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
9010 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 32 / Thursday, February 16, 1995 / Notices

additional companies are related to one

of the respondents in this review and

have, therefore, continued to collapse

these companies and assign a single rate

to the entire entity.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 16, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Arthur N. DuBois or Thomas F. Futtner,

Office of Antidumping Compliance,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th and Constitution

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

telephone: (202) 482–6312/3814.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On August 10, 1994, the Department

published in the Federal Register the

preliminary results of an administrative

review (59 FR 40866) of the

antidumping duty order on iron

construction castings from Canada (51

FR 17220). The Department has now

completed this administrative review in

accordance with section 751 of the

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the

Tariff Act). The Department completed

its administrative review of the order on

Canadian castings for the next annual

period, March 1, 1992, through February

28, 1993, on May 17, 1994.

Scope of the Review

Imports covered by the review are

shipments of certain iron construction

castings, limited to manhole covers,

rings and frames, catch basin grates and

frames, cleanout covers and frames used

for drainage or access purposes for

public utility, water, and sanitary

systems, classifiable as heavy castings

under Harmonized Tariff Schedule

(HTS) item numbers 7325.10.0010 and

7325.10.0050 and to valve, service, and

meter boxes which are placed below

ground to encase water, gas, and other

valves, or water or gas meters,

classifiable as light casting under HTS

item numbers 8306.29.0000 and

8310.00.0000. The HTS item numbers

are provided for convenience and for

Customs purposes only. The written

description remains dispositive.

This review covers sales of certain

Canadian iron construction castings by

Fonderie LaPerle (LaPerle), Penticton

Foundry, Ltd. (Penticton), Titan

Foundry, Ltd. (Titan), and Associated

Foundry (Associated), during the period

March 1, 1991 through February 29,

1992.

Related Parties

In addition, based on our analysis, we

have found that 14 other companies, for

which we did not initiate an

administrative review, were related to

LaPerle during the period of review.

(For more information, see the analysis

memorandum for the preliminary

results.) We have determined, based on

the best information available (BIA),

that these related companies should be

collapsed with LaPerle and receive a

single assessment rate for this review

period.

On May 17, 1994, we issued final

results of review for the period 1992/

1993. Since we assigned cash deposit

rates to 12 of the 14 related companies

in that review, these final results affect

only the two remaining companies.

Analysis of Comments Received

We gave interested parties an

opportunity to comment on the

preliminary results as provided for in

section 353.38 of the Department’s

regulations. We received comments

from LaPerle and rebuttal comments

from the Municipal Castings Fair Trade

Council, including its individually

named members (petitioner).

Comment 1: LaPerle commented that

the Department should not have

resorted to BIA since LaPerle cooperated

fully with the Department and

responded to all requests for

information. It argues that it responded

fully to all seven requests for

information from the Department.

LaPerle states that, despite the

Department’s decision to collapse

LaPerle and all parties to which it is

either directly or indirectly related,

LaPerle is an autonomous operation.

LaPerle argues that the other companies

also operate autonomously, especially,

according to LaPerle, considering that

two of these companies are located at

too great a distance to be involved with

LaPerle’s operations. LaPerle asserts that

the remaining companies either did not

produce or did not sell such or similar

merchandise or did not export to the

United States.

LaPerle further contends that this

situation is like that in Gray Portland

Cement and Clinker from Japan (58 FR

48826, 1993), where the Department

stated: ‘‘The use of BIA was not

warranted in a situation where, as here,

there are sufficient home market sales of

comparable merchandise to unrelated

customers to calculate an FMV for every

month of the review period.’’

In its rebuttal comments the petitioner

asserts that the fundamental error in

LaPerle’s arguments is its assertion that

the submission of questionnaire

responses for itself alone constitutes

cooperation. By ignoring the

Department’s request for a consolidated

response for itself and its related

entities, petitioner agrees with the

Department’s determination that LaPerle

has been uncooperative.

Department’s Position: In conducting

this review, we received responses from

only one company, which was LaPerle.

Based on our analysis of this response,

we determined in the preliminary

results that LaPerle was not

independent, but was, in fact, one of

many components in a single business

entity. In doing so, we determined that

LaPerle and its related entities were

sufficiently related to permit the

possibility of price manipulation. As we

stated in Cellular Mobile Telephones

and Subassemblies from Japan (54 FR

48011, 1989), our determination to

collapse related parties into a single

respondent entity is not ‘‘based solely

on the extent of their financial

relationship.’’

The other factors we relied upon in

collapsing related companies are as

follows: (1) The level of common

ownership; (2) interlocking officers or

directors (e.g., whether managerial

employees or board members of one

company sit on the board(s) of directors

of the other related part(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., pricing

decisions, sharing of facilities or

employees; transactions between the

companies). See, e.g., Certain Granite

Products from Spain, 53 FR 24335

(1988); Certain Granite Products from

Italy, 53 FR 27187 (1988); Steel Wheels

from Brazil, 54 FR 8780 (1989); Final

Determinations of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon

Steel Flat Products, Certain Cold-Rolled

Carbon Steel Flat Products, Certain

Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat

Products, and Certain Cut-to-Length

Carbon Steel Plate from Canada, 58 FR

37099 (1993). The Department’s use of

these factors was upheld by the Court of

International Trade (CIT) in Nihon

Cement Co., Ltd., et al. v. United States

and The Ad Hoc Committee of Southern

California Producers of Gray Portland

Cement, et al., Slip Op. 93–80 (CIT

1993). Based on an analysis of all four

criteria, the Department has determined

that the facts warrant collapsing the

related entities. For further discussion

of the Department’s application of these

factors in this review, see the analysis

memorandum for the preliminary

results.

In conducting our analysis of the

related-party issue in this review, we

issued six supplemental questionnaires
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 32 / Thursday, February 16, 1995 / Notices 9011

and granted deadline extensions. In

spite of this, LaPerle did not provide the

Department with enough information to

support its position that the related

parties should not be collapsed. In

addition, it did not consolidate all

information for the respondent entity,

including information for its related

home market firms as outlined in our

questionnaire. Therefore, we have

determined that LaPerle significantly

impeded the proceeding and, in

accordance with section 776(c) of the

Tariff Act, we have based our final

results regarding LaPerle and its related

entities on BIA.

Comment 2: LaPerle states that if the

Department continues to use BIA for the

final results of review, it should use a

second-tier BIA rate since LaPerle was

a cooperative respondent. To support its

argument LaPerle refers to Stainless

Steel Wire Rods from Brazil (58 FR

68862, 1993), where the Department

applied a less adverse rate because the

respondent was cooperative.

The petitioner in its rebuttal

comments states that the Department

should reject this claim for the same

reason as it did in the 1992–93 review.

The petitioner asserts that, as in that

review, absent a consolidated response

from LaPerle and its related entities, the

Department would not be able to reach

a determination of the amount of

dumping engaged in by LaPerle and its

related concerns, and thus that LaPerle

did not fully cooperate with the

Department.

Department’s Position: Despite

LaPerle’s responses, the respondent

entity’s response was inadequate.

Therefore, we have concluded that the

respondent entity ‘‘refused to cooperate

* * * or otherwise significantly

impeded’’ the review. (See Allied-Signal

Aerospace Co. v. United States, 996

F.2d 1185 (Fed. Cir. 1993)).

Accordingly, the application of first-tier

BIA is appropriate because LaPerle

impeded the proceeding by failing to

provide to the Department the

information necessary to conduct the

review and by failing to provide support

for its position that LaPerle should not

be collapsed with the 14 other

companies during the period of review.

Final Results of the Review

As a result of our review, we

determine that the following weightedaverage margins exist, and have been

applied based on relationship and/or

failure to respond, for the period March

1, 1991 through February 29, 1992:

Manufacturer/Producer/Exporter Margin

percent

LaPerle ............................................. 9.80

Penticton ........................................... 9.80

Titan .................................................. 9.80

Associated ........................................ 9.80

The Department shall determine, and

the Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. The Department will issue

appraisement instructions on each

exporter directly to the Customs

Service.

Because the Department has already

completed the review for the period

March 1, 1992, through February 28,

1993, the cash deposit requirement for

merchandise subject to the order will

not be changed by these final results,

except in the case of the two companies

related to LaPerle that were not assigned

cash deposit rates in the review

covering the next annual period. For

these two companies, the Department

will instruct Customs to collect cash

deposits at the rate applicable to LaPerle

in this review.

This notice also 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 also serves as a reminder

to parties subject to administrative

protective orders (APOs) of their

responsibility concerning the return or

destruction of proprietary information

disclosed under APO in accordance

with 19 CFR 353.34(d). 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))

and 19 CFR 353.22.

Dated: February 8, 1995.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 95–3962 Filed 2–15–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

Export Trade Certificate of Review

ACTION: Notice of issuance of an

amended export trade certificate of

review, application No. 89–2A001.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

has issued an amendment to the Export

Trade Certificate of Review granted to

the Air-Conditioning & Refrigeration

Institute (‘‘ARI’’) on May 10, 1991.

Notice of issuance of the Certificate was

published in the Federal Register on

May 21, 1991 (56 FR 23284).

DATES: July 13, 1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: W.

Dawn Busby, Director, Office of Export

Trading Company Affairs, International

Trade Administration, (202) 482–5131.

This is not a toll-free number.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title III of

the Export Trading Company Act of

1982 (15 U.S.C. Sections 4001–21)

authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to

issue Export Trade Certificates of

Review. The regulations implementing

Title III are found at 15 CFR Ch. III Part

325 (1994).

The Office of Export Trading

Company Affairs is issuing this notice

pursuant to 15 CFR 325.6(b), which

requires the Department of Commerce to

publish a summary of a Certificate in

the Federal Register. Under Section

305(a) of the Act and 15 CFR 325.11(a),

any person aggrieved by the Secretary’s

determination may, within 30 days of

the date of this notice, bring an action

in any appropriate district court of the

United States to set aside the

determination on the ground that the

determination is erroneous.

Description of Amended Certificate

Export Trade Certificate of Review

No. 89–00010 was issued to the AirConditioning & Refrigeration Institute

(‘‘ARI’’) on May 10, 1991 (56 FR 23284,

May 21, 1991), and previously amended

on July 6, 1992 (57 FR 30956, July 13,

1992).

ARI’s Export Trade Certificate of

Review has been amended to:

1. add the following companies as

‘‘Members’’ within the meaning of

section 325.2(1) of the Regulations (15

CFR 325.2 (1)): American Thermaflo;

Cryogel; Danfoss Automatic Controls;

Doucette Industries, Inc.; Herrmidifier

Company, Inc.; Hoshizaki America, Inc.;

MDI Major Diversities, Inc.; Manchester

Tank and Equipment Company; Uniflow

Manufacturing Company; and Witt;

2. delete the following company as a

‘‘Member’’ of the Certificate: Hupp

Industries, Inc.;

3. change the listing of the company

name of the following current

‘‘Members’’ as follows: Change Airmax,