18378 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 81 / Thursday, April 25, 1996 / Notices

duties, and border crossing charges paid

for mature green, vine ripe, and plum

tomatoes of various sizes imported from

Mexico through Nogales, Arizona. The

petitioners made deductions to export

price for movement expenses and

commissions. They provided additional

export price calculations incorporating

adjustments for ‘‘backbilling’’ (post-sale

price protection adjustments), quality

mix differentials, and price

‘‘overstatements’’ based on differences

between USDA data and Bureau of

Census import statistics.

The petitioners based normal value on

wholesale prices for vine ripe and plum

tomatoes from several wholesale

markets in Mexico, as published by the

USDA marketing service. The

petitioners made adjustments to home

market prices for wholesaler markups,

commissions, and movement expenses.

To calculate monthly normal values

for comparisons to monthly export

prices, the petitioners based normal

value on both home market prices and

constructed value (CV) because, in

accordance with Section 773(b)(2) of the

Act, the petitioners alleged that some

sales of fresh tomatoes in the home

market were made at prices below the

cost of production (COP), and therefore

are not an appropriate basis for

calculating normal value.

The petitioners calculated COP using

data derived from cost studies of vineripe tomato production in Mexico

prepared by the USDA, which relied on

cost studies reported by an association

of Mexican tomato producers. Where

appropriate, the petitioners adjusted the

cost data for inflation, changes in

interest rates, and currency conversion.

We adjusted the petitioners’ COP by

correcting the deduction for selling

expenses.

The allegation that the Mexican

producers are selling the foreign like

product in the home market at prices

below its COP is based upon a

comparison of the adjusted home

market prices with the calculated COP.

Based on this comparison, we find

reasonable grounds to believe or suspect

that sales of the foreign like product

were made at prices below COP in

accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(i)

of the Act. Accordingly, the Department

is initiating a country-wide cost

investigation.

Therefore, for the purposes of this

initiation, we are accepting CV as the

appropriate basis for Mexican normal

value for those petition margin

examples where the petitioners claimed

that there are no above-cost sales in the

home market. The petitioners based CV

on its COP methodology, described

above, deducting commission and

export transportation expenses included

in these costs, and adding an amount for

profit to derive a total CV. The

petitioners calculated profit based on

above-cost Mexican market prices. We

revised CV by incorporating the

correction to selling expenses deducted

from COP. We also recalculated the

profit amount used in CV based on a

revised database of above cost sales in

the home market.

Based on comparisons of export

prices, with deductions for backbilling

adjustments and ‘‘price

overstatements,’’ to normal value (with

CV revised as discussed above), the

petitioners allege margins of 12.86

percent to 273.42 percent.

Fair Value Comparisons

Based on the data provided by the

petitioners, there is reason to believe

that imports of fresh tomatoes from

Mexico are being, or are likely to be,

sold at less than fair value. If it becomes

necessary at a later date to consider the

petition as a source of facts available

under section 776 of the Act, we may

further review the margin calculations

in the petition.

Initiation of Investigation

We have examined the petition on

fresh tomatoes and have found that it

meets the requirements of section 732 of

the Act, including the requirements

concerning allegations of material injury

or threat of material injury to the

domestic producers of a domestic like

product by reason of the complained-of

imports, allegedly sold at less than fair

value. Therefore, we are initiating an

antidumping duty investigation to

determine whether imports of fresh

tomatoes from Mexico are being, or are

likely to be, sold at less than fair value.

Unless extended, we will make our

preliminary determination by

September 5, 1996.

Distribution of Copies of the Petition

In accordance with section

732(b)(3)(A) of the Act, a copy of the

public version of the petition has been

provided to the representatives of the

Government of Mexico. Because of the

large number of exporters, we will

attempt to provide a copy of the public

version of the petition to the relevant

trade associations representing

exporters of fresh tomatoes named in

the petition.

International Trade Commission (ITC)

Notification

We have notified the ITC of our

initiation, as required by section 732(d)

of the Act.

Preliminary Determinations by the ITC

The ITC will determine by May 16,

1996, whether there is a reasonable

indication that imports of fresh

tomatoes from Mexico are causing

material injury, or threatening to cause

material injury, to a U.S. industry. A

negative ITC determination will result

in the investigation being terminated;

otherwise, the investigation will

proceed according to statutory and

regulatory time limits.

Dated: April 18, 1996.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 96–10112 Filed 4–24–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

Initiation of Antidumping and

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Reviews and Requests for Revocation

in Part

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Initiation of

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty

Administrative Reviews and Requests

for Revocation in Part.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

(the Department) has received requests

to conduct administrative reviews of

various antidumping and countervailing

duty orders and findings with March

anniversary dates. In accordance with

the Department’s regulations, we are

initiating those administrative reviews.

The Department also received requests

to revoke one antidumping duty order

in part.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 25, 1996.

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, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230, telephone:

(202) 482–4737.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Department has received timely

requests, in accordance with 19 C.F.R.

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

administrative reviews of various

antidumping and countervailing duty

orders and findings with March

anniversary dates. The Department also

received timely requests to revoke in

part the antidumping duty order on

steel wire rope from Korea.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 81 / Thursday, April 25, 1996 / Notices 18379

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.

The Department is not initiating an

administrative review of any exporters

and/or producers who were not named

in a review request because such

exporters and/or producers were not

specified as required under section

353.22(a) and 355.22(a)(19 CFR

353.22(a) and 355.22(a)). We intend to

issue the final results of these reviews

not later than March 31, 1997.

Period to be reviewed

Antidumping Duty Proceedings:

Brazil: Ferrosilicon, A–351–820—Companhia Ferroligas Minas Gerais-Minasligas ........................................................ 3/1/95–2/29/96

South Korea: Steel Wire Rope, A–580–811—Boo Kook Corporation, Chun Kee Steel & Wire Rope Co., Ltd., Chung

Woo Rope Co., Ltd., Dong-Il Steel Mfg. Co., Ltd., Hanboo Wire Rope, Inc., Kumho Rope, Manho Rope Mfg. Co.,

Ltd., Myung Jin Co., Seo Jin Rope, Ssang Yong Steel Wire Co., Ltd., Sung Jin Yeonsin Metal ............................... 3/1/95–2/29/96

Spain: Stainless Steel Bar, A–469–805—Roldan, S.A. ................................................................................................... 8/4/94–2/29/96

Thailand: Circular Welded Pipes & Tubes, A–549–502—Saha Thai Steel Pipe Co., Ltd., S.A.F. Pipe Export Co.,

Ltd., Thai Union Steel Co., Ltd., ................................................................................................................................... 3/1/95–2/29/96

The People’s Republic of China: Axes/Adzes; Bars/Wedges; Hammers/Sledges; and Picks/Mattocks, A–570–803—

Tianjin Machinery Import & Export Company 1 ............................................................................................................. 2/1/95–1/31/96

United Kingdom: Lead & Bismuth Steel, A–412–810—British Steel Engineering Steels, Ltd., British Steel Engineering Steels Holdings, Ltd., British Steel plc .................................................................................................................... 3/1/95–2/29/96

Countervailing Duty Proceedings:

Pakistan: Shop Towels, C–535–001—Anwar Corporation, Bita Textile Corporation, Eastern Textiles (Pvt) Ltd., Fine

Fabrico, Hilal Corporation (Pvt) Ltd, Jawad Brothers, Mehtabi Towel Mills (Pvt) Ltd., Mohain Brothers, Pakistan

Textile Corporation (Pvt) Ltd., Quality Linen Supply Corporation, Salimah International, Shaheen Textiles, Shahi

Textiles, Sultex Industries, The Khans, United Towel Exporters ................................................................................. 1/1/95–12/31/95

Turkey: Welded Carbon Steel Line Pipe and Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes, C–489–502—Borusan

Birlesik Boru Fab. A.S., Borusan Ihracat Ithalat ve Dagitim A.S., Erbosan Erciyas Boru Sanayii ve Ticaret A.s.,

Mannesman-Sumerbank Boru Endustrisi T.A.S. .......................................................................................................... 1/1/95–12/31/95

United Kingdom: Lead & Bismuth Steel, C–412–811—British Steel Engineering Steels Ltd., British Steel Engineering Steels Holdings Ltd., British Steel plc ..................................................................................................................... 1/1/95–12/31/95

1 Inadvertently omitted from previous initiation notice.

If requested within 30 days of the date

of publication of this notice, the

Department will determine whether

antidumping duties have been absorbed

by an exporter or producer subject to

any of these reviews if the subject

merchandise is sold in the United States

through an importer which is affiliated

with such exporter or producer.

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: April 19, 1996.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Compliance.

[FR Doc. 96–10277 Filed 4–24–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[Docket 32–96]

Foreign-Trade Zone 31—Granite City,

Illinois; Application for Subzone

Status; Shell Oil Company (Oil

Refinery Complex); Madison County,

Illinois

An application has been submitted to

the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the

Board) by the Tri-City Port District,

grantee of FTZ 31, requesting specialpurpose subzone status for the oil

refinery complex of Shell Oil Company,

located in Madison County, Illinois. The

application was submitted pursuant to

the provisions of the Foreign-Trade

Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a–

81u), and the regulations of the Board

(15 CFR part 400). It was formally filed

on April 17, 1996.

The refinery complex (1,922 acres,

1,100 employees) consists of 3 sites and

related pipelines in Madison County,

Illinois, some 25 miles east of St. Louis,

Missouri: Site 1 (1533 acres)—main

refinery complex (290,000 BPD) located

at Hwy 111 in Wood River Township,

including areas located in the towns of

Roxana, Hartford, South Roxana and

Wood River; Site 2 (289 acres)—crude

oil storage facility (3.2 mil. barrel

capacity) located across Hwy 111 from

the refinery, and; Site 3 (100 acres)—

sulfur recovery plant located adjacent to

the refinery.

The refinery complex is used to

produce fuels and petrochemical

feedstocks. Fuels produced include

gasoline, jet fuel, distillates, diesel, and

residual fuels. Petrochemical feedstocks

and refinery by-products may include

methane, ethane, propane, butane,

butylene, toluene, propylene, paraffin

wax, carbon black oil, cumene, sulfur

and petroleum coke. About 60 percent

of the crude oil and related products

(e.g., condensate) (90 percent of inputs),

and some feedstocks and motor fuel

blendstocks used in producing fuel

products are sourced abroad.

Zone procedures would exempt the

activity from Customs duty payments on

the foreign products used in its exports.

On domestic sales, the company would

be able to choose the finished product

duty rate (nonprivileged foreign status—

NPF) on certain petrochemical

feedstocks and refinery by-products

(duty-free) instead of the duty rates that

would otherwise apply to the foreignsourced inputs (e.g., crude oil). The

duty rates on crude oil and condensate

range from 5.25¢/barrel to 10.5¢/barrel.

The application indicates that the

savings from zone procedures would

help improve the refinery’s

international competitiveness.

In accordance with the Board’s

regulations, a member of the FTZ Staff