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
20224 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 88 / Monday, May 6, 1996 / Notices

outside Japan sold subject merchandise

to customers in the United States during

the POR, but that NEC was ‘‘not in a

position to respond to the questionnaire

based on the sales of subject

merchandise made by unaffiliated third

parties * * *.’’ On February 15, 1996,

the Department requested NEC to clarify

whether NEC knew, or had reason to

know, the ultimate destination of

subject merchandise sold to these

unaffiliated parties and requested NEC

to report its sales to these customers as

U.S. sales. NEC submitted a letter on

February 26, 1996, stating that, at the

time of sale, NEC had, or had reason to

have, knowledge that the ultimate

destination of the subject merchandise

would be the United States. NEC

asserted, however, that it was neither

feasible nor appropriate for NEC to

respond to the Department’s

questionnaire based upon these indirect

sales. NEC again referred to its inability

to provide information concerning sales

of unaffiliated parties, but did not

explain why it is not feasible to report

its own sales of subject merchandise.

Because necessary information is not

available on the record for the 1994–95

POR as a result of NEC withholding the

requested information, we must make

our preliminary determination based on

facts otherwise available (section 776(a)

of the Act).

The Department finds that, in not

responding to the questionnaire, NEC

failed to cooperate by not acting to the

best of its ability to comply with a

request for information from the

Department.

Where the Department must base the

entire dumping margin for a respondent

in an administrative review on the facts

available because that respondent failed

to cooperate, section 776(b) of the Act

authorizes the Department to use an

inference adverse to the interests of that

respondent in choosing the facts

available. Section 776(b) of the Act also

authorizes the Department to use as

adverse facts available information

derived from the petition, the final

determination, a previous

administrative review, or other

information placed on the record.

Because information from prior

segments of the proceeding constitutes

secondary information, section 776(c) of

the Act provides that the Department

shall, to the extent practicable,

corroborate that secondary information

from independent sources reasonably at

its disposal. The Statement of

Administrative Action (SAA) provides

that ‘‘corroborate’’ means that the

Department will satisfy itself that the

secondary information to be used has

probative value. See H.R. DOC. No.316,

Vol. 1, 103d Cong., 2d Sess. 870 (1994).

To corroborate secondary information,

the Department will, to the extent

practicable, examine the reliability and

relevance of the information to be used.

However, unlike for other types of

information, such as input costs or

selling expenses, there are no

independent sources for calculated

dumping margins. The only source for

margins is administrative

determinations. Thus, in an

administrative review, if the Department

chooses as total adverse facts available

a calculated dumping margin from a

prior segment of the proceeding, it is not

necessary to question the reliability of

the margin for that time period. With

respect to the relevance aspect to

corroboration, however, the Department

will consider information reasonably at

its disposal as to whether there are

circumstances that would render a

margin not relevant. Where

circumstances indicate that the selected

margin is not appropriate as adverse

facts available, the Department will

disregard the margin and determine an

appropriate margin (see, e.g., Fresh Cut

Flowers from Mexico; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 61 FR 6812 (February 22, 1996)

(the Department disregarded the highest

margin in that case as adverse BIA

because the margin was based on

another company’s uncharacteristic

business expense resulting in an

unusually high margin)).

In this case, the highest rate

applicable to NEC from any prior

segment of the proceeding is 41.4

percent. This is a margin calculated in

the original investigation using

information provided by NEC. We have

selected 41.4 percent as the facts

available margin for this POR. To the

best of our knowledge, there are no

circumstances indicating that this

margin is inappropriate as adverse facts

available (see High Power Microwave

Amplifiers and Components From

Japan; Final Determination of Sales at

Less Than Fair Value, 47 FR 22134 (May

21, 1982)).

Preliminary Results of the Review

As a result of our review, we

preliminarily determine that a margin of

41.4 percent exists for NEC for the

period July 1, 1994, through June 30,

1995.

Any interested party may request a

hearing within 10 days of publication.

Any hearing, if requested, will be held

44 days after the date of publication, or

the first workday thereafter. Case briefs

and/or written comments from

interested parties may be submitted not

later than 30 days after the date of

publication of this notice. Rebuttal

briefs and rebuttals to written

comments, limited to issues raised in

the case briefs and comments, may be

filed not later than 37 days after the date

of publication. 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. The

Department will publish the final

results of the administrative review,

including the results of its analysis of

issues raised in any such written

comments or at a hearing.

Upon completion of this

administrative review, the Department

will issue appraisement instructions

directly to the Customs Service.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective upon

publication of the final results of

administrative review for all shipments

of HPMAs from Japan entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after the publication

date, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of

the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for the

reviewed company will be that

established in the final results of this

administrative review; (2) for

manufacturers and exporters not

covered in this review, but covered in

a previous review or the original lessthan-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, 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

previous review, or the original LTFV

investigation, but the manufacturer is,

the cash deposit rate will be that

established for the most recent period

for the manufacturer of the

merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit

rates for all other manufacturers or

exporters will be 33.4 percent, as

explained below.

On May 25, 1993, the Court of

International Trade (CIT) in Floral

Trade Council v. United States, 822 F.

Supp. 766 (CIT 1993), and Federal

Mogul 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 these decisions, it is

appropriate to reinstate the original ‘‘all

others’’ rate from the less-than-fair-value

(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 for the purposes of

establishing cash deposits in all current

and future administrative reviews.
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,