Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 40 / Wednesday, March 1, 1995 / Notices 11071

Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone

(202) 482–4195 or 482–3814,

respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On April 12, 1991, the Department of

Commerce (the Department) published

the antidumping duty order on Atlantic

salmon from Norway (56 FR 14920). The

Department published final results of

administrative review of the order on

July 14, 1993 (58 FR 37912). The review

covered one exporter, Skaarfish A/S,

and the period October 3, 1990, through

March 31, 1992.

In accordance with § 353.28(c),

petitioner and respondent submitted

allegations of clerical errors. We were

unable to correct these errors and

publish amended final results, however,

because the petitioner filed a summons

with the Court of International Trade

(CIT) before we could correct these

errors. Subsequently, the CIT granted

the Department leave to correct these

clerical errors.

Scope of the Review

The merchandise covered by this

review is fresh and chilled Atlantic

salmon. It encompasses the species of

Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) marketed

as specified herein; the subject

merchandise excludes all other species

of salmon: Danube salmon; Chinook

(also called ‘‘king’’ or ‘‘quinnat’’); Coho

(silver); Sockeye (‘‘redfish’’ or

‘‘blueback’’); Humpback (pink); and

Chum (dog). Atlantic salmon is whole or

nearly whole fish, typically (but not

necessarily) marketed gutted, bled, and

cleaned, with the head on. The subject

merchandise is typically packed in fresh

water ice (chilled). Excluded from the

subject merchandise are fillets, steaks,

and other cuts of Atlantic salmon. Also

excluded are frozen, canned, smoked or

otherwise processed Atlantic salmon.

Fresh and chilled Atlantic salmon is

currently provided for under

Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS)

subheading 0302.12.00.02.09. The HTS

item number is provided for

convenience and Customs purposes.

The written description remains

dispositive.

Amendment of Final Results

We have corrected three ministerial

errors in Skaarfish’s margin calculation

for the period October 3, 1990, through

March 31, 1992, as follows:

1. Petitioner argues that the

Department erred in allocating general

depreciation expenses to processing of

Atlantic salmon on the basis of square

meters. Furthermore, petitioner

contends that the remaining amount for

general depreciation which was not

allocated to processing of Atlantic

salmon was unintentionally not

included in the pool of general and

administrative expenses.

The Department agrees with the

petitioner in part. In its final results of

review, the Department allocated

depreciation expenses associated with

production on the basis of the relative

costs incurred for the various

production lines. General depreciation

was allocated on the basis of square

meters. However, the Department erred

in not including in the pool of general

and administrative expenses those

general depreciation expenses not

allocated to production. This has been

corrected for the amended final results

review.

2. Petitioner contends that the

Department erred by adding warranty

expenses to net U.S. price in its

computer program.

The Department agrees that warranty

expenses should be subtracted from the

net U.S. price, and has corrected its

computer program for the amended final

results of review.

3. Respondent contends that the

Department erred by using a two-digit

U.S. dollar/Norwegian kroner exchange

rate rather than the six-digit rates used

in the preliminary results.

The Department agrees that the sixdigit dollar/kroner rate should be used,

and has corrected its computer program

for the amended final results of review.

Final Results of Review

Based on the corrections of the

ministerial errors, the Department has

amended our final results of review. The

following margin exists for the period

October 3, 1990, through March 31,

1992.

Skaarfish A/S; 2.15%

The Department shall determine, and

the Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. Individual differences between

U.S. price and foreign market value may

vary from the percentage stated above.

The Department will issue appraisement

instructions concerning all respondents

directly to the U.S. Customs Service.

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 amendment of final results of

review and notice are in accordance

with section 751(f) of the Tariff Act (19

U.S.C. 1673(d)) and 19 CFR 353.28(c).

Dated: February 22, 1995.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 95–5053 Filed 2–28–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M

Intent To Revoke Antidumping Duty

Orders and Findings and To Terminate

Suspended Investigations

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of intent to revoke

antidumping duty orders and findings

and to terminate suspended

investigations.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

(the Department) is notifying the public

of its intent to revoke the antidumping

duty orders and findings and to

terminate the suspended investigations

listed below. Domestic interested parties

who object to these revocations and

terminations must submit their

comments in writing no later than the

last day of March 1995.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 1, 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, NW., Washington, DC 20230,

telephone (202) 482–4737.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Department may revoke an

antidumping duty order or finding or

terminate a suspended investigation if

the Secretary of Commerce concludes

that it is no longer of interest to

interested parties. Accordingly, as

required by § 353.25(d)(4) of the

Department’s regulations, we are

notifying the public of our intent to

revoke the following antidumping duty

orders and findings and to terminate the

suspended investigations for which the

Department has not received a request

to conduct an administrative review for

the most recent four consecutive annual

anniversary months:

Antidumping Proceeding

Australia

Canned Bartlett Pears, A–602–039, 38

FR 7566, March 23, 1973, Contact:
11072 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 40 / Wednesday, March 1, 1995 / Notices

Mathew Rosenbaum at (202) 482–

4377

Chile

Standard Carnations, A–337–602, 52

FR 8939, March 20, 1987, Contact:

Joe Fargo at (202) 482–5345

France

Brass Sheet & Strip, A–427–602, 52

FR 6995, March 6, 1987, Contact:

Chip Hayes at (202) 482–5047

Italy

Brass Fire Protection Equipment, A–

475–401, 50 FR 8354, March 1,

1985 Contact: Leon McNeill at (202)

482–4236

The People’s Republic of China

Chloropicrin, A–570–002, 49 FR

10691, March 22, 1984, Contact:

Andrea Chu at (202) 482–4733

If no interested party requests an

administrative review in accordance

with the Department’s notice of

opportunity to request administrative

review, and no domestic interested

party objects to the Department’s intent

to revoke or terminate pursuant to this

notice, we shall conclude that the

antidumping duty orders, findings, and

suspended investigations are no longer

of interest to interested parties and shall

proceed with the revocation or

termination.

Opportunity to Object

Domestic interested parties, as

defined in § 353.2(k) (3), (4), (5), and (6)

of the Department’s regulations, may

object to the Department’s intent to

revoke these antidumping duty orders

and findings or to terminate the

suspended investigations by the last day

of March 1995. Any submission to the

Department must contain the name and

case number of the proceeding and a

statement that explains how the

objecting party qualifies as a domestic

interested party under § 353.2(k) (3), (4),

(5), and (6) of the Department’s

regulations.

Seven copies of such objections

should be submitted to the Assistant

Secretary for Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Room B–099, U.S. Department of

Commerce, Washington, DC 20230. You

must also include the pertinent

certification(s) in accordance with

§ 353.31(g) and § 353.31(i) of the

Department’s regulations. In addition,

the Department requests that a copy of

the objection be sent to Michael F.

Panfeld in Room 4203. This notice is in

accordance with 19 CFR 353.25(d)(4)(i).

Dated: February 15, 1995.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Compliance.

[FR Doc. 95–5054 Filed 2–28–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS-P

[C–614–503]

Lamb Meat From New Zealand;

Preliminary Results of Countervailing

Duty Administrative Review and Intent

To Revoke the Countervailing Duty

Order

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of

countervailing duty administrative

review and intent to revoke

countervailing duty order.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

(the Department) is conducting an

administrative review of the

countervailing duty order on lamb meat

from New Zealand for the period April

1, 1992 through March 31, 1993. We

preliminarily determine the total

subsidy to be 0.0013 percent ad valorem

for all firms for the review period. In

accordance with 19 CFR 355.7, any rate

less than 0.50 percent ad valorem is de

minimis.

In addition, we preliminarily

determine that the Government of New

Zealand (GONZ) has met the

requirements for revocation of the

countervailing duty order, including

undergoing administrative review for

three consecutive years during which

the Department has determined that

there has been no net subsidy on lamb

meat and all subsidies on lamb meat

have been abolished. If these

preliminary results are sustained in the

final results of this review and the

Department is satisfied that the GONZ is

not likely to reinstate or substitute other

subsidy programs on lamb meat, we will

revoke the countervailing duty order

pursuant to 19 CFR 355.25(a)(1). We

invite interested parties to comment on

these preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 1, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gayle Longest or Kelly Parkhill, Office

of Countervailing Compliance, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230,

telephone: (202) 482–2786.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On September 7, 1993, the

Department published a notice of

‘‘Opportunity to Request Administrative

Review’’ (58 FR 47116) for the

countervailing duty order on lamb meat

from New Zealand (50 FR 37708;

September 17, 1985). On September 30,

1993, we received a request for review

from the New Zealand Meat Producers

Board. The GONZ also requested

revocation of the countervailing duty

order on lamb meat from New Zealand

pursuant to 19 CFR 355.25(b) and

certified that all countervailable

programs for lamb meat had been

eliminated and that it will not reinstate

those countervailable programs or

substitute other countervailable

programs. We initiated the review,

covering the period April 1, 1992

through March 31, 1993, on October 18,

1993 (58 FR 53710). The Department is

conducting this review in accordance

with section 751 of the Tariff Act of

1930, as amended (the Act). The review

period is April 1, 1992, through March

31, 1993. The review involves nine

companies and five programs.

Revocation of the Order

After carefully examining the

September 30, 1993, request for

revocation of the order, including the

certification, the Department

determined that certain modifications

with respect to the revocation request

were necessary. On May 12, 1994, the

GONZ resubmitted its certification that

met the minimum threshold

requirements to be considered for

revocation under 19 CFR 355.25(b).

According to 19 CFR 355.25(b), a

government meets the minimum

threshold requirement for revocation of

an order if, in requesting the third

consecutive administrative review of the

order, the government submits a

certification that the government has

abolished all subsidy programs for the

subject merchandise for a period of

three consecutive years, and that the

government will not reinstate the

abolished programs or substitute other

countervailable programs. Under 19

CFR 355.25(a)(1)(i), the Department

must have also found that there was no

net subsidy for lamb meat in the two

consecutive administrative reviews

prior to the year in which the

government requests revocation, and in

the third consecutive administrative

review, the Department must also

determine that there is no net subsidy.

If the foregoing threshold requirements

are met, and the Department determines

in the review during which revocation

has been requested that the GONZ has

eliminated all subsidies on lamb meat

for the third consecutive year, and is not

likely to substitute or replace formerly

countervailable programs with new

subsidies, then the Department will

revoke the order.

With respect to the countervailing

duty order on lamb meat, the GONZ met

the minimum threshold requirements

for consideration of the order for

revocation. The Department verified