, who failed

to respond to the Department’s

questionnaire subsequent to the initial

LTFV investigation. The petitioner

argued that so long as the company

chose not to respond to the

Department’s questionnaire, the relative

low margin for the respondent would

not change under the Department’s

regular BIA practice. Silarsa points out

that due to the ‘‘unusual situation’’ in

that case the Department deviated from

its ‘‘normal BIA practice,’’ the twotiered methodology. Silarsa argues that

this ‘‘unusual situation’’ is not

applicable in this review, where there

are two companies, there is more than

one rate in the selection pool, and the

rate currently in effect for Silarsa, i.e.,

24.62 percent, is a BIA rate itself and is

more adverse and prejudicial than the

calculated rate in Brazil Cast Iron Pipe

Fittings.

Silarsa concludes that the petitioners

have failed to establish a reasonable

basis for the Department to deviate from

its accepted, established methodology to

determine a BIA rate for Silarsa. Silarsa,

therefore, urges the Department to

utilize as BIA for Silarsa in the final

results of this administrative review a

rate no greater than the BIA rate

currently in effect for Silarsa, i.e., 24.62

percent.

In rebuttal the petitioners argue that

Silarsa’s characterization of its current

BIA rate as ‘‘extremely adverse and

prejudicial’’ does not alter the fact that

Silarsa failed to cooperate in this

review; this noncooperation

demonstrates that the current rate is not

sufficiently adverse or prejudicial to

achieve the central purpose of the BIA

rule which is to provide a strong enough

incentive to cooperate that the

respondent will submit the information

necessary to determine the actual

margin of dumping on its U.S. sales.

The petitioners urge the Department not

to rely upon selected, unverified facts

submitted by an uncooperative

respondent as the basis for a decision

benefiting that respondent. They

maintain that the most important of the

selective facts submitted by Silarsa in its
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 241 / Friday, December 15, 1995 / Notices 64419

brief was its contention that it had made

only one exportation to the United

States during the POR and, therefore, its

current rate should not be increased.

The petitioners claim that the only

reason Silarsa provided any information

in this review regarding its shipments to

the United States is the petitioners’

challenge to Silarsa’s erroneous claim

that it had made only one shipment of

silicon metal to the United States during

the POR. According to the petitioners,

the fact that Silarsa is willing to accept

the 24.62 percent rate rather than

provide the requested information

demonstrates that the rate is neither

adverse not prejudicial.

The petitioners argue that since

Silarsa is the only company being

reviewed in this administrative review,

under the Department’s normal

methodology Silarsa’s current rate is the

highest possible BIA rate. The

petitioners maintain that it is the

Department’s practice to go beyond the

rates specified by its normal

methodology when the highest of those

rates is not ‘‘sufficiently adverse to

induce respondents to submit timely,

accurate, and complete responses’’ (PRC

Sodium Thiosulface, 57 FR at 58792).

Since the current rate has proven to be

too low to induce Silarsa’s cooperation,

the petitioners conclude that, in

accordance with Krupp Stahl, the

Department must assign a higher BIA

rate, the petition rate, as BIA for Silarsa.

The petitioners cite Brazil Cast Iron Pipe

Fittings, 60 FR at 41878, wherein the

Department reasoned that ‘‘such a

capped BIA rate would allow (the

respondent) to practice injurious price

discrimination of a greater degree than

at the time of the LTFV investigation

without fear of adverse consequences’’

(id., 41878), as precedent for the

Department’s use of petition-based rates

when the only available rate under the

Department’s standard practice is the

respondent’s own LTFV margin. Since

Silarsa’s current BIA rate is the highest

rate established for any respondent in

this or any prior segment of the

proceeding, the petitioners contend that

Silarsa’s rate will be capped at the

current rate. Therefore, the petitioners

reiterate their contention that the

Department should assign to Silarsa, as

BIA, the average of the petition rates

(81.31%) or, at a minimum, the lowest

petition rate (49.35%).

Hunter Douglas agrees with Silarsa

that there is no reason for the

Department to deviate from its twotiered BIA methodology in this review,

stating that the petitioners cannot

realistically claim that the 24.62 percent

rate is not sufficiently adverse when it

has prevented Silarsa from exporting to

the Untied States and also has induced

Silarsa to discontinue production of

silicon metal altogether.

Hunter Douglas argue that the sole

impact of an increase in the BIA rate

would be to punish unrelated U.S.

importers who must actually pay the

antidumping duties even though they

have no control over foreign exporters

or their decisions about whether to

cooperate in the Department’s

antidumping administrative reviews.

Therefore, Hunter Douglas urges the

Department to apply a BIA rate no

higher than 24.62 percent to Silarsa’s

merchandise in this review.

Department’s Position: We agree with

Silarsa. In the preliminary results of this

administrative review we followed our

established two-tiered methodology, as

set out above, and assigned to Silarsa, a

noncomplying respondent, the highest

rate found for any firm for the same

class or kind of merchandise in the

same country of origin in the LTFV

investigation or a prior administrative

review. As the petitioners explain in

their brief, in the final results of

Argentina Silicon Metal I we assigned to

Silarsa, as BIA), a rate of 54.67 percent,

computed using constructed value

information submitted by petitioners

and based on Silarsa’s financial

statements and its reported U.S. sales

data. On remand, the Department

recalculated this margin, taking into

account ministerial error allegations

filed by Silarsa, and derived a BIA rate

of 24.62 percent which was

subsequently affirmed by the CIT on

March 24, 1994.

We disagree with the petitioners that

the 24.62 percent BIA rate assigned to

Silarsa in the first administrative review

was not sufficiently adverse to induce

Silarsa’s cooperation in the second and

third administrative reviews and,

therefore, a more adverse rate should be

assigned in this review to induce the

desired cooperation. The BIA rate from

the first administrative review appears

to have precluded Silarsa’s participation

in the U.S. silicon metal market (see

Letter from Silarsa). Accordingly, there

is no need to resort to any higher BIA

rate, as the petitioners suggest.

The petitioners are correct in their

assertion that the Department tries to

select an appropriate BIA rate to

encourage future compliance with the

Department’s requests for information.

However, in the present case, Silarsa

maintains that it has ceased producing

and exporting the subject merchandise.

As such, in this instance, Silarsa is in

no way advantaged by the present rate,

and use of an even higher BIA rate

would not induce Silarsa to respond to

the Department’s questionnaire.

The petitioners’ reliance on Canadian

replacement Parts and Krupp Stahl to

support the use of the petition rates for

BIA is misleading. In Canadian

Replacement Parts we considered the

petition rate in the pool of possible BIA

rates, but ultimately rejected the rate

alleged in the petition as a BIA rate

because the respondent did make

‘‘several attempts to respond to our

request for data’’ and ‘‘the selection of

the most adverse BIA rate {was} not

warranted under {those}

circumstances’’ (see Canadian

Replacement Parts, 56 FR 47454), In

Krupp Stahl the CIT concluded that the

Department’s choice of BIA (i.e., the

preliminary LTFV margin) was ‘‘within

its discretion’’ and ‘‘in accordance with

law’’ given the ‘‘special circumstance of

{that} case, that is, Krupp’s destruction

of the records during the process of

litigation and the limited BIA data

available for use’’ (Id., 822 F. Supp., at

796). There are no parallel ‘‘special

circumstances’’ in this review. There

were special circumstances in the first

administrative review which persuaded

the Department to go beyond the twotiered BIA methodology and use the rate

the petitioners derived from Silarsa’s

own financial statements and submitted

sales information. That rate is currently

the highest rate for any respondent

during the investigation and in

subsequent administrative reviews.

There are no special circumstances in

this third administrative review that

warrant rejecting that rate and going

beyond the standard two-tiered BIA

methodology.

The petitioners’ fear that the

Department’s use of the traditional twotiered methodology in this instance

would result in a ‘‘capped BIA rate’’

which ‘‘would allow {the respondent}

to practice injurious price

discrimination to a greater degree than

at the time of the LTFV investigation

without fear of adverse consequences’’

(Brazil Cast Iron Pipe Fittings, 60 FR at

41876) is unwarranted. While the

Department did find it appropriate to

use a higher petition-based rate as BIA

in the Brazil Cast Iron Pipe Fittings

review, there is no need to do so here.

Unlike Brazil Cast Iron Pipe Fittings,

there are other exporters of the subject

merchandise which may receive a

higher rate in subsequent proceedings.

Moreover, as discussed above, Silarsa

attests that it is no longer producing or

exporting the subject merchandise.

There is no evidence to indicate that,if

Silarsa resumes production, the current

rate is insufficient to ensure Silarsa’s

cooperation in a subsequent review.

Therefore, we believe that Silarsa’s BIA
64420 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 241 / Friday, December 15, 1995 / Notices

rate from the first administrative review

is sufficient for the purposes for which

BIA is intended. There is no indication

that Silarsa is engaging in injurious

price discrimination to a greater degree

than at the time of the first

administrative review. Should such

evidence come to light in a future

review, and the Department determines

that a BIA rate is appropriate, it is not

precluded from evaluating the rate in

order to assign one that would

accomplish the purpose for which a BIA

rate is intended.

Finally, we also disagree with the

petitioners’ argument that PRC Sodium

Thiosulfate supports the conclusion that

a higher BIA rate is warranted in this

instance. In PRC Sodium Thiosulfate the

Department reconsidered the BIA rate

because the petitioner presented

evidence that costs and prices in the

industry had changed substantially

since the investigation, making the BIA

rate from the investigation ‘‘no longer

sufficiently adverse.’’ See PRC Sodium

Thiosulfate: Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 58 FR 12934 (March 8, 1993).

That is not the case in this review.

There is no evidence on the record that

costs or prices have changed, let alone

changed substantially, that would

warrant a reconsideration of the current

BIA rate assigned to Silarsa.

As explained above, the present BIA

rate is sufficiently adverse to Silarsa.

Therefore, since we see no reason to

deviate from our well-established twotiered BIA methodology in this review,

we have continued to use 24.62 percent

as Silarsa’s first-tier BIA rate for this

third administrative review.

Final Results of Review

As a result of comments received, we

have not revised our preliminary

results. Therefore, we determine that the

following margin exists for the period

September 1, 1993 through August 31,

1994:

Manufacturer/Exporter

Margin

(percent)

Silarsa, S.A. ...................................... 24.62

The Department will instruct the U.S.

Customs Service to assess antidumping

duties on all appropriate entries.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective upon

publication of this notice of final results

of administrative review for all

shipments of the subject merchandise,

entered or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after the

publication date, as provided for by

section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act: (1)

The cash deposit rate for the reviewed

company, Silarsa, will be the rate listed

above; (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; (4) the cash deposit

rate for all other manufacturers or

exporters will be 17.87 percent, the ‘‘all

other’’ rate established in the final

Results of Redetermination Pursuant to

Court Remand, American Alloys, Inc. v.

United States, Ct. No. 91–10–00782, p.

4 (April 7, 1995).

These deposit requirements shall

remain in effect until publication of the

final results of the next administrative

review.

This notice serves as a final reminder

to importers of their responsibility

under 19 CFR § 353.26 to file a

certificate regarding the reimbursement

of antidumping duties prior to

liquidation of the relevant entries

during this review period. Failure to

comply with this requirement could

result in the Secretary’s presumption

that reimbursement of antidumping

duties occurred and the subsequent

assessment of double antidumping

duties.

This notice serves as the only

reminder to parties subject to

administrative protective order (APO) of

their responsibilities concerning the

return or destruction of proprietary

information disclosed under APO in

accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(d).

Failure to comply is a violation of the

APO. Timely written notification of

return/destruction of APO materials or

conversion to judicial protective order is

hereby requested. Failure to comply

with the regulations and the terms of an

APO is a sanctionable violation.

This administrative review and notice

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

of the Tariff Act (19 U.S.C.

1675(a)(1)(B)) as amended and 19 CFR

353.22.

Dated: December 7, 1995.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 95–30606 Filed 12–14–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

[I.D. 120895A]

Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management

Council; Public Meeting

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

SUMMARY: The Gulf of Mexico Fishery

Management Council (Council) will

convene a public meeting of its Shrimp

Advisory Panel (AP).

DATES: The meeting will be held on

January 9, 1996 beginning at 9:00 a.m.

and will conclude at 4:30 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at

the New Orleans Airport Hilton Hotel,

901 Airline Highway, Kenner, LA;

telephone: 504–469–5000.

Council address: Gulf of Mexico

Fishery Management Council, 5401

West Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 331,

Tampa, FL 33609.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Antonio B. Lamberte, Economist;

telephone: 813–228–2815.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The AP

will review scientific information on the

cooperative shrimp closure with the

State of Texas, royal red shrimp

regulatory amendment (tentative) and

comparison of shrimp vessel effort and

bycatch characterization effort. The AP

consists principally of commercial

shrimp fishermen, dealers and

association representatives. The AP will

develop recommendations to the

Council regarding the extent of the

closure of Federal waters off Texas in

1996 concurrent with the closure of

Texas waters. If Amendment 8 to the

Shrimp Fishery Management Plan is

approved, the AP will review a

regulatory amendment that would

provide a procedure for setting a total

allowable catch of royal red shrimp. The

AP will also develop recommendations

regarding the level of effort in the

shrimp fishery after reviewing

information that compares levels of

effort collected using the current

method and effort collected from the

bycatch characterization study.

Special Accommodations

This meeting is physically accessible

to people with disabilities. Requests for

sign language interpretation or other

auxiliary aids should be directed to

Anne Alford at the Council (see

ADDRESSES) by January 2, 1996.