13956 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 1995 / Notices

anniversary dates. In accordance with

the Commerce Regulations, we are

initiating those administrative reviews.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 15, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Holly A. Kuga, Office of Antidumping

Compliance, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue NW.,

Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202)

482–4737.

SUPPLEMENTATY INFORMATION:

Background

The Department has received timely

requests, in accordance with 19 CFR

353.22(a) and 355.22(a) (1994), for

administrative reviews of various

antidumping and countervailing duty

orders and findings with February

anniversary dates.

Initiation of Reviews

In accordance with sections 19 CFR

353.22(c) and 355.22(c), we are

initiating administrative reviews of the

following antidumping and

countervailing duty orders and findings.

We intend to issue the final results of

these reviews not later than February

29, 1996.

Period to be reviewed

Antidumping duty proceedings

India:

Forged Stainless Steel Flanges:

A–533–809

Akai Impex Ltd. ................................................................................................................................................................. 02/09/94–01/31/95

Japan:

Mechanical Transfer Presses:

A–588–810

Aida Engineering, Ltd., Hitachi Zosen Corporation, Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries Co., Ltd., Komatsu, Ltd.,

Kurimoto, Ltd ................................................................................................................................................................. 02/01/94–01/31/95

The People’s Republic of China:

Axes/Adzes; Bars/Wedges; Hammers/Sledges; and Picks/Mattocks:

A–570–803

Fujian Machinery & Equipment Import & Export Corporation (FMEC), Henan Machinery Import & Export Co.,

Shandong Machinery Import & Export Corporation (SMC), Tianjin Machinery Import & Export Co ........................... 02/01/94–01/31/95

All other exporters of axes/adzes, bars/wedges, hammers/sledges, or picks/mattocks from the People’s Republic of

China are conditionally covered by this review

The People’s Republic of China:

Natural Paint Brushes:

A–570–501

Yixing Sanai Brush Making Co. Ltd., Eastar B.F. (Thailand) Company Ltd., Hebei Animal By-Products I/E Corp.,

China National Metals & Minerals I/E Corp., Zhenjiang Trading Corp., Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region Light

Industrial Products I/E Corp., China National Native Produce and Animal By-Products I/E Corp .............................. 02/01/94–01/31/95

All other exporters of paint brushes from the People’s Republic of China are conditionally covered by this review

Countervailing duty proceedings

Peru:

Cotton Yarn, C–333–002 .................................................................................................................................................. 01/01/94–12/31/94

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: March 8, 1995.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Compliance.

[FR Doc. 95–6395 Filed 3–14–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M

[A–549–810]

Notice of Preliminary Negative

Determination of Critical

Circumstances: Disposable Pocket

Lighters From Thailand

AGENCY: International Trade

Administration, Import Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 15, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David R. Boyland, Office of

Countervailing Investigations, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

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

telephone (202) 482–4198.

Preliminary Negative Determination

of Critical Circumstances: The

Department of Commerce (the

‘‘Department’’) published its

preliminary determination of sales at

less than fair value in this investigation

on October 24, 1994 (59 FR 53414). On

February 1, 1995, petitioner alleged that

critical circumstances exist with respect

to imports of the subject merchandise.

On February 10, 1995, we received data

from Thai Merry Co., Ltd. (‘‘Thai

Merry’’), the respondent in this

investigation, on U.S. shipment to the

United States.

In accordance with 19 CFR

353.16(b)(2)(ii), when a critical

circumstances allegation is filed later

than 20 days before the scheduled date

of the preliminary determination, we

must issue our preliminary

determination no later than 30 days

after the allegation is filed.

Section 733(e)(1) of the Act provides

that the Department will preliminarily

determine that critical circumstances

exist if we determine that there is a

reasonable basis to believe or suspect:

(A)(i) There is a history of dumping in

the United States or elsewhere of the

class or kind of merchandise which is

the subject of the investigation, or (ii)

the person by whom, or for whose

account, the merchandise was imported

knew or should have known that the

exporter was selling the merchandise

which is the subject of the investigation

at less than its fair value, and

(B) there have been massive imports

of the class or kind of merchandise

which is the subject of the investigation

over a relatively short period.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 1995 / Notices 13957

History of Dumping: To support the

claim that the first prong of the statutory

requirement is met, petitioner cited the

European Community’s November 19,

1991, imposition of antidumping duties

on gas-fueled, non-refillable pocket flint

lighters from the People’s Republic of

China, Japan, Korea, and Thailand

(Council Regulation (EEC) No. 3433/91).

Therefore, because petitioner

established a history of dumping of the

subject merchandise, we are not

required to consider whether the

importer knew or should have known

that the exporter was selling the subject

merchandise at less than fair value.

Massive Imports: Because we have

preliminarily determined that the first

statutory criterion is met for finding

critical circumstances, we must

consider whether imports of the

merchandise have been massive over a

relatively short period in accordance

with 19 CFR 353.16(f) and (g).

19 CFR 353.16(f) and 353.16(g) directs

the Department to look at the following

factors to determine whether imports

have been massive over a relatively

short period of time: (1) The volume and

value of the imports; (2) seasonal trends

(if applicable); and (3) the share of

domestic consumption accounted for by

the imports.

When examining volume and value

data, the Department typically compares

the export volume for equal periods

immediately preceding and following

the filing of the petition (see,

Preliminary Affirmative Determination

of Critical Circumstances: Certain Cased

Pencils From the People’s Republic of

China, (59 FR 44128 (August 26, 1994)).

Under 19 CFR 353.16(f)(2), unless

imports of the subject merchandise have

increased by at least 15 percent, we will

not consider the imports to have been

‘‘massive.’’

Because a determination of critical

circumstances should be based on

company-specific shipment information

(see, Final Determination of Sales at

Less Than Fair Value: Certain HotRolled Carbon Steel Flat Products,

Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat

Products, and Certain Cut-to-Length

Carbon Steel Plate from Belgium, 58 FR

37083 (July 9, 1993)), we requested that

Thai Merry provide shipment

information for the period from

December 1, 1993 through April 30,

1994 (‘‘pre-petition’’ period) and May 1,

1994 through September 30, 1994

(‘‘post-petition’’ period). Pursuant to

section 353.16(g) of the Department’s

antidumping regulations, in making

critical circumstances determination,

the Department normally considers the

period beginning on the first day of the

month of the initiation and ending at

least three months later. The

Department considers this period

because it is the period immediately

prior to a preliminary determination in

which exporters of the subject

merchandise could take advantage of

the knowledge of the dumping

investigation to increase exports to the

United States without being subject to

antidumping duties (see, Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value of Certain InternalCombustion, Industrial Forklift Trucks

from Japan, (53 FR 12552, April 15,

1988)). For purposes of this final

determination we are using as our

comparison period five months prior to

and five months subsequent to the

initiation of this investigation.

Based on Thai Merry’s shipment data,

imports increased by an amount greater

than 15 percent between the pre- and

post-petition periods.

Seasonality: We found no evidence of

seasonality, pursuant to section

353.16(1)(ii) of the Department’s

regulations.

Share of Domestic Consumption:

Based on the information supplied in

the critical circumstances allegation,

Thai Merry’s market share of domestic

consumption (i.e., total imports from

Thailand as a percentage of total

domestic consumption) between the

pre- and post-petition periods did not

change by an amount greater than three

percentage points. (See, the February 27,

1995 memorandum to Susan H.

Kuhbach, Director of Countervailing

Investigations from David R. Boyland,

Case Analyst for a full discussion of this

issue.)

Other Factors: Respondent argues that

the increase in shipment was in

response to a Consumer Product Safety

Commission (‘‘CPSC’’) regulation which

came into effect on July 12, 1994, and

was not an attempt to circumvent a

potential antidumping duty order.

Respondent also argues that section

353.16(f)(2) and past precedent allow

the Department to consider the impact

of the CPSC regulation on imports in

determining whether they were massive.

Respondent cites a DOC position

comment in Antidumping Duties: Final

Rule which states that the 15 percent

test is ‘‘not intended to limit the

Department’s discretion or

responsibility to consider in each case

the factors relevant to a decision

regarding whether imports are

‘massive’ ’’ (see, Final Rule, 54 FR

12742, 12751 (March 28, 1989)).

With respect to the increase in

shipment between the pre- and postpetition periods, and the circumstances

that surround it, May 1994 is the month

within the post-petition period which

has been examined most closely by the

Department. Based on an examination of

past imports from Thailand, the highest

volume of imports prior to the postpetition period occurred in August

1993. May 1994’s volume of shipments

was the only month during the postpetition period in which the level of

shipments went outside the range

established in August 1993. Hence, the

surge in shipments that occurred in May

represented a unique ‘‘spike’’ in the

trend of shipments.

Also, the information provided to the

Department shows that this dramatic

increase in shipments was not

sustained. If respondent was attempting

to take advantage of the knowledge of an

antidumping investigation to export

prior to suspension of liquidation, we

would expect the increase in shipment

to be sustained up until the preliminary

determination. This did not occur.

Finally, a significant percentage of the

May 1994 shipments consisted of

standard lighters which were to be

banned pursuant to the July 1994 CPSC

regulation. (Note: the CPSC gave notice

of the impending ban on July 12, 1993.

Thus, respondent was aware of the

CPSC ban one year prior to its effective

date. Additionally, orders shipped in

May 1994 would arrive in the United

States in June 1994; i.e., prior to the

CPSC ban.) Based on this information, it

is reasonable to assume that the CPSC

regulation drove the sharp increase in

imports between the pre- and postpetition periods, as opposed to the

possible suspension of liquidation.

Conclusion: Based on (1) an

evaluation of apparent domestic

consumption during the pre- and postpetition period, as calculated by

petitioner, (2) Thai Merry’s share of

domestic consumption during the preand post-petition periods, (3) the

shipment data provided by respondent

as compared to previous periods, and

(4) consideration of the circumstances

surrounding the large increase in

shipment in May 1994, we preliminarily

determine that critical circumstances do

not exist. (A more detailed analysis of

the critical circumstances allegation is

contained in the February 27, 1995

memorandum to Susan H. Kuhbach,

Director, Office of Countervailing

Investigations from David R. Boyland,

Case Analyst.)

ITC Notification: In accordance with

section 733(f) of the Act, we have

notified the ITC of our determination.

Public Comment: Since this

determination is being made subsequent

to the due dates for public comment as

published in our notice of preliminary

determination of sales at less than fair

value, we will accept written comments
13958 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 1995 / Notices

limited to this preliminary

determination on critical circumstances

if they are submitted to the Assistant

Secretary for Import Administration no

later than March 6, 1995

This determination is published

pursuant to section 733(f) of the Act.

Dated: March 3, 1995.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 95–6402 Filed 3–14–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[A–301–801 and A–331–801]

Amended Final Determinations of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Fresh

Cut Roses From Colombia and

Ecuador

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 15, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James Maeder or James Terpstra, Office

of Antidumping Investigations, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;

telephone: (202) 482–3330 or (202) 482–

3965, respectively.

Amendments to the Final

Determinations

We are amending the final

determinations of sales at less than fair

value of fresh cut roses from Colombia

and Ecuador to reflect the correction of

ministerial errors made in the margin

calculations in these determinations.

Because corrections of ministerial errors

for one company in the Colombian

investigation results in its exclusion

from any potential antidumping order,

we are issuing this notice prior to the

final determination of the U.S.

International Trade Commission. These

amendments to the final determinations

are being published in accordance with

19 CFR 353.28(c).

Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute and to the

Department’s regulations are in

reference to the provisions in effect on

December 31, 1994.

Case History and Amendments of the

Final Determinations

In accordance with section 735(d) of

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the

Act), on February 6, 1995, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) published its final

determinations that fresh cut roses from

Colombia and Ecuador were being sold

at less than fair value (60 FR 6980,

7019). Subsequent to the final

determinations, we received timely

ministerial error allegations from certain

respondents in the Colombian and

Ecuadorian investigations pursuant to

19 CFR 353.28. Section 751(f) of the Act

defines a ‘‘ministerial error’’ to be an

error ‘‘in addition, subtraction or other

arithmetic function, clerical error

resulting from inaccurate copying,

duplication, or the like, and any other

type of unintentional error which the

Secretary considers ministerial.’’ Below

is a discussion of the alleged errors that

we determined to be ministerial errors

as defined by section 751(f) of the Act.

These, and the alleged errors that the

Department determined not to be

ministerial in nature, are detailed

further in the Decision Memoranda from

Gary Taverman to Barbara R. Stafford,

dated March 3, 1995, which is on file in

the Import Administration Central

Records Unit, Room B–099 of the Main

Commerce Building.

Colombia

On February 7 and 8, respondents

Rosex Group, Prisma Group, Agricola

Bojaca, Grupo Sabana, Flores Mocari,

Caicedo Group, Grupo Intercontinental,

and Grupo Papagayo, alleged that the

Department made ministerial errors in

its final determination and requested

that the Department correct these errors.

Petitioner provided comments on these

allegations on February 14, 1995.

Rosex Group

Issue 1: Rosex Group states that the

Department made a ministerial error in

the calculation of its per unit credit

expense. Rosex Group stated that it

changed its reported interest rate in its

December 5, 1994, sales listing from a

dollar-denominated rate to a pesodenominated interest rate. Because

Rosex Group calculated its U.S. imputed

credit using a peso-denominated rate, it

contends that the Department should

have adjusted this rate instead of a

dollar-denominated rate. Petitioner

maintains that the Department’s

computer instructions to change the

peso-based interest rate to a dollar-based

rate appear to be correct.

We agree with respondent that this

error constitutes a ministerial error as

defined by section 751(f) of the Act. It

was the Department’s intention to use a

U.S. interest rate of 7.575 percent in

Rosex Group’s imputed credit

calculation. Therefore, we have

corrected this ministerial error.

Prisma

Issue 1: Prisma argues that the

computer program used to calculate its

margin contained an error which

incorrectly computed the per-unit

commission for all U.S. sales

observations. Stating that the

Department intended to calculate a U.S.

commission for ten specific U.S. sales

observations, Prisma asserts that the

program mistakenly caused every U.S.

sales commission to be recalculated. In

addition, Prisma claims that there is

also a typographical error in the

calculation of commissions for one sales

observation.

We agree with Prisma that these are

ministerial errors, and have revised the

computer program accordingly.

Issue 2: With respect to inventory

carrying costs, Prisma notes that it

included the period normally covered

by inventory carrying cost in its

imputed credit calculation. As such,

Prisma argues that the Department

double-counted this expense by

calculating a separate inventory carrying

cost. Petitioner maintains that the

Department imputed inventory carrying

cost for seven days as best information

available (BIA) for those respondents

that failed to provide the data, and

argues that because Prisma did not

submit the data in the requested form,

it cannot now argue double-counting to

circumvent the application of BIA.

We agree with Prisma. We used BIA

for inventory carrying cost for those

respondents who had related parties in

the United States and did not report

inventory carrying costs on their

exporter’s sales price (ESP) sales.

However, because Prisma does not have

a related party in the United States, we

incorrectly calculated inventory

carrying costs. Therefore, we have

adjusted for this ministerial error.

Issue 3: Prisma contends that the

Department’s inflation adjustment

computation incorrectly assumed that

all companies within the Prisma Group

did not include the 1992 inflation

adjustment in their submitted

amortization expense. However,

respondent notes that the cost

verification report demonstrates that

Prisma did include the 1992 inflation

adjustment for farm Del Campo in its

submitted amortization expenses.

We agree. The cost verification report

at page 9 indicates that one of the seven

Prisma Group farms (Del Campo) did

include in its submitted cost

information its inflation adjusted preproduction material amortization costs

for years prior to the period of

investigation (POI). The other six farms

that make up the Prisma Group did not