2738 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 1995 / Notices

(1994). The charges included foreign

inland freight, foreign inland insurance,

and foreign brokerage and handling. We

also made deductions in accordance

with section 773(a)(4)(B) of the Act

(1994), where appropriate, for bank

charges.

We made a circumstance-of-sale

adjustment for differences in credit

expenses, pursuant to 19 CFR

353.56(a)(2) (1994). For third-country

sales with missing payment dates, we

used the date of the preliminary

determination of this investigation in

order to calculate imputed credit.

TIPCO

We based FMV on FOB prices charged

to unrelated customers in Germany. We

deducted post-sale movement charges

from FMV under the circumstance-ofsale provision of 19 CFR 353.56(a)

(1994). The charges included foreign

inland freight, foreign brokerage and

handling, port charges, and liner fees.

We also made deductions in accordance

with section 773(a)(4)(B) of the Act

(1994), where appropriate, for bank

charges.

We made a circumstance-of-sale

adjustment for differences in credit

expenses, pursuant to 19 CFR

353.56(a)(2) (1994).

Dole

We calculated FMV based on packed,

ex-warehouse, C&F port of import, exquay and delivered prices to unrelated

customers.

Pursuant to section 773(a)(4)(B) of the

Act (1994) and 19 CFR

353.56(a)(2)(1994), we made

circumstance-of-sale adjustments for

unrelated commissions as well as credit,

bank, and merchandising expenses. We

deducted post-sale movement charges

from FMV under the circumstance-ofsale provision of 19 CFR 353.56(a)

(1994). The charges included freight

expenses, foreign brokerage and

handling, European Community (EC)

duty and EC brokerage and handling.

For movement expenses where it was

not possible to determine from

information on the record how the

expense directly applies to the sales

under investigation (i.e., movement

expenses associated with sales made on

an ex-warehouse or delivered basis), we

assumed all expenses to be indirect

selling expenses for purposes of the

preliminary determination. We

deducted from FMV the weightedaverage third country indirect selling

expenses including, where appropriate,

pre-sale movement expenses,

warehousing and inventory carrying

costs in accordance with 19 CFR

353.56(b)(2)(1994). In accordance with

19 CFR 353.56(b) (1) and (2) (1994),

because commissions were paid in both

the United States and third country

markets, the deduction for third country

indirect selling expenses was capped by

the sum of U.S. indirect selling

expenses. We recalculated Dole’s

reported credit expense in instances

where Dole had not reported a shipment

and/or payment date because the

merchandise had not yet been shipped

and/or paid for at the time of the filing

of this response. For those sales missing

both a shipment and payment date, we

used the average credit days of all

transactions with a reported shipment

and payment date. For those sales

missing a payment date only, we

inserted the date of the preliminary

determination.

As noted above, in accordance with

sections 773(a)(1) and 771(16) of the Act

(1994), we excluded from our analysis

certain reported sales of subject

merchandise which was not produced

by Dole.

Currency Conversion

We made currency conversions based

on the official exchange rates in effect

on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified

by the Federal Reserve Bank of New

York.

Verification

As provided in section 776(b) of the

Act (1994), we will verify information

used in making our final determination.

Suspension of Liquidation

In accordance with section 733(d)(1)

of the Act (1994), we are directing the

Customs Service to suspend liquidation

of all entries of CPF from Thailand, as

defined in the ‘‘Scope of the

Investigation’’ section of this notice, that

are entered, or withdrawn from

warehouse, for consumption on or after

the date of publication of this notice in

the Federal Register (except those that

represent sales by Dole). The Customs

Service shall require a cash deposit or

posting of a bond equal to the estimated

preliminary dumping margins, as shown

below. This suspension of liquidation

will remain in effect until further notice.

The weighted-average dumping

margins are as follows:

Manufacturers/producers/exporters Margin percent

Dole ........................... 0.30 (De minimus)

TIPCO ....................... 7.81

SAICO ....................... 9.55

Malee ........................ 1.12

All Others .................. 6.73

ITC Notification

In accordance with section 733(f) of

the Act (1994), we have notified the ITC

of our 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 before the later of 120

days after the date of the preliminary

determination or 45 days after our final

determination.

Public Comment

Interested parties who wish to request

a hearing must submit a written request

to the Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, Room B–099, within ten

days of the publication of this notice.

Requests should contain: (1) the party’s

name, address, and telephone number;

(2) the number of participants; and (3)

a list of the issues to be discussed.

In accordance with 19 CFR 353.38

(1994), case briefs or other written

comments in at least ten copies must be

submitted to the Assistant Secretary no

later than May 1, 1995, and rebuttal

briefs no later than May 3, 1995. A

hearing, if requested, will be held on

May 8, 1995, at the U.S. Department of

Commerce in Room 4830. Parties should

confirm by telephone the time, date, and

place of the hearing 48 hours prior to

the scheduled time. In accordance with

19 CFR 353.38(b) (1994), oral

presentations will be limited to issues

raised in the briefs.

This determination is published

pursuant to section 733(f) of the Act

(1994) and 19 CFR 353.15(a)(4) (1994).

Date: January 4, 1995.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 95–687 Filed 1–10–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[C–201–003]

Ceramic Tile From Mexico; Amended

Final Results of Countervailing Duty

Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Amended Final Result of

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Review.

SUMMARY: On August 8, 1994, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) submitted to the Court of

International Trade (CIT) the final

results of redetermination pursuant to a

remand in Ceramica Regiomontana,
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 1995 / Notices 2739

S.A., et al. (Slip Op. 94–74, May 5,

1994). On September 14, 1994, the CIT

affirmed our redetermination (Slip Op.

94–142). In accordance with that

affirmation, we are hereby amending the

final results of the countervailing duty

administrative review of ceramic tile

from Mexico, covering the period

January 1, 1986, through December 31,

1986. During the above period, the

country-wide rate for ceramic tile for the

companies that are not de minimis is

4.02 percent ad valorem.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 11, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gayle Longest or Kelly Parkhill, Office

of Countervailing Compliance, Import

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;

telephone:(202) 482–2786.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On May 9, 1989 (54 FR 19930), the

Department published the final results

of administrative review of the

countervailing duty order on ceramic

tile from Mexico, covering the period

January 1, 1986, through December 31,

1986. For purposes of the final results,

the Department calculated the ‘‘all

others’’ countervailing duty rate by

weight averaging the benefits received

by companies, excluding zero rate and

de minimis firms. The resultant

countervailing duty rate applicable to

non-de minimis firms was 4.28 percent

ad valorem.

On May 5, 1994, the CIT, in Ceramica

Regiomontana S.A. v. United States

(Slip Op. 96–74, May 5, 1994),

remanded to the Department for

redetermination the final results of this

review. The CIT ordered the Department

to ‘‘recalculate the country-wide

countervailing duty rate applicable to

non-de minimis firms by weight

averaging the benefits received by all

companies by their proportion of

exports to the United States, inclusive of

zero rate firms and de minimis firms

pursuant to the methodology set forth in

Ipsco v. United States, 899 F.2d 1192

(Fed. Cir. 1990).’’

Final Remand Results

On August 8, 1994, the Department

filed with the CIT its final results of

redetermination upon remand, in which

the Department complied with the CIT’s

order and recalculated the ‘‘all others’’

countervailing duty rate by weight

averaging the benefits received by all of

the 42 companies, including 36 de

minimis or zero rate firms subject to the

1986 review. The resultant ‘‘all others’’

rate of 4.02 percent ad valorem, which

included de minimis and zero rate

firms, was assigned to the remaining six

non-de minimis firms—Barros

Tlaquepaque, Ceramica Regiomontana,

Ceramica y Pisos Industriales de

Culiacan, Ima Regiomontana, Industrias

Intercontinental and O.H. Internacional.

Final Results of Redetermination

On September 14, 1994, the CIT

affirmed the Department’s

redetermination upon remand (Slip Op.

94–142). In accordance with that

affirmation, we are hereby amending the

final results of the administrative review

for the period January 1, 1986, through

December 31, 1986. We determined that

the ‘‘all others’’ countervailing duty rate

for companies that are not de minimis

is 4.02 percent ad valorem.

The Department shall determine, and

the Customs Service shall assess,

countervailing duties on all appropriate

entries. The Department will issue

appraisement instructions directly to

the Customs Service.

This notice is in accordance with

section 516(a)(e) of the Act.

Dated: December 29, 1994.

Barbara R. Stafford,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 95–688 Filed 1–10–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

U.S. Geological Survey, Notice of

Decision on Application for Duty-Free

Entry of Scientific Instrument

This decision is made pursuant to

Section 6(c) of the Educational,

Scientific, and Cultural Materials

Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89–

651, 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301).

Related records can be viewed between

8:30 AM and 5:00 PM in Room 4211,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and

Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C.

Docket Number: 94–124. Applicant:

U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, CO

80225. Instrument: Open Split Interface

Attachment for Mass Spectrometer.

Manufacturer: Finnigan MAT, Germany.

Intended Use: See notice at 59 FR

59212, November 16, 1994.

Comments: None received. Decision:

Approved. No instrument of equivalent

scientific value to the foreign

instrument, for such purposes as it is

intended to be used, is being

manufactured in the United States.

Reasons: This is a compatible accessory

for an instrument previously imported

for the use of the applicant. The

accessory is pertinent to the intended

uses and we know of no domestic

accessory which can be readily adapted

to the previously imported instrument.

Pamela Woods,

Acting Director, Statutory Import Programs

Staff.

[FR Doc. 95–691 Filed 1–10–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–F

University of California, Notice of

Decision on Application for Duty-Free

Entry of Scientific Instrument

This decision is made pursuant to

Section 6(c) of the Educational,

Scientific, and Cultural Materials

Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89–

651, 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301).

Related records can be viewed between

8:30 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. in Room 4211,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and

Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C.

Docket Number: 94–125. Applicant:

University of California, San Diego, CA

92121. Instrument: Seasor System.

Manufacturer: Chelsea Instruments Ltd.,

United Kingdom. Intended Use: See

notice at 59 FR 59212, November 16,

1994.

Comments: None received. Decision:

Approved. No instrument of equivalent

scientific value to the foreign

instrument, for such purposes as it is

intended to be used, is being

manufactured in the United States.

Reasons: The foreign instrument

provides an instrument platform that

can be towed to depths of 400 m at

speeds to 10 knots with a dive/climb

rate to 2.5 m/second. A university

research department advised December

14, 1994 that (1) these capabilities are

pertinent to the applicant’s intended

purpose and (2) it knows of no domestic

instrument or apparatus of equivalent

scientific value to the foreign

instrument for the applicant’s intended

use.

We know of no other instrument or

apparatus of equivalent scientific value

to the foreign instrument which is being

manufactured in the United States.

Pamela Woods,

Acting Director, Statutory Import Programs

Staff.

[FR Doc. 95–692 Filed 1–10–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–F