Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 88 / Monday, May 6, 1996 / Notices 20225

In this case, the Department

established two ‘‘all others’’ rates in the

final determination of the LTFV

investigation (47 FR 22134, May 21,

1982). These rates were 25.4 percent for

imports of TWT high power amplifiers

and parts dedicated exclusively for use

in TWT high power amplifiers and 41.4

percent for imports of Klystron high

power amplifiers and amplifiers

components not dedicated exclusively

for use in TWT high power amplifiers.

However, antidumping duty orders

pertain to individual classes or kinds of

merchandise (see, e.g., Antidumping

Duty Orders: Ball Bearings, Cylindrical

Roller Bearings, and Spherical Plain

Bearings, and Parts Thereof From Japan,

54 FR 20904 (May 15,1989), and

Antidumping Duty Orders: Heavy

Forged Hand Tools, Finished or

Unfinished, With or Without Handles

From the People’s Republic of China, 56

FR 6622 (February 19, 1991)) and the

Department’s practice is to calculate a

single ‘‘all others’’ rate for each class or

kind of merchandise. There is no

indication that this proceeding covers

two classes or kinds of merchandise.

Accordingly, we have calculated a

single average of these two rates, which

is 33.4 percent, as the ‘‘all others’’ rate

for imports of this merchandise in a

manner consistent with the CIT’s

decisions.

These requirements, when imposed,

shall remain in effect until publication

of the final results of the next

administrative review.

This notice serves as a preliminary

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: April 26, 1996.

Susan G. Esserman

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 96–11127 Filed 5–3–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[A–412–810]

Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth

Carbon Steel Products From the

United Kingdom; Preliminary Results

of Antidumping Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review; Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and

Bismuth Carbon Steel Products from the

United Kingdom.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

(the Department) is conducting an

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on certain hotrolled lead and bismuth carbon steel

products from the United Kingdom in

response to requests by respondent,

United Engineering Steels Limited

(UES), and petitioner, Inland Steel Bar

Company. This review covers the period

March 1, 1994 through February 28,

1995.

We have preliminarily determined

that sales have been made below normal

value (NV). Interested parties are invited

to comment on these preliminary

results. Parties who submit comments

are requested to submit with each

comment (1) a statement of the issue

and (2) a brief summary of the comment.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 6, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: G.

Leon McNeill or Maureen Flannery,

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) 482–4733.

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). 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).

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION:

Background

The Department published in the

Federal Register the antidumping duty

order on certain hot-rolled lead and

bismuth carbon steel products from the

United Kingdom on March 22, 1993 (58

FR 15324). On March 7, 1995, we

published in the Federal Register (60

FR 12540) a notice of opportunity to

request an administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on certain hotrolled lead and bismuth carbon steel

products from the United Kingdom

covering the period March 1, 1994

through February 28, 1995.

In accordance with 19 CFR

353.22(a)(1), UES and the petitioner

requested that we conduct an

administrative review of UES’s sales.

We published a notice of initiation of

this antidumping duty administrative

review on April 14, 1995 (60 FR 19017).

The Department is conducting this

administrative review in accordance

with section 751 of the Act.

Scope of the Review

The products covered by this review

are hot-rolled bars and rods of nonalloy

or other alloy steel, whether or not

descaled, containing by weight 0.03

percent or more of lead or 0.05 percent

of bismuth, in coils or cut lengths, and

in numerous shapes and sizes. Excluded

from the scope of this review are other

alloy steels (as defined by the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (HTSUS) Chapter 72, note

1 (f)), except steels classified as other

alloy steels by reason of containing by

weight 0.4 percent or more of lead, or

0.1 percent or more of bismuth,

tellurium, or selenium. Also excluded

are semi-finished steels and flat-rolled

products. Most of the products covered

in this review are provided for under

subheadings 7213.20.00 and

7214.30.00.00 of the HTSUS. Small

quantities of these products may also

enter the United States under the

following HTSUS subheadings:

7213.31.30.00, 60.00; 7213.39.00.30,

00.60, 00.90; 7214.40.00.10, 00.30,

00.50; 7214.50.00.10, 00.30, 00.50;

7214.60.00.10, 00.30, 00.50; and

7228.30.80.00. HTSUS subheadings are

provided for convenience and Customs

purposes. The written description of the

scope of this order remains dispositive.

This review covers the subject

merchandise manufactured by UES, and

the period March 1, 1994 through

February 28, 1995.

United States Price

We used export price (EP) for sales to

the United States, as defined in section

772(a) of the Act, because the

merchandise was sold to unaffiliated

U.S. purchasers prior to the date of

importation. UES reported that EP was

based on packed, delivered prices to

customers in the United States. We

made deductions, where applicable, for

cash discounts, foreign inland freight,

FOB charges in the United Kingdom,
20226 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 88 / Monday, May 6, 1996 / Notices

ocean freight, marine insurance, U.S.

Customs duties, brokerage and handling

charges, and U.S. inland freight charges,

in accordance with 19 CFR 353.41(d).

We also made an adjustment for invoice

corrections (billing adjustments) made

after shipment. Because there is a

concurrent review of the countervailing

duty order on the subject merchandise,

final assessments for UES will reflect

the final results of the countervailing

duty administrative review in

accordance with 19 CFR 353.41(d)(iv).

UES’s sales in the United Kingdom

and to the United States were made in

quantities of less than 25 metric tons

and more than 25 metric tons. As we

have done in all prior segments of the

proceeding (see Final Determination of

Sales at Less Than Value; Certain HotRolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel

Products, 58 FR 6207, January 27, 1993,

and Preliminary Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review; Certain

Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon

Steel Products from the United

Kingdom, 50 FR 10063, February 23,

1995), the Department, where possible,

matched U.S. and U.K. sales within two

quantity groups: one of 25 tons or more,

and one of less than 25 tons.

No other adjustments to EP were

claimed or allowed.

Normal Value

In order to determine whether there

was a sufficient volume of sales in the

home market to serve as a viable basis

for calculating NV, we compared UES’s

volume of home market sales of the

foreign like product to the volume of

U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in

accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of

the Act. Because UES’s aggregate

volume of home market sales of the

foreign like product was greater than

five percent of its aggregate volume of

U.S. sales of the subject merchandise,

we determined that the home market

provides a viable basis for calculating

NV for UES, pursuant to section

773(a)(1)(B) of the Act.

Many of UES’s home market sales

were made to affiliated original

equipment manufacturers (OEMs). It is

the Department’s practice, in situations

where home market sales are made to

affiliated parties, to determine whether

sales to affiliated parties might be

appropriate to use as the basis of NV by

comparing prices of those sales to prices

of sales to unaffiliated parties, on a

model-by-model basis. Because UES

made home market sales to affiliated

OEMs during the POR, we tested these

OEM sales to ensure that, on average,

the affiliated-party sales were made at

arm’s length. To conduct this test, we

compared the gross unit prices of sales

to affiliated and unaffiliated customers

net of all movement charges, direct

selling expenses, invoice corrections,

rebates and packing. As a result of our

arm’s-length test, we disregarded sales

to the affiliated OEM customers in the

home market. We did not require

respondent to provide downstream sales

by these customers because these

customers manufactured the subject

merchandise into merchandise not

comparable to the merchandise covered

by the order. UES also sold through

affiliated resellers to unaffiliated

customers and reported these

unaffiliated-customer transactions. We

used these unaffiliated transactions in

our determination of NV.

Cost of Production Analysis

In the prior administrative review of

UES, we disregarded from our

calculations UES’s home market sales

found to be below the cost of production

(COP). Therefore, in accordance with

section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the

Department has reasonable grounds to

believe or suspect that sales below the

COP may have occurred during this

review period. Thus, pursuant to section

773(b) of the Act, in this review we

initiated a COP investigation of UES.

Before making any fair value

comparisons, we conducted the COP

analysis described below.

A. Calculation of COP

We calculated the COP based on the

sum of UES’s cost of materials and

fabrication employed in producing the

foreign like product, plus amounts for

home market selling, general, and

administrative expenses (SG&A) and

packing costs in accordance with

section 773(b)(3) of the Act. We relied

on the home market sales and COP

information provided by UES in its

questionnaire responses.

B. Test of Home Market Prices

After calculating COP, we tested

whether home market sales of lead and

bismuth steel were made at prices below

COP within an extended period of time

in substantial quantities, and whether

such prices permit recovery of all costs

within a reasonable period of time. We

compared model-specific COP to the

reported home market prices less any

applicable movement charges, rebates,

and direct and indirect selling expenses.

C. Results of COP Test

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C),

where less than 20 percent of

respondent’s sales of a given product

were at prices less than COP, we did not

disregard any below-cost sales of that

product because we determined that the

below-cost sales were not made in

‘‘substantial quantities.’’ Where 20

percent or more of a respondent’s sales

of a given product during the period of

review (POR) were at prices less than

the COP, we disregarded the below-cost

sales because we determined that the

below-cost sales were made within an

extended period of time in ‘‘substantial

quantities’’ in accordance with sections

773(b)(2) (B) and (C) of the Act, and

because we determined that the belowcost sales of the product were at prices

which would not permit recovery of all

costs within a reasonable period of time,

as defined in section 773(b)(2)(D) of the

Act. Where all sales of a specific

product were at prices below the COP,

we disregarded all sales of that product,

and calculated NV based on constructed

value (CV), in accordance with section

773(b)(1) of the Act.

Price-to-Price Comparisons

Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2), we

compared the EPs of individual

transactions to the monthly weightedaverage price of sales of the foreign like

product where there were sales at prices

above COP, as discussed above. We

based NV on packed, delivered prices to

unaffiliated purchasers in the home

market. We made adjustments, where

applicable, in accordance with section

773(a)(6) of the Act. Where applicable,

we made adjustments to home market

price for invoice corrections, rebates,

and inland freight. We also made a

circumstance-of-sale adjustment for

differences in credit insurance and

product liability insurance expenses

pursuant to section 773(1)(6)(iii) of the

Act. Respondent claimed home market

credit insurance expenses and product

liability insurance as direct adjustments

to normal value. However, respondent

did not identify, as the Department’s

questionnaire requested, how these

expenses were directly related to sales

of the foreign like product. Therefore,

consistent with our previous decisions

on this issue (see Final Determination of

Sales at Less than Fair Value; Certain

Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon

Steel Products from the United

Kingdom, 58 FR 6207, January 27, 1993,

and Preliminary Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review; Certain

Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon

Steel Products from the United

Kingdom, 60 FR 10063, February 23,

1995), we have treated these home

market expenses as indirect selling

expenses. Accordingly, we made the

circumstance-of-sale adjustments for

indirect expenses by adding the

amounts of credit insurance and the

product liability insurance for each U.S.

sale to the NV. In order to adjust for
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 88 / Monday, May 6, 1996 / Notices 20227

differences in packing between the two

markets, we increased home market

price by U.S. packing costs and reduced

it by home market packing costs. Prices

were reported net of value added taxes

(VAT) and, therefore, no deduction for

VAT was necessary. We made

adjustments, where appropriate, for

physical differences in merchandise in

accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii)

of the Act.

Constructed Value

In accordance with section 773(e) of

the Act, we calculated CV based on the

sum of UES’s cost of materials and

fabrication employed in producing the

subject merchandise, SG&A and profit

incurred and realized in connection

with production and sale of the foreign

like product, and U.S. packing costs. In

accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A),

we based SG&A and profit on the

amounts incurred and realized by UES

in connection with the production and

sale of the foreign like product in the

ordinary course of trade, for

consumption in the foreign country. We

used the costs of materials, fabrication,

and general and administrative

expenses as reported in the CV portion

of UES’s questionnaire response. We

used the U.S. packing costs as reported

in the U.S. sales portion of UES’s

questionnaire response. We based

selling expenses and profit on the

information reported in the home

market sales portion of UES’s

questionnaire response. See Certain

Pasta from Italy; Notice of Preliminary

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value and Postponement of Final

Determination, 61 FR 1344, 1349

(January 19, 1996). For selling expenses,

we used the average per-unit home

market selling expenses of above-cost

sales weighted by the total quantity

sold. For actual profit, we first

calculated the difference between the

home market sales value and home

market COP, for all above-cost home

market sales, and divided the sum of

these differences by the total home

market COP for these sales. We then

multiplied this percentage by the COP

for each U.S. model to derive an actual

profit.

Commission Offset

Because there are commissions on

U.S. sales and not on home market

sales, we made an adjustment for

indirect selling expenses in the home

market to offset the U.S. commissions.

We applied the offset to NV or CV, as

appropriate, in accordance with 19 CFR

353.56(b)(1).

We based the commission offset

amount on the amount of the home

market indirect selling expenses. We

limited the home market indirect selling

expense deduction by the amount of the

commissions incurred on sales to the

United States.

Preliminary Results of the Review

As a result of our comparison of EP

and NV, we preliminarily determine

that the following weighted-average

dumping margin exists:

Manufacturer/Exporter Period Margin

(percent)

United Engineering Steels, Limited (UES), (now British Steel, Engineering Steels Limited) ............................. 3/1/94–2/28/95 1.26

Parties to the proceeding may request

disclosure within 5 days of the date of

publication of this notice. Any

interested party may request a hearing

within 10 days of publication. Any

hearing, if requested, will be held 44

days after the publication of this notice,

or the first workday thereafter.

Interested parties may submit case briefs

within 30 days of the date of publication

of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, which

must be limited to issues raised in the

case briefs, may be filed not later than

37 days after the date of publication.

Parties who submit comments are

requested to submit with their

comments (1) a statement of the issue

and (2) a brief summary of the comment.

The Department will publish a notice of

final results of this administrative

review, which will include the results of

its analysis of issues raised in any such

comments.

The Department shall determine, and

the Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. Individual differences between

EP and NV may vary from the

percentage stated above. Upon

completion of this review, the

Department will issue appraisement

instructions directly to the Customs

Service.

Furthermore, the following deposit

rates will be effective upon publication

of the final results of this administrative

review for all shipments of certain hotrolled lead and bismuth carbon steel

products from the United Kingdom

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after the

publication date, as provided for by

section 751(a)(2)(c) of the Act: (1) The

cash deposit rate for the reviewed

company will be the rate established in

the final results of this review; (2) for

merchandise exported by manufacturers

or exporters not covered in these

reviews but covered in the original lessthan-fair-value (LTFV) investigation or a

previous review, the cash deposit 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 or a previous review, or 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) for all other

producers and/or exporters of this

merchandise, the cash deposit rate shall

be 25.82 percent, the ‘‘all others’’ rate

established in the LTFV investigation.

These deposit rates, when imposed,

shall remain in effect until publication

of the final results of the next

administrative review.

This notice also serves as a

preliminary 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)) and 19

CFR 353.22.

Dated: April 26, 1996.

Paul L. Joffe,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 96–11248 Filed 5–3–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[A–423–602]

Industrial Phosphoric Acid From

Belgium; 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.