9008 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 32 / Thursday, February 16, 1995 / Notices

Moreover, in order to determine

whether pre-sale movement expenses

are direct, the Department will examine

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, inextricably 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 also must be indirect;

conversely, a direct pre-sale

warehousing expense necessarily

implies a direct pre-sale movement

expense.

When USP is based on ESP, the

Department uses the COS adjustment in

the same manner as in purchase price

situations. Additionally, under the ESP

offset provision set forth in 19 CFR

353.56(b) (1) and (2), we will adjust for

any pre-sale movement charges which

are treated as indirect selling expenses.

Accordingly, because the Department

has preliminarily determined that presale warehousing costs are an indirect

expense, the Department is also treating

pre-sale movement costs as an indirect

expense. Therefore, no COS adjustment

has been made for these costs. For ESP

sales, an adjustment for indirect costs

has been made under the ESP offset

provision.

For ESP comparisons, we also

deducted indirect selling expenses from

FMV in an amount not exceeding the

indirect selling expenses and

commissions incurred in the U.S.

market. For purchase price

comparisons, we added U.S. direct

selling expenses including U.S.

advertising, credit, warranties and

royalties to FMV. Indirect selling

expenses were deducted from FMV in

an amount not exceeding the amount of

commissions paid on U.S. purchase

price sales in accordance with 19 CFR

353.56(b)(1).

We calculated constructed value for

Samsung by adding material and

fabrication costs, selling, general and

administrative expenses (SG&A), profit,

and U.S. packing in accordance with

section 773(e) of the Tariff Act. Since,

in both reviews, actual SG&A expenses

were greater than the statutory

minimum of 10 percent of the sum of

materials and fabrication costs, we used

Samsung’s actual SG&A expenses. We

used the statutory minimum of eight

percent for profit in the sixth review in

accordance with section 773(e) of the

Tariff Act. In the seventh review, we

used Samsung’s actual profit experience

since it was greater than eight percent

of the cost of production.

No other adjustments were claimed or

allowed.

Preliminary Results of the Reviews

As a result of our review, we

preliminarily determine that the

weighted-average dumping margins for

the periods are:

Manufacturer/exporter

Margin percentage

04/01/88–

3/31/89

04/01/89–

3/31/90

Cosmos ................ 2.24 2.24

Quantronics .......... Terminated Terminated

Samsung .............. 0.02 0.09

Samwon ............... 16.57 16.57

Tongkook ............. 16.57 16.57

Case briefs and/or written comments

from interested parties may be

submitted no later than 30 days after the

date of publication of this notice.

Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written

comments, limited to issues raised in

the case briefs and comments, may be

filed no later than 37 days after the date

of publication of this notice.

Within 10 days of the date of

publication of this notice, interested

parties to this proceeding may request a

disclosure and/or a hearing. The

hearing, if requested, will take place no

later than 44 days after publication of

this notice. Persons interested in

attending the hearing should contact the

Department for the date and time of the

hearing.

The Department will subsequently

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. The Department will issue

appraisement instructions directly to

the Customs Service.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective upon

publication of the final results of this

administrative review for all shipments

of the subject merchandise from Korea

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after the

publication date, as provided by section

751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act: (1) The cash

deposit rate for all companies will

continue to be the company-specific rate

published in the final determination

covering the most recent period; (2) for

merchandise exported by manufacturers

or exporters not covered in this review

but covered in previous reviews or the

original LTFV investigation, the cash

deposit rate will continue to be the

company-specific rate published in the

final determination covering the most

recent period; (3) if the exporter is not

a firm covered in this review, previous

reviews, or the original 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 13.90

percent, the ‘‘all other’’ rate established

in the original LTFV investigation by

the Department (49 FR 7620, March 1,

1984), in accordance with the decisions

of the Court of International Trade in

Floral Trade Council v. United States,

822 F. Supp. 766 (CIT 1993), and

Federal-Mogul Corporation v. United

States, 822 F. Supp. 782 (CIT 1993).

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 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 notice

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

of the Tariff Act, as amended (19 U.S.C.

1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 353.22.

Dated: February 8, 1995.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 95–3960 Filed 2–15–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[A–570–834]

Amendment to Preliminary

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Disposable Lighters From

the People’s Republic of China

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 16, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie

Anne Osgood or Todd Hansen, Office of

Countervailing Investigations, U.S.

Department of Commerce, Room B099,

14th and Constitution Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202)

482–0167 and 482–1276, respectively.

Scope of Investigation

The products covered by this

investigation are disposable pocket

lighters, whether or not refillable, whose

fuel is butane, isobutane, propane, or

other liquefied hydrocarbon, or a
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 32 / Thursday, February 16, 1995 / Notices 9009

mixture containing any of these, whose

vapor pressure at 75 degrees Fahrenheit

(24 degrees Celsius) exceeds a gauge

pressure of 15 pounds per square inch.

Non-refillable pocket lighters are

imported under subheading

9613.10.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States

(‘‘HTSUS’’). Refillable, disposable

pocket lighters would be imported

under subheading 9613.20.0000.

Although the HTSUS subheadings are

provided for convenience and Customs

purposes, our written description of the

scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

Case History

On December 5, 1994 (59 FR 64191,

December 13, 1994), the Department of

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) made its

affirmative preliminary determination of

sales at less than fair value in the abovereferenced investigation. On December

8, 1994, we disclosed our calculations

for the preliminary determination to

counsel for PolyCity Industrial Ltd.

(‘‘PolyCity’’), a respondent in this

investigation.

On December 13, 1994, counsel for

PolyCity alleged that ministerial errors

had occurred in the calculations and

requested that these errors be corrected

and an amended preliminary

determination be issued reflecting these

corrections. On December 16, 1994,

petitioners submitted comments

regarding PolyCity’s ministerial error

allegations. On January 10, 1995,

counsel for PolyCity again requested

that the Department amend the

preliminary determination to correct for

ministerial errors.

PolyCity alleged that for a particular

U.S. sale, the Department made its first

ministerial error when it used an

incorrect value for ocean freight in the

calculation of U.S. price. Rather than

use the figure reported in its

supplemental response, PolyCity argues

that the Department erred when it used

the figure provided on the computer

diskette accompanying the response.

According to PolyCity, the narrative

portion of the response rather than the

spreadsheet provided on diskette

contained the correct value for ocean

freight. We disagree that this constitutes

a ministerial error. Rather, we believe

that this issue should be addressed at

verification where the correct value for

ocean freight can be established.

The second ministerial error alleged

by counsel for PolyCity involved the

calculation of transportation costs for

the various components used in the

production of disposable lighters.

According to PolyCity, the Department

used the inland freight figures reported

in PolyCity’s supplemental response

incorrectly. Rather than using the

reported inland freight as transportation

costs per unit of measure (i.e., cost per

kilogram), the Department erred in

treating the inland freight costs as

transportation costs per component.

PolyCity maintains that in order to

obtain the transportation cost per lighter

associated with each item, the

Department should have multiplied the

reported freight price for that item by

the quantity of the item used in

producing a lighter. Based on these

comments and the Department’s own

analysis, we found that a significant

ministerial error had been made.

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. References to the

Proposed Regulations, are provided

solely for further explanation of the

Department’s AD practice with respect

to amended preliminary determinations.

Although the Department has

withdrawn the particular rulemaking

proceeding pursuant to which the

Proposed Regulations were issued, the

subject matter of these regulations is

being considered in connection with an

ongoing rulemaking proceeding which,

among other things, is intended to

conform the Department’s regulations to

the Uruguay Round Agreements Act.

See 60 FR 80 (January 3, 1995).

Amendment of Preliminary

Determination

It is not our normal practice to amend

preliminary determinations since these

determinations only establish estimated

margins, which are subject to

verification, and which may change in

the final determination. However, the

Department has stated that it will

amend a preliminary determination to

correct for significant ministerial errors.

(See Proposed Rules and Notice of

Amended Preliminary Determination of

Sales at Less than Fair Value: Fresh Cut

Roses from Colombia, 59 FR 51554

(October 12, 1994) and Amendment to

Preliminary Determination of Sales at

Less than Fair Value: Sweaters Wholly

or in Chief Weight of Man-Made Fiber

from Hong Kong, 55 FR 19289 (May 9,

1990).) Given the facts of this

investigation, as noted above, the

Department hereby amends its

preliminary determination to correct for

the ministerial error involved. The

revised estimated margin for PolyCity is

39.37%.

Suspension of Liquidation

In accordance with section 733(d)(2)

of the Act, the Department will direct

the U.S. Customs Service to continue to

require a cash deposit or posting of a

bond for all entries of subject

merchandise from the PRC for all

respondents, as set forth in the original

preliminary determination, and for

PolyCity, at the newly calculated rate,

that are entered, or withdrawn from

warehouse, for consumption on or after

the date of publication of this notice in

the Federal Register. The suspension of

liquidation will remain in effect until

further notice.

ITC Notification

In accordance with section 733(f) of

the Act, we have notified the ITC of the

amended preliminary determination. If

our final determination is affirmative,

the ITC will determine whether imports

of the subject merchandise are

materially injuring, or threaten material

injury to, the U.S. industry within 45

days after our final determination.

This notice is published pursuant to

section 733(f) of the Act and 19 CFR

353.13(a)(4).

Dated: February 9, 1995.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 95–3961 Filed 2–15–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[A–122–503]

Certain Iron Construction Castings

From Canada; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration/

International Trade Administration

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review.

SUMMARY: On August 10, 1994, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) published in the Federal

Register the preliminary results of an

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on iron

construction castings from Canada. The

review covered four manufacturers and/

or exporters of the subject merchandise

to the United States during the period

March 1, 1991 through February 29,

1992. Based on our analysis of the

comments received, the dumping

margins for these four companies have

not changed from the margins presented

in the preliminary results. For the final

results we continue to find that 14