2078 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 1995 / Notices

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 below-cost sales unless there

were sales below cost in at least three

of the months in which the model was

sold.

We compared individual home

market prices with the monthly COP.

We tested the home market prices on

the basis of the six physical criteria used

for product matches, and found that, for

certain models, between 10 and 90

percent of home market sales were made

at below-COP prices. Since the

respondent provided no indication that

these sales 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

the below-cost sales for those models, if

those sales were made over an extended

period of time. We used the remaining

above-cost sales for comparison

purposes.

For certain models, we used

constructed value (CV) as the basis for

FMV when there were no

contemporaneous home market sales of

such or similar merchandise.

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. The

respondent reported selling, general,

and administrative expenses (SG&A)

greater than the statutory minimum of

10 percent of the cost of manufacture

(COM). Therefore, we used the

respondent’s reported SG&A expenses.

The respondent reported actual profit

greater than the statutory minimum of

eight percent of the sum of the COM and

SG&A. Therefore, we used the

respondent’s reported profit amounts.

We adjusted the CV for warranty and

credit expenses, and the lesser of home

market indirect selling expenses or U.S.

commissions.

No other adjustments were claimed or

allowed.

Preliminary Results of the Reviews

As a result of our comparison of USP

to FMV, we preliminarily determine

that the following dumping margins

exist for the periods of review:

Review period

Manufacturer/exporterMargin

(Percent)

3/1/90–2/28/91 ........... Wieland .... 3.33

3/1/91–2/29/92 ........... Wieland .... 2.07

3/1/92–2/28/93 ........... Wieland .... 0.36

Any interested party may request a

hearing within 10 days of publication of

this notice. Any hearing will be held 44

days after the date of publication or the

first workday thereafter. Interested

parties may submit case briefs within 30

days of the publication date of this

notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues

raised in the case briefs, may be filed

not later than 37 days after the date of

publication. The Department will

publish a notice of the final results of

these administrative reviews, which

will include the results of its analyses

of issues raised in any such case briefs

or hearing.

The following deposit requirements

shall be effective for all shipments of the

subject merchandise that are 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 Act: (1) The cash

deposit rates for the reviewed company

shall be those rates established in the

final results of these reviews; (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 these reviews, a

prior review, or the original LTFV

investigation, but the manufacturer is,

the cash deposit rate shall 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 these or any previous

reviews by the Department, the cash

deposit rate will be 8.87%, the all others

rate established in the LTFV

investigation.

These deposit requirements, when

imposed, shall remain in effect until

publication of the final results of the

next administrative review.

This notice 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 these review periods.

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 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 23, 1994.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration

[FR Doc. 95–347 Filed 1–5–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[A–549–809]

Notice of Preliminary Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain

Carbon Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings

From Thailand

Correction

In notice document 94–24539

beginning on page 50568, in the issue of

Tuesday, October 4, 1994, make the

following corrections:

1. On page 50568, in the third

column, under Case History, in the third

paragraph, in the third line, ‘‘Asahi’’

should read ‘‘Awaji.’’

2. On page 50570, in the second

column, under Suspension of

Liquidation, after the second paragraph,

under the heading ‘‘Manufacturer/

Producer/Exporter,’’ ‘‘Asahi’’ should

read ‘‘Awaji.’’

Dated: December 26, 1994.

Barbara R. Stafford,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 95–348 Filed 1–5–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M

[A–570–820]

Certain Compact Ductile Iron

Waterworks Fittings and Glands From

the People’s Republic of China: Notice

of Court Decision; Exclusion From the

Application of the Antidumping Duty

Order, in Part; Termination of

Administrative Review in Part; and

Amended Final Determination and

Order

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of amendment to final

determination of sales at less-than-fairvalue, exclusion from the application of

the Antidumping Duty Order, and

termination of administrative review in

accordance with decision upon remand.

SUMMARY: On November 15, 1994, the

United States Court of International

Trade (CIT) affirmed the Department’s

September 30, 1994, remand

determination which was not contested

by defendant-intervenor, The U.S.

Waterworks Fittings Producers Council,

et al.; and entered Final Judgment with

prejudice. See China National Metal

Products Import and Export Corporation