20230 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 88 / Monday, May 6, 1996 / Notices

2 Indeed, a review of the translated official

certification letter and royal decree recognizing

Prayon Services (submitted as Appendix 6 of

Prayon’s supplemental questionnaire of April 27,

1995) indicates that there are allowable exceptions

to the arm’s-length requirements.

a reliable benchmark for U.S.

antidumping purposes. This is

supported by the Department’s

determination in Certain Hot-Rolled

Carbon Steel Flat Products, Certain

Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products,

and Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon

Steel Flat Products from Japan, 58 FR

37154, 37158 (July 9, 1993) (‘‘There is

no requirement that U.S. antidumping

practice conform to Japanese antitrust

laws or practices which have entirely

different purposes and standards’’).

Therefore, because the standard

established by Belgian law is not

sufficiently similar to that established

by the Department, as evidenced by the

substantial difference between Prayon’s

discount rate and the Department’s date

of payment method, we cannot rely on

Prayon’s compliance with that law as

evidence that the rate charged by Prayon

Services to Prayon is at arm’s-length.2

Accordingly, for these final results,

the Department, when determining

credit expense incurred by Prayon on its

home market sales, has relied upon

Prayon’s reported credit expense based

upon the date of payment by Prayon’s

customer to Prayon Services.

Final Results of Review

Based on our analysis of the

comments received, and our changes to

the final computer program, we have

determined, as we did in the

preliminary determination, that no

antidumping margin exists for Prayon

for the period August 1, 1993 to July 31,

1994. The Department will issue

appraisement instructions directly to

the U.S. Customs Service.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective for all

shipments of the subject merchandise,

entered or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after the

publication date of these final results of

administrative review, as provided by

section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash

deposit rate for Prayon will be zero

percent; (2) for merchandise exported by

manufacturers or exporters not covered

in this review but covered in a previous

review or the original less-than-fairvalue (LTFV) investigation, the cash

deposit rate will continue to be the rate

published in the most recent final

results or determination for which the

manufacturer or exporter received a

company-specific rate; (3) if the exporter

is not a firm covered in this review,

earlier reviews, or the original

investigation, but the manufacturer is,

the cash deposit rate will be that

established for the manufacturer of the

merchandise in these final results of

review, earlier reviews, or the original

investigation, whichever is the most

recent; and (4) the ‘‘all others’’ rate, as

established in the original investigation,

will be 14.67 percent.

These deposit requirements, when

imposed, shall remain in effect until

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 notice also serves as a reminder

to parties subject to administrative

protective orders (APOs) of their

responsibility concerning the

disposition of proprietary information

disclosed under APO in accordance

with 19 CFR 353.34(d). Timely written

notification of return/destruction of

APO materials or conversion to judicial

protective order is hereby requested.

Failure to comply with the regulations

and the terms of an APO is a

sanctionable violation.

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: April 26, 1996.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 96–11117 Filed 5–3–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[A–508–604]

Industrial Phosphoric Acid From

Israel; Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of

antidumping duty administrative

review.

SUMMARY: On February 8, 1996, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) published the preliminary

results of administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on industrial

phosphoric acid from Israel (61 FR

4766). The review covers one exporter,

Haifa Chemicals, Ltd. (Haifa), and the

period August 1, 1994 through July 31,

1995.

We gave interested parties an

opportunity to comment on the

preliminary results of review. Because

the Department received no comments,

these final results of review remain

unchanged from the preliminary results

of review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 6, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Amy S. Wei 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) 482–5253.

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute are references to

the provisions effective January 1, 1995,

the effective date of the amendments

made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act),

by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act

(URAA). In addition, unless otherwise

indicated, all citations to the

Department—s regulations are to the

current regulations, as amended by the

interim regulations published in the

Federal Register on May 11, 1995 (60

FR 25130).

Background

On August 25, 1995, FMC Corporation

and Monsanto Company, two domestic

producers of industrial phosphoric acid,

requested an administrative review of

the antidumping duty order on

industrial phosphoric acid from Israel.

On September 15, 1995, the Department

published the initiation of its

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on industrial

phosphoric acid from Israel, covering

one exporter, Haifa, and the period

August 1, 1994 through July 31, 1995

(60 FR 47930). On

February 8, 1996, the Department

published the preliminary results of

review. In the preliminary results of

review, the Department preliminarily

determined that there were no

shipments of the subject merchandise

during the period of review and

assigned Haifa the rate applicable to it

from its most recent administrative

review. The Department has now

completed this administrative review in

accordance with section 751 of the Act.

Scope of the Review

Imports covered by the review are

shipments of industrial phosphoric

acid, classifiable under item number
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 88 / Monday, May 6, 1996 / Notices 20231

2809.20.00 of the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule (HTS). HTS item numbers are

provided for convenience and for

Customs purposes. The written

description remains dispositive.

Final Results of Review

We gave interested parties an

opportunity to comment on the

preliminary results. Because the

Department received no comments, we

have not changed the rate from the

preliminary results. Accordingly, the

following deposit requirement will be

effective for all shipments of the subject

merchandise entered, or withdrawn

from warehouse, for consumption on or

after the publication date of the final

results of this administrative review, as

provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the

Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for Haifa

will be 6.82 percent; (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

any review or the original less-than-fairvalue (LTFV) 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) for all other

producers and/or exporters of this

merchandise, the cash deposit rate shall

be 1.77 percent, the —all others— rate

from the LTFV investigation. These

deposit requirements, when imposed,

shall remain in effect until 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(b) to

file a certificate regarding the

reimbursement of antidumping duties

prior to liquidation of the relevant

entries during these review periods.

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: April 26, 1996.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 96–11126 Filed 5–3–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[A–475–059]

Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape From

Italy; Termination of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of termination of

antidumping duty administrative

review.

SUMMARY: On November 16, 1995, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) published in the Federal

Register (60 FR 57573) the notice of

initiation of the administrative review of

the antidumping duty finding on

pressure sensitive plastic tape from

Italy. We are terminating this review as

a result of the timely withdrawal by the

petitioner, Minnesota Mining and

Manufacturing Company (3M) of its

request for the review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 6, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Todd Peterson, Office of Antidumping

Compliance, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue NW.,

Washington, D.C. 20230, telephone:

(202) 482–4195.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On October 30, 1995, 3M requested an

administrative review for 3M Italia

S.p.A. of the antidumping duty finding

on pressure sensitive plastic tape from

Italy for the period October 1, 1994,

through September 30, 1995, pursuant

to 19 CFR 353.22(a)(2). On November

16, 1995, the Department published in

the Federal Register (60 FR 57573) the

notice of initiation of that

administrative review. 3M timely

withdrew its request for a review on

February 5, 1996, pursuant to 19 CFR

353.22(a)(5). As a result, the Department

is terminating this review.

This notice is published in

accordance with section 751 of the

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19

U.S.C. 1675) and 19 CFR 353.22(a)(5).

Dated: March 21, 1996.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Compliance.

[FR Doc. 96–11125 Filed 5–3–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M

[A–538–802]

Shop Towels From Bangladesh;

Preliminary Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review.

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review.

SUMMARY: In response to a request from

the petitioner, Milliken & Company, the

Department of Commerce is conducting

an administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on shop towels

from Bangladesh. The review period is

March 1, 1994, through February 28,

1995. This review covers six

manufacturers/exporters. The

preliminary results of this review

indicate the existence of dumping

margins for several manufacturers/

exporters during the period.

Interested parties are invited to

comment on these preliminary results.

Parties who submit arguments are

requested to submit with each argument

(1) a statement of the issue and (2) a

brief summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 6, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Davina Hashmi or Michael Rill, Office

of Antidumping Compliance, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, Washington, D.C. 20230;

telephone (202) 482–4733.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute are references to

the provisions effective January 1, 1995,

the effective date of the amendments

made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act)

by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act

(URAA).

Background

On March 7, 1995, the Department of

Commerce (the Department) published a

notice of ‘‘Opportunity to Request an

Administrative Review’’ (60 FR 12540)

of the antidumping duty order on shop

towels from Bangladesh (57 FR 9688,

March 20, 1992) for the period March 1,

1994, through February 28, 1995. On

March 27, 1995, the petitioner, Milliken

& Company (Milliken), requested an

administrative review of six

manufacturers/exporters: Eagle Star

Mills, Ltd. (Eagle Star); Greyfab

(Bangladesh) Ltd. (Greyfab); Hashem

International (Hashem); Khaled Textile

Mills Ltd. (Khaled); Shabnam Textiles