16606 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 62 / Friday, March 31, 1995 / Notices

comments. The final results are

unchanged from those presented in the

preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 31, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Matthew Blaskovich or Zev Primor,

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) 482–5831/

4114.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On June 18, 1991, the Department

published in the Federal Register the

antidumping duty order on sparklers

from the PRC (56 FR 27946). On June 7,

1993, the Department published a notice

in the Federal Register notifying

interested parties of the opportunity to

request an administrative review of

sparklers from the PRC (58 FR 31941).

On June 28, 1993, the petitioners

requested, in accordance with 19 CFR

353.22(a), that we conduct an

administrative review of exports to the

United States by Guangxi, for the period

June 1, 1992, through May 31, 1993.

Guangxi had received a separate rate in

the final determination of sales at less

than fair value (LTFV). We published a

notice of initiation of the antidumping

administrative review on July 21, 1993

(58 FR 39007). On October 18, 1994, the

Department published in the Federal

Register the preliminary results of its

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on sparklers

from the PRC. The Department has now

completed that review in accordance

with section 751 of the Tariff Act of

1930, as amended (the Act).

Scope of the Review

The products covered by this

administrative review are sparklers from

the PRC. Sparklers are fireworks, each

comprising a cut-to-length wire, one end

of which is coated with a chemical mix

that emits bright sparks while burning.

Sparklers are currently classifiable

under subheading 3604.10.00 of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedules (HTS).

The HTS subheadings are provided for

convenience and customs purposes. The

written description remains dispositive

as to the scope of this proceeding. The

period of review (POR) was June 1,

1992, through May 31, 1993.

Best Information Available

On February 22, 1994, we mailed

Guangxi a questionnaire explaining the

review procedures. The questionnaire,

which covered exports to the United

States for the POR, was due on April 14,

1994. We did not receive a response by

the due date and, thus, asked Skypak

International Express (TNT) to trace the

mailing and verify Guangxi’s receipt of

the document. On May 4, 1994, TNT’s

delivery office in Hong Kong confirmed

that the questionnaire was accepted by

a representative of Guangxi on March 3,

1994. Because we have received no

response and have not been contacted

by Guangxi, we determine that Guangxi

is an uncooperative respondent.

Therefore, in accordance with section

776(c) of the Act, we are using the best

information available (BIA) as the basis

for determining a dumping margin for

Guangxi’s United States entries during

the POR.

In determining what to use as BIA, the

Department follows a two-tiered

methodology whereby the Department

normally assigns lower margins to those

respondents who cooperate in a review,

and margins based on more adverse

assumptions for those respondents who

do not cooperate in a review. This

methodology has been upheld by the

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal

Circuit (see Allied-Signal Aerospace Co.

v. the United States, Slip Op. 93–1049

(Fed. Cir. June 22, 1993); see also Krupp

Stahl Ag. et. al. v. the United States,

Slip Op. 93–84 (CIT May 26, 1993)).

Given that Guangxi did not respond to

the Department’s questionnaire, we find

that Guangxi has not cooperated in this

review.

In accordance with our BIA

methodology for uncooperative

respondents, we assign as BIA the

higher of: (1) The highest of the rates

found for any firm for the same class or

kind of merchandise in the same

country of origin in the LTFV

investigation or prior administrative

reviews; or (2) the highest rate found in

this review for any firm for the same

class or kind of merchandise in the

same country of origin (see Final Results

of Antidumping Administrative Review:

Antifriction Bearings (Other Than

Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts

Thereof From France; et al. (57 FR

28379, June 24, 1992)).

We are using as BIA the highest rate

established in the remand of the LTFV

final determination (58 FR 53708, July

29, 1993), which was 93.54 percent.

Final Results of the Review

We invited interested parties to

comment on the preliminary results. We

received no comments. The final results

are therefore unchanged from those

presented in the preliminary results,

and we determine that a margin of 93.54

percent exists for Guangxi for the period

June 1, 1992, through May 31, 1993.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective upon

publication of this notice of final results

of administrative review for all

shipments of the subject merchandise

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after the date of

publication, as provided by section

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

rate for Guangxi will be the rate as

stated above; (2) for PRC exporters not

covered in this review, a prior review,

or the original LTFV investigation, the

cash deposit rate will be the PRC

country-wide rate of 93.54 percent, the

rate established in the remand of the

LTFV final determination; and (3) the

cash deposit rate for non-PRC exporters

will be the rate established for that firm

if a separate rate has been established

for that firm; if a non-PRC exporter does

not have its own separate rate, the

deposit rate for that firm’s shipments

will be the rate applicable to the PRC

supplier of that exporter.

These deposit requirements shall

remain in effect until the publication of

the final results of the next

administrative 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 administrative review and notice

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

of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19

CFR 353.22.

Dated: March 16, 1995.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 95–8014 Filed 3–30–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M

[A–583–806]

Certain Small Business Telephone

Systems and Subassemblies Thereof

from Taiwan: Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 31, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David J. Goldberger or Lou Apple, Office

of Antidumping Investigations, Import
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 62 / Friday, March 31, 1995 / Notices 16607

Administration, International Trade

Administration, Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230;

telephone: (202) 482–4136 or (202) 482–

1769, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Since the publication of our

preliminary results on December 28,

1994 (59 FR 66912), the following

events have occurred:

We gave interested parties an

opportunity to comment on the

preliminary results. No comments were

received.

The Department of Commerce (the

Department) has now completed this

administrative review in accordance

with section 751 of the Tariff Act of

1930, as amended (the Act). Unless

otherwise indicated, all cites to the

statute and the Department’s regulations

refer to the provisions as they existed on

December 31, 1994.

Scope of the Review

Imports covered by this review are

shipments of certain small business

telephone systems and subassemblies

thereof, currently classifiable under the

following Harmonized Tariff Schedule

(HTS) item numbers: 8504.40.0004,

8504.40.0008, 8504.40.0010,

8504.40.0015, 8517.10.0020,

8517.10.0040, 8517.10.0050,

8517.10.0070, 8517.10.0080,

8517.30.2000, 8517.30.2500,

8517.30.3000, 8517.81.0010,

8517.81.0020, 8517.90.1000,

8517.90.1500, 8517.90.3000,

8517.90.4000, and 8518.30.1000.

Although HTS item numbers are

provided for convenience and Customs

purposes, the written description of the

scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

Certain small business telephones and

subassemblies thereof are telephone

systems, whether complete or

incomplete, assembled or unassembled,

with intercom or internal calling

capability and total non-blocking port

capacities of between two and 256 ports,

and discrete subassemblies designed for

use in such systems. A subassembly is

‘‘designed’’ for use in a small business

telephone system if it functions to its

full capability only when operated as

part of a small business telephone

system. These subassemblies are

designed as follows:

(1) Telephone sets and consoles,

consisting of proprietary, corded

telephone sets or consoles. A console

has the ability to perform certain

functions including: Answer all lines in

the system, monitor the status of other

phone sets, and transfer calls. The term

‘‘telephone sets and consoles’’ is

defined to include any combination of

two or more of the following items,

when imported or shipped in the same

container, with or without additional

apparatus: Housing, had set, cord (line

or hand set), power supply, telephone

set circuit cards, or console circuit

cards.

(2) Control and switching equipment,

whether denominated as a key service

unit, control unit, or cabinet/switch.

‘‘Control and switching equipment’’ is

defined to include the units described

in the preceding sentence which consist

of one or more circuit cards or modules

(including backplane circuit cards) and

one or more of the following items,

when imported or shipped in the same

container as the circuit cards or

modules, with or without additional

apparatus: connectors to accept circuit

cards or modules and building wiring.

(3) Circuit cards and modules

including power supplies. These may be

incorporated into control and switching

equipment or telephone sets and

consoles, or they may be imported or

shipped separately. A power supply

converts or divides input power of not

more than 2400 watts into output power

of not more than 1800 watts supplying

DC power of approximately 5 volts, 24

volts, and 48 volts, as well as 90 volt AC

ringing capability.

The following merchandise is

excluded from the scope of this order:

(1) Nonproprietary industry-standard

(‘‘tip/ring’’) telephone sets and other

subassemblies that are not specifically

designed for use in covered system,

even though a system may be adapted

to use such nonproprietary equipment

to provide some system functions; (2)

telephone answering machines or

facsimile machines integrated with

telephone sets; and (3) adjunct software

used on external data processing

equipment.

Final Results of Review

The Department received no

comments on its preliminary results of

review. Therefore, the final results of

our review are identical to those in the

preliminary results:

Manufacturer/exporter Margin

(percent)

Bitronic Telecoms Co., Ltd. ...... 6.97

The Department will instruct the U.S.

Customs Service to assess antidumping

duties on all appropriate entries.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective upon

publication of this notice of final results

of this administrative review for all

shipments of the subject merchandise

entered or withdrawn from warehouse

for consumption on or after the

publication date, as provided by section

751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The case deposit

rate for the reviewed company will be

as outlined above; (2) for previously

reviewed or investigated companies not

listed above, the cash deposit rate will

continue to be the company-specific rate

published for the most recent period; (3)

if the exporter is not a firm covered in

this review, a prior review, or the

original less-than-fair-value

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 0.00 percent, the ‘‘all other’’ rate

established in the original less-than-fairvalue investigation by the Department

(54 FR 42543, October 17, 1989), in

accordance with the decisions of the

Court of International Trade in Floral

Trade Council v. United States, 822 F.

Supp. 766 (1993), and Federal-Mogul

Corporation v. United States, 822 F.

Supp. 782 (1993).

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

antitdumping duties.

This notice serves as the only

reminder to parties subject to

administrative protective order (APO) of

their responsibilities concerning the

return or destruction of proprietary

information disclosed under APO in

accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(d).

Failure to comply is a violation of the

APO.

This administrative review and notice

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

of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19

CFR 353.22.

Dated: March 17, 1995.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 95–8013 Filed 3–30–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M