20222 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 88 / Monday, May 6, 1996 / Notices

DOC Position: We agree with the

petitioner and have revised our final

calculations accordingly.

Comment 15: Hyundai maintains that

three clerical errors are contained in the

Department’s model matching section of

the preliminary calculations. Hyundai

argues that these errors are as follows:

(1) the calculations did not identify

similar products where there was not an

identical home market match for a U.S.

sale, (2) the model matching

calculations fail to include the 90/60

day rule for identifying

contemporaneous matches, and (3) the

calculations’ matching hierarchy

mistakenly ranks the month of sale

above the level of trade.

DOC Position: We agree with Hyundai

and have corrected the model matching

of our calculations accordingly for the

final results of review.

Comment 16: Hyundai maintains that

the Department’s preliminary

calculations mistakenly double count

certain U.S. sales due to a clerical error.

DOC Position: We agree and have

revised our final calculations

accordingly.

Comment 17: Hyundai maintains that

the Department’s preliminary

calculations contained a clerical error in

its calculation of Hyundai’s ESP offset

cap. Hyundai maintains that the

preliminary calculations failed to

include U.S. commissions in the ESP

offset cap.

DOC Position: We agree and have

revised the ESP offset cap portion of our

final calculations to include U.S.

commissions.

Comment 18: Hyundai and the

petitioner maintain that the

Department’s preliminary calculations

contained a clerical error in its

calculation of profit for CV. Hyundai

argues that the Department failed to

recompute Hyundai’s profit to account

for the revisions the Department made

to Hyundai’s reported COP data for the

preliminary results of review. The

petitioner argues that the preliminary

calculations automatically applied the

statutory minimum profit percentage of

eight percent for all sales of DRAMS

without first testing to determine

whether the actual profit was less then

eight percent.

DOC Position: We agree and have

recomputed Hyundai’s profit for CV in

our final calculations to reflect the

increase in Hyundai’s COP. We also

revised the preliminary calculations to

compare Hyundai’s actual profit to the

statutory minimum of eight percent in

calculating CV for the non-further

manufactured sales where this did not

occur. For our final calculations, we

used the statutory minimum in cases

where Hyundai’s actual profit was

below the statutory minimum.

Comment 19: Hyundai maintains that

the Department’s preliminary

calculations contained a clerical error in

the calculation of U.S. price. Hyundai

argues that the Department failed to add

duty drawback to USP in its net price

calculations.

DOC Position: We agree and have

revised our final results calculations

accordingly.

Comment 20: Hyundai maintains that

the Department’s preliminary results

calculations contained three clerical

errors in its calculation of FMV.

Hyundai maintains that these clerical

errors were as follows: (1) the

calculations failed to convert home

market selling expenses incurred in U.S.

dollars into Korean won, (2) the

Department mistakenly added U.S.

repacking expense to HEI’s reported

home market price, and (3) the

Department failed to deduct indirect

selling expenses form FMV for furthermanufactured sales.

DOC Position: We agree and have

revised our final results calculations

accordingly.

Final Results of Review

Upon review of the comments

submitted, the Department has

determined that the following margins

exist for the companies for the period

October 29, 1992 through April 30,

1994:

Manufacturer/exporter Percent

margin

LG Semicon Co., Ltd ................ 0.00

Hyundai Electronic Industries,

Inc .......................................... 0.06

The Customs Service shall assess

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. Individual differences between

USP and FMV may vary from the

percentages stated above. The

Department will issue appraisement

instructions concerning each

respondent 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 for

by section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act: (1)

The cash deposit rate for the reviewed

firms will be zero 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 this review, a prior

review, or in the original 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; and (4) if neither the

exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm

covered in this or any previous review

conducted by the Department, the cash

deposit rate will be 3.85%, the all others

rate established in the LTFV

investigation. Samsung Electronics Co.,

Ltd. (Samsung), formerly a respondent

in this administrative review, was

excluded from the antidumping duty

order on DRAMS from Korea on

February 8, 1996. See Final Court

Decision and Partial Amended Final

Determination: Dynamic Random

Access Memory Semiconductors of One

Megabit and Above From the Republic

of Korea, 61 FR 4765 (February 8, 1996).

These deposit requirements shall

remain in effect until publication of the

final results of the next administrative

review.

This notice serves as the 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 order (APO) of their

responsibility concerning the

disposition of proprietary information

disclosed under APO in accordance

with 19 CFR 353.34(d). Timely written

notification or conversion to judicial

protective order is hereby requested.

Failure to comply with the regulations

and the terms of the APO is a

sanctionable violation.

This administrative review and notice

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

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

and 19 CFR 353.22.

Date: April 26, 1996.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 96–11246 Filed 5–3–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 88 / Monday, May 6, 1996 / Notices 20223

[A–533–809]

Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges

From India; Initiation of New Shipper

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Reviews

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Initiation of New

Shipper Antidumping Duty

Administrative Reviews.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

(the Department) has received requests

to conduct two new shipper

administrative reviews of an

antidumping duty order with a February

anniversary date. In accordance with the

Department’s Interim Regulations, we

are initiating these administrative

reviews.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 6, 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, NW,

Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202)

482–4837.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On February 28 and February 29,

1996, the Department received timely

requests, in accordance with section

751(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended (the Act), and section

353.22(h) of the Department’s Interim

Regulations (60 FR 25130, 25134 (May

11, 1995)) for new shipper reviews of an

antidumping duty order with a February

anniversary date.

Initiation of Review

In accordance with section

751(a)(2)(B) of the Act, and section

353.22(h) of the Department’s interim

regulations, we are initiating new

shipper reviews of the antidumping

duty order on certain forged stainless

steel flanges from India. We intend to

issue the final results of these reviews

not later than 270 days from the date of

publication of this notice.

Antidumping duty proceedingPeriod to be reviewed

India:

Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges

A–533–809 .............. 9/1/95–2/29/96

Patheja Forgings, Ltd.

Isibars, Ltd.

We will instruct the U.S. Customs

Service to allow, at the option of the

importer, the posting, until the

completion of the review, of a bond or

security in lieu of a cash deposit for

each entry of the merchandise in

accordance with section 353.22(h)(4) of

the Department’s interim regulations.

Interested parties must submit

applications for disclosure under

administrative protective orders in

accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(b).

This initiation and this notice are in

accordance with section 751(a) of the

Act and section 353.22(h) of the

Department’s interim regulations.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Compliance.

[FR Doc. 96–11123 Filed 5–3–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M

[A–588–005]

High Power Microwave Amplifiers and

Components Thereof From Japan;

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 by the

petitioner, MCL, Inc., the Department of

Commerce (the Department) is

conducting an administrative review of

the antidumping duty order on high

power microwave amplifiers and

components thereof (HPMAs) from

Japan. This review covers NEC

Corporation (NEC), a manufacturer/

exporter of this merchandise to the

United States, and the period July 1,

1994, through June 30, 1995. The firm

failed to submit a response to our

questionnaire. As a result, we have

preliminarily determined to use facts

otherwise available for cash deposit and

appraisement purposes.

Interested parties are invited to

comment on these preliminary results.

Parties who submit arguments in this

proceeding are requested to submit with

the arguments: (1) a statement of the

issues and (2) a brief summary of the

arguments.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 6, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Hermes Pinilla or Michael Rill, Office of

Antidumping Compliance, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 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 July 31, 1995, the petitioner, MCL,

Inc., requested in accordance with

section 353.22(a) of the Department’s

regulations (19 CFR 353.22(a)) an

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order (47 FR 31413,

July 20, 1982) on HPMAs from Japan

with respect to NEC, a manufacturer/

exporter of this merchandise to the

United States, and covering the period

July 1, 1994, through June 30, 1995. We

published a notice of initiation of the

review on August 16, 1995 (60 FR

42500). The Department is now

conducting this review in accordance

with section 751 of the Act.

Scope of the Review

The products covered by this review

are high power microwave amplifiers

and components thereof. High power

microwave amplifiers are radiofrequency power amplifier assemblies,

and components thereof, specifically

designed for uplink transmission in C,

X, and Ku bands from fixed earth

stations to communications satellites

and having a power output of one

kilowatt or more. High power

microwave amplifiers may be imported

in subassembly form, as complete

amplifiers, or as a component of higher

level assemblies (generally earth

stations). This merchandise is currently

classifiable under item 8525.10.80 of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS). The

HTS item number is provided for

convenience and customs purposes. The

written description remains dispositive.

The review covers NEC and the

period July 1, 1994, through June 30,

1995 (POR).

Use of Facts Otherwise Available

We preliminarily determine, in

accordance with section 776(c) of the

Act, that the use of facts available is

appropriate for NEC because it did not

respond to the Department’s

antidumping questionnaire. We sent

NEC a questionnaire seeking

information necessary to conduct a

review of NEC’s sales of merchandise

subject to this review. NEC did not

respond to the questionnaire. Rather,

NEC submitted a letter on January 18,

1996, stating that unrelated third parties