25194 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 1996 / Notices

differences in physical characteristics of

the merchandise, in accordance with 19

CFR 353.57.

For CV-to-purchase price

comparisons, we made circumstance of

sale adjustments, where appropriate, for

credit expenses in accordance with

section 773(a)(4)(B) of the Act and 19

CFR 353.56.

For CV-to-ESP comparisons, we made

deductions, where appropriate, for

credit expenses. We also deducted third

country market indirect selling

expenses, including inventory carrying

costs, bank charges, and other indirect

selling expenses, up to the amount of

indirect selling expenses incurred on

U.S. sales, in accordance with 19 CFR

353.56(b)(2).

For all CV-to-price comparisons, we

added U.S. packing expenses, in

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

Act.

Currency Conversion

We made currency conversions in

accordance with 19 CFR 353.60(a). All

currency conversions were made at the

rates certified by the Federal Reserve

Bank.

Verification

As provided in section 776(b) of the

Act, we verified information provided

by Heveafil by using standard

verification procedures, including onsite inspection of the manufacturer’s

facilities, examination of relevant sales

and financial records, and selection of

original source documentation

containing relevant information. As

discussed in the ‘‘Background’’ section

of this notice, we did not conduct

verification of the sales and cost data

submitted by Rubberflex.

Preliminary Results of Review

As a result of our review, we

preliminarily determine that the

following margin exists for the period

April 2, 1992, through September 30,

1993:

Manufacturer/exporter Review period Margin

(percent)

Heveafil Sdn. Bhd. ............................................................................................................................................... 4/02/92–9/30/93 22.74

Rubberflex Sdn. Bhd. ........................................................................................................................................... 4/02/92–9/30/93 1.59

Interested parties may request a

disclosure within 5 days of publication

of this notice and may request a hearing

within 10 days of the date of

publication. Any hearing, if requested,

will be held 44 days after the date of

publication, or the first workday

thereafter. Interested parties may submit

case briefs within 30 days of the date of

publication. Rebuttal briefs, limited to

issues raised in the case briefs, may be

filed not later than 37 days after the date

of publication. The Department will

publish a notice of the final results of

this administrative review, which will

include the results of its analysis of

issues raised in any such case briefs.

The Department shall determine, and

the U.S. 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 directly to the U.S. Customs

Service.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective for all

shipments of extruded rubber thread

from Malaysia entered, or withdrawn

from warehouse, for consumption on or

after the publication date of the final

results of this administrative review, as

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

(1) the cash deposit rates for Heveafil

and Rubberflex will be the rates

established in the final results of this

review, except if the rate is less than

0.50 percent and, therefore, de minimis

within the meaning of 19 CFR 353.6, the

cash deposit will be zero; (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 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 the ‘‘all others’’ rate,

as set forth below.

On March 25, 1993, the U.S. Court of

International Trade (CIT), in Floral

Trade Council v. United States, 822

F.Supp. 766 (CIT 1993), and FederalMogul Corporation v. United States, 822

F.Supp. 782 (CIT 1993), decided that

once an ‘‘all others’’ rate is established

for a company, it can only be changed

through an administrative review. The

Department has determined that in

order to implement this decision, it is

appropriate to reinstate the original ‘‘all

others’’ rate from the LTFV investigation

(or that rate as amended for correction

of clerical errors or as a result of

litigation) in proceedings governed by

antidumping duty orders. In

proceedings governed by antidumping

findings, unless we are able to ascertain

the ‘‘all others’’ rate from the original

investigation, the Department has

determined that it is appropriate to

adopt the ‘‘new shipper’’ rate

established in the first final results of

administrative review published by the

Department (or that rate as amended for

correction of clerical errors or as a result

of litigation) as the ‘‘all others’’ rate for

the purposes of establishing cash

deposits in all current and future

administrative reviews. Because this

proceeding is governed by an

antidumping duty order, the ‘‘all

others’’ rate for the purposes of this

review will be 15.16 percent, the ‘‘all

others’’ rate established in the LTFV

investigation.

These cash deposit 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: May 10, 1996.

Paul L. Joffe,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 96–12501 Filed 5–17–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 1996 / Notices 25195

[A–475–703]

Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin

From Italy; 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 October 17, 1995, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) published the preliminary

results of its 1993–94 administrative

review of the antidumping duty order

on granular polytetrafluoroethylene

(PTFE) resin from Italy. The review

covers one manufacturer/exporter,

Ausimont S.p.A. (Ausimont), for the

period August 1, 1993, through July 31,

1994. We gave interested parties an

opportunity to comment on our

preliminary results. Although we

received no comments, we have

changed our treatment of home market

value-added taxes as explained below.

The final margin for Ausimont is listed

below in the section ‘‘Final Results of

Review.’’

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 20, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Charles Riggle 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:

Background

On October 17, 1995, the Department

published in the Federal Register the

preliminary results of its 1993–94

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on granular

PTFE resin from Italy (60 FR 53735).

The Department has now conducted this

review in accordance with section 751

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended

(the Tariff Act).

Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute and to the

Department’s regulations are references

to the provisions as they existed on

December 31, 1994.

Scope of the Review

Imports covered by this review are

shipments of granular PTFE resins,

filled or unfilled, and shipments of wet

raw polymer. The order explicitly

excludes PTFE dispersions in water and

PTFE fine powders. During the period

covered by this review, such

merchandise was classified under item

number 3904.61.90 of the Harmonized

Tariff Schedule (HTS). We are providing

this HTS number for convenience and

Customs purposes only. The written

description of the scope remains

dispositive.

The review covers one manufacturer/

exporter of granular PTFE resin,

Ausimont. The review period is August

1, 1993 through July 31, 1994.

Home Market Value-Added Tax

Although no party raised this as an

issue, in light of the Federal Circuit’s

decision in Federal Mogul v. United

States, CAFC No. 94–1097, we have

changed our treatment of home market

value-added taxes (VAT). Where

merchandise exported to the United

States is exempt from the VAT, we will

add to the U.S. price the absolute

amount of such taxes charged in the

comparison sales in the home market.

This is the same methodology that we

adopted following the decision of the

Federal Circuit in Zenith v. United

States, 988 F. 2d 1573, 1582 (1993), and

which was suggested by that court in

footnote 4 of its decision. The Court of

International Trade (CIT) overturned

this methodology in Federal Mogul v.

United States, 834 F. Supp. 1391 (1993),

and we acquiesced in the CIT’s

decision. We then followed the CIT’s

preferred methodology, which was to

calculate the tax to be added to U.S.

price by multiplying the adjusted U.S.

price by the foreign market tax rate; we

made adjustments to this amount so that

the tax adjustment would not alter a

‘‘zero’’ pre-tax dumping assessment.

The foreign exporters in the Federal

Mogul case, however, appealed that

decision to the Federal Circuit, which

reversed the CIT and held that the

statute did not preclude the Department

from using the ‘‘Zenith footnote 4’’

methodology to calculate tax-neutral

dumping assessments (i.e., assessments

that are unaffected by the existence or

amount of home market VAT).

Moreover, the Federal Circuit

recognized that certain international

agreements of the United States, in

particular the General Agreement on

Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the Tokyo

Round Antidumping Code, required the

calculation of tax-neutral dumping

assessments. The Federal Circuit

remanded the case to the CIT with

instructions to direct the Department to

determine which tax methodology it

will employ.

We have determined that the ‘‘Zenith

footnote 4’’ methodology should be

used. First, as we have explained in

numerous administrative

determinations and court filings over

the past decade, and as the Federal

Circuit has now recognized, Article VI

of the GATT and Article 2 of the Tokyo

Round Antidumping Code required that

dumping assessments be tax neutral.

This requirement continues under the

new Agreement on Implementation of

Article VI of the General Agreement on

Tariffs and Trade. Second, the Uruguay

Round Agreements Act (URAA)

explicitly amended the antidumping

law to remove VAT from the home

market price and to eliminate the

addition of taxes to U.S. price, so that

no VAT is included in the price in

either market. The Statement of

Administrative Action (p. 159)

explicitly states that this change was

intended to result in tax neutrality.

While the ‘‘Zenith footnote 4’’

methodology is slightly different from

the URAA methodology, in that section

772(d)(1)(C) of the pre-URAA law

required that the tax be added to U.S.

price rather than subtracted from home

market price, it does result in taxneutral duty assessments. In sum, we

have elected to treat VAT in a manner

consistent with our longstanding policy

of tax neutrality and with the GATT.

Final Results of the Review

We determine the following weightedaverage dumping margin exists:

Manufacturer/exporter Period Margin

(percent)

Ausimont S.p.A. ............................................................................................................................................... 08/01/93–07/31/94 6.64

The Department shall determine, and

the Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. Individual differences between

U.S. price and FMV may vary from the

percentage stated above. The

Department will issue appraisement

instructions on each exporter directly to

the Customs Service.
25196 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 1996 / Notices

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 Tariff Act: (1)

The cash deposit rate for Ausimont will

be 6.64 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 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 46.46 percent for the reasons

explained in Granular

Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin From

Italy; Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 60 FR 53735 (October 17, 1994).

These deposit requirements shall

remain in effect until publication of the

final results of the next administrative

review.

This notice 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)(1). Timely

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

and 19 CFR 353.22.

Dated: May 9, 1996.

Paul L. Joffe,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 96–12512 Filed 5–17–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[A–570–815]

Sulfanilic Acid From the People’s

Republic of China; 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 requests by a

U.S. importer of the subject

merchandise to the United States and by

petitioner, the Department of Commerce

(the Department) is conducting an

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on sulfanilic

acid from the People’s Republic of

China (PRC). The review covers ten

manufacturers/exporters of subject

merchandise to the United States and

the period August 1, 1993 through July

31, 1994. The review indicates the

existence of dumping margins during

the period of review.

We have preliminarily determined

that sales have been made below foreign

market value (FMV). If these

preliminary results are adopted in our

final results of administrative review,

we will instruct U.S. Customs to assess

antidumping duties equal to the

difference between United States price

(U.S. price) and FMV.

Interested parties are invited to

comment on these preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 20, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Karin Price 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.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On August 19, 1992, the Department

published in the Federal Register (57

FR 37524) the antidumping duty order

on sulfanilic acid from the PRC. On

August 3, 1994, the Department

published in the Federal Register (59

FR 39544) a notice of opportunity to

request an administrative review of this

antidumping duty order. On August 30,

1994, in accordance with 19 CFR

353.22(a) (1994), a U.S. importer of

sulfanilic acid from the PRC, PHT

International, Inc. (PHT), requested that

we conduct an administrative review of

four exporters, China National Chemical

Construction Company (CNCCC),

Hainan Garden Trading Company

(Hainan Garden), Yude Chemical

Industry Company (Yude), and

Zhenxing Chemical Industry Company

(Zhenxing). On August 31, 1994, in

accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(a),

petitioner, R–M Industries, Inc.,

requested that we conduct an

administrative review of Baoding No. 3

Chemical Factory (Baoding), China

National Chemical Construction

Corporation, Qingdao Branch (CNCCC

Qingdao), CNCCC, Jinxing Chemical

Factory (Jinxing), Sinochem Hebei

Import & Export Corporation (Sinochem

Hebei), Sinochem Qingdao, Sinochem

Shandong, Yude, and Zhenxing. We

published the notice of initiation of this

antidumping duty administrative review

on September 16, 1994 (59 FR 47609).

The notice of initiation was amended on

April 14, 1995 (60 FR 19017). The

Department is conducting this

administrative review in accordance

with section 751 of the Tariff Act of

1930, as amended (the Act).

Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise stated, all citations

to the statute and to the Department’s

regulations are references to the

provisions as they existed on December

31, 1994.

Scope of Review

Imports covered by this review are all

grades of sulfanilic acid, which include

technical (or crude) sulfanilic acid,

refined (or purified) sulfanilic acid and

sodium salt of sulfanilic acid.

Sulfanilic acid is a synthetic organic

chemical produced from the direct

sulfonation of aniline with sulfuric acid.

Sulfanilic acid is used as a raw material

in the production of optical brighteners,

food colors, specialty dyes, and concrete

additives. The principal differences

between the grades are the undesirable

quantities of residual aniline and alkali

insoluble materials present in the

sulfanilic acid. All grades are available

as dry, free flowing powders.

Technical sulfanilic acid, classifiable

under the subheading 2921.42.24 of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS),

contains 96 percent minimum sulfanilic

acid, 1.0 percent maximum aniline, and

1.0 percent maximum alkali insoluble

materials. Refined sulfanilic acid, also

classifiable under the subheading

2921.42.24 of the HTS, contains 98

percent minimum sulfanilic acid, 0.5

percent maximum aniline and 0.25

percent maximum alkali insoluble

materials.

Sodium salt, classifiable under the

HTS subheading 2921.42.79, is a

powder, granular or crystalline material

which contains 75 percent minimum

equivalent sulfanilic acid, 0.5 percent