Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 1996 / Notices 25205

Manufacturer/exporter Margin

(Percent)

For the A–588–054 Review:Koyo Seiko .................... 38.64

For the A–588–604 Review:

Koyo Seiko ............................ 46.03

In addition, we preliminarily

determine that the following margins

exist for the period October 1, 1993,

through September 30, 1994 for the

following firms:

Manufacturer/Reseller/Exporter Margin

(percent)

For the A–588–054 Review:

Koyo Seiko ............................ 34.68

Nachi ..................................... 47.63

NSK ....................................... 7.61

Fuji ......................................... 6.08

Kawasaki ............................... 47.63

Yamaha ................................. 47.63

MC International .................... 2.36

Maekawa ............................... 47.63

Toyosha ................................. 47.63

Nigata Converter ................... 47.63

Suzuki .................................... 47.63

For the A–588–604 Review:

NTN ....................................... 19.73

Koyo Seiko ............................ 41.21

Nachi-Fujikoshi Corp. ............ 40.37

NSK Ltd. ................................ 7.15

Fuji ......................................... (1)

Kawasaki ............................... 40.37

Yamaha ................................. 40.37

MC International .................... (1)

Maekawa ............................... 40.37

Toyosha ................................. 40.37

Nigata Converter ................... 40.37

Suzuki .................................... 40.37

Showa Seiko ......................... (1)

Daido ..................................... 40.37

Ichiyanagi Tekko ................... 40.37

Kawada Tekkosho ................. 40.37

Asakawa Screw Co. .............. 40.37

Isshi Nut ................................ 40.37

1 No shipments or sales subject to this review. The firm has no rate from any prior segment of this proceeding.

Interested parties may request

disclosure within 5 days of the date of

publication of this notice and 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 business day

thereafter. Case briefs and/or written

comments from interested parties may

be submitted no later than 30 days after

the date of publication. Rebuttal briefs

and rebuttals to written comments,

limited to issues raised in those

comments, may be filed not later than

37 days after the date of publication of

this notice. The Department will

publish the final results of these

administrative reviews including the

results of its analysis of issues raised in

any such written comments or at a

hearing.

The Department shall determine, and

the U.S. Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. Individual differences between

the USP and FMV may vary from the

percentages stated above.

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 the final results of

these administrative reviews, as

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

Tariff Act. A cash deposit of estimated

antidumping duties shall be required on

shipments of TRBs from Japan as

follows:

(1) The cash deposit rates for the

reviewed companies will be those rates

established in the final results of these

reviews. For Koyo, the cash deposit

rates will be those rates established in

the final results for the 1993–94

administrative reviews;

(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 these reviews, a prior review,

or the original less-than-fair-value

(LTFV) investigations, 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 these

or any previous reviews conducted by

the Department, the cash deposit rate for

the A–588–054 case will be 18.07

percent and 36.52 percent for the A–

588–604 case (see Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Reviews; Tapered Roller Bearings,

Finished and Unfinished, and Parts

Thereof, From Japan and Tapered Roller

Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside

Diameter, and Components Thereof,

From Japan, 58 FR 51058, 51061

(September 30, 1993)).

All U.S. sales by each respondent will

be subject to one deposit rate according

to the proceeding.

The cash deposit rate has been

determined on the basis of the selling

price to the first unrelated customer in

the United States. For appraisement

purposes, where information is

available, the Department will use the

entered value of the merchandise to

determine the appraisement rate.

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.

These administrative reviews and this

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 10, 1996.

Paul L. Joffe,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 96–12519 Filed 5–17–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[C–549–501]

Certain Circular Welded Carbon Steel

Pipes and Tubes From Thailand;

Preliminary Results of Countervailing

Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Review.

SUMMARY: The countervailing duty order

on certain circular welded carbon steel

pipes and tubes from Thailand was

revoked effective January 1, 1995,

pursuant to section 753 of the Tariff Act

of 1930, as amended by the Uruguay

Round Agreements Act (the Act) (60 FR

40568). The Department of Commerce

(the Department) is conducting an

administrative review of this order to

determine the appropriate assessment

rate for entries made during the last

review period prior to the revocation of

the order (January 1, 1994, through

December 31, 1994). We preliminarily

determine the net subsidy to be de

minimis or zero for all companies for

the period January 1, 1994 through

December 31, 1994 (see ‘‘Preliminary

Results of Review’’ section). If the final

results of this review remain the same

as these preliminary results, the

Department intends to instruct the U.S.

Customs Service to liquidate, without

regard to countervailing duties,

shipments of the subject merchandise

from all companies exported on or after

January 1, 1994 and entered on or before

December 31, 1994. Because this order

has been revoked, the Department will

not issue further instructions with

respect to cash deposits of estimated

countervailing duties.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 20, 1996.
25206 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 1996 / Notices

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Cameron Cardozo or Kelly Parkhill,

Office of Countervailing Compliance,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, Room B099, 14th Street

and Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202)

482–1503 or 482–4126, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On August 14, 1985, the Department

published in the Federal Register (50

FR 32751) the countervailing duty order

on certain circular welded carbon steel

pipes and tubes from Thailand. On

August 1, 1995, the Department

published a notice of ‘‘Opportunity to

Request an Administrative Review’’ (60

FR 39151) of this countervailing duty

order. We received a timely request for

review from Saha Thai Steel Pipe Co.,

Ltd. (Saha Thai). In accordance with

section 355.22 of the Department’s

Interim Regulations, this review covers

only those producers or exporters of the

subject merchandise for which a review

was specifically requested (see

Antidumping and Countervailing

Duties: Interim Regulations; Request for

Comments, 60 FR 25130 (May 11, 1995)

(Interim Regulations). A review was

requested for Saha Thai. However, Saha

Thai is affiliated with SAF Pipe Export

Co., Ltd. (SAF), an export trading

company that began operations in 1993.

All pipe exported by SAF is produced

by Saha Thai. Because these two

companies are affiliated, we are treating

them as one corporate entity for

purposes of our calculations. Therefore,

this review covers the following

companies: Saha Thai/SAF.

On November 22, 1995, we extended

the period for completion of the

preliminary and final results pursuant

to section 751(a)(3) of the Tariff Act of

1930, as amended. See Extension of the

Time Limit for Certain Countervailing

Duty Administrative Reviews, 60 FR

55699. As explained in the memoranda

from the Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration dated November 22,

1995, and January 11, 1996, all

deadlines were further extended to take

into account the partial shutdowns of

the Federal Government from November

15 through November 21, 1995, and

December 15, 1995, through January 6,

1996. Therefore, the deadline for these

preliminary results is no later than May

30, 1996, and the deadline for the final

results of this review is no later than

180 days from the publication of these

preliminary results.

Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute are references to

the provisions of the Act in effect as of

January 1, 1995. The Department is

conducting this administrative review

in accordance with section 751(a) of the

Act. References to the Countervailing

Duties; Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

and Request for Public Comments, 54

FR 23366 (May 31, 1989) (Proposed

Regulations), are provided solely for

further explanation of the Department’s

countervailing duty practice. Although

the Department has withdrawn the

particular rulemaking proceeding

pursuant to which the Proposed

Regulations were issued, the subject

matter of these regulations is being

considered in connection with an

ongoing rulemaking proceeding which,

among other things, is intended to

conform the Department’s regulations to

the Uruguay Round Agreements Act

(URAA). See 60 FR 80 (January 3, 1995).

Scope of Review

On March 29, 1994, the Department

clarified the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule (HTS) numbers that were

applicable to the subject merchandise

(see Memorandum to Susan Esserman

from Susan Kuhbach, available in the

Central Records Unit, Room B099, Main

Commerce Building). This clarification

was necessary because of annual

changes in the HTS. The scope now

reads:

Imports covered in this review are

shipments of circular welded carbon

steel pipes and tubes (pipes and tubes)

with an outside diameter of 0.375 inch

or more but not over 16 inches, of any

wall thickness. These products,

commonly referred to in the industry as

standard pipe or structural tubing, are

produced to various ASTM

specifications, most notably A–120, A–

53 and A–135. During the review

period, this merchandise was classified

under item numbers 7306.30.10 and

7306.30.50 of the HTS. The HTS

numbers are provided for convenience

and Customs purposes. The written

description remains dispositive.

Analysis of Programs

I. Programs Preliminarily Determined To

Be Not Used

We examined the following programs

and preliminarily determine based on

the questionnaire responses filed by the

government of Thailand and Saha Thai/

SAF that Saha Thai/SAF did not apply

for or receive benefits under these

programs during the review period.

A. Export Packing Credit

B. Tax Certificates for Exporters

C. Electricity Discounts for Exporters

D. Tax and Duty Exemptions Under

Section 28 of the Investment Promotion

Act

E. Repurchase of Industrial Bills

F. Export Processing Zones

G. International Trade Promotion

Fund/Export Promotion Fund

H. Reduced Business Taxes for

Producers of Intermediate Goods for

Export Industries

I. Additional Incentives under the

IPA.

Preliminary Results of Review

For the period of January 1, 1994,

through December 31, 1994, we

preliminarily determine the net subsidy

to be zero for Saha Thai/SAF. In

accordance with the Act, any rate less

than 0.5 percent ad valorem in an

administrative review is de minimis.

The URAA replaced the general rule

in favor of a country-wide rate with a

general rule in favor of individual rates

for investigated and reviewed

companies. The procedures for

countervailing duty cases are now

essentially the same as those in

antidumping cases, except as provided

for in section 777(e)(2)(B) of the Act.

Requests for administrative reviews

must now specify the companies to be

reviewed. See 19 CFR § 355.22(a). The

requested review will normally cover

only those companies specifically

named. Pursuant to 19 CFR § 355.22(g),

for all companies for which a review

was not requested, duties must be

assessed at the cash deposit rate

previously ordered. Accordingly, for the

period January 1 through December 31,

1994, the assessment rates applicable to

all non-reviewed companies covered by

this order are the cash deposit rates in

effect at the time of entry.

If the final results of this review

remain the same as these preliminary

results, the Department intends to

instruct the Customs to liquidate,

without regard to countervailing duties,

all shipments of the subject

merchandise from Saha Thai/SAF

exported on or after January 1, 1994,

and entered on or before December 31,

1994.

This countervailing duty order was

subject to section 753 of the Act. See,

Countervailing Duty Order; Opportunity

to Request a Section 753 Injury

Investigation, 60 FR 27,963 (May 26,

1995). Because no domestic interested

parties exercised their right under

section 753(a) of the Act to request an

injury investigation, the International

Trade Commission made a negative

injury determination with respect to this

order, pursuant to section 753(b)(4) of

the Act. As a result, the Department
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 1996 / Notices 25207

revoked this countervailing duty order,

effective January 1, 1995, pursuant to

section 753(b)(3)(B) of the Act.

Revocation of Countervailing Duty

Orders, 60 FR 40,568 (August 9, 1995).

Accordingly, the Department will not

issue further instructions with respect to

cash deposits of estimated

countervailing duties.

Public Comment

Interested parties may request a

hearing not later than 10 days after the

date of publication of this written

notice. Interested parties may submit

written arguments in case briefs on

these preliminary results within 30 days

of the date of publication. Rebuttal

briefs, limited to arguments raised in

case briefs, may be submitted seven

days after the time limit for filing the

case brief. Parties who submit argument

in this proceeding are requested to

submit with the argument (1) a

statement of the issue and (2) a brief

summary of the argument. Any hearing,

if requested, will be held seven days

after the scheduled date for submission

of rebuttal briefs. Copies of case briefs

and rebuttal briefs must be served on

interested parties in accordance with 19

CFR § 355.38(e).

Representatives of parties to the

proceeding may request disclosure of

proprietary information under

administrative protective order no later

than 10 days after the representative’s

client or employer becomes a party to

the proceeding, but in no event later

than the date the case briefs, under 19

CFR § 355.38(c), are due. The

Department will publish the final

results of this administrative review

including the results of its analysis of

issues raised in any case or rebuttal brief

or at a hearing.

This administrative review and notice

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

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

Dated: May 13, 1996.

Paul L. Joffe,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 96–12516 Filed 5–17–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[C–351–818; C–201–810; C–412–815]

Notice of Court Decision: Certain Cutto-Length Carbon Steel Plate From

Brazil, Mexico, and the United

Kingdom

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Court Decision.

SUMMARY: On April 2, 1996, the United

States Court of International Trade (CIT)

affirmed the remand determinations

made by the Department of Commerce

(the Department) that the privatizations

of Usinas Siderurgicas de Minas Gerais

(USIMINAS), Altos Hornos de Mexico

(AHMSA), and British Steel plc (BS

plc), respectively, were sales of shares,

and that the privatized entities

continued to be, for all intents and

purposes, the same entities that had

received the subsidies prior to

privatization. British Steel Plc. et al. v.

United States, Slip Op. 96–6011 (British

Steel II). In so doing, the Court

implicitly rejected the Department’s

‘‘repayment’’ methodology set forth in

the privatization portion of its General

Issues Appendix, which is appended to

the Final Affirmative Countervailing

Duty Determination: Certain Steel

Products from Austria, 58 FR 37217,

37259 (July 9, 1993).

EFFECTIVE DATE:May 20, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roy

A. Malmrose, Office of Countervailing

Investigations, or Brian Albright, Office

of Countervailing Compliance, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20230;

telephone: (202) 482–5414 and (202)

482–2786 respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In its

Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty

Determinations: Certain Steel Products

from Brazil, 58 FR 37295 (July 9, 1993),

Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty

Determinations: Certain Steel Products

From Mexico 58 FR 37352 (July 9, 1993),

and Final Affirmative Countervailing

Duty Determination; Certain Steel

Products From the United Kingdom, 58

FR 37393 (July 9, 1993), the Department

determined that subsidies provided to

certain steel producers remained

countervailable after those firms were

privatized. The rationale for the

Department’s determinations was that

the countervailing duty law does not

require, as a prerequisite for

countervailability, that a subsidy

bestowed on a producer confer a

demonstrable ‘‘competitive benefit’’ on

that producer. However, the Department

also determined that a portion of the

sales prices for USIMINAS, AHMSA,

and BS plc, respectively, represented

partial repayment of prior subsidies.

The Department’s privatization

methodology was fully set forth in the

General Issues Appendix.

On February 9, 1995, the CIT held

that the Department’s privatization

methodology was unlawful, and

remanded the determinations in

question. British Steel plc et al. v.

United States, 879 F. Supp. 1254. In

accordance with the CIT’s instructions,

the Department reexamined the

privatization transactions in question.

The Department found that USIMINAS,

AHMSA, and BS plc were privatized

through sales of shares, and that the

privatized entities continued to be, for

all intents and purposes, the same

entities that had received the subsidies

prior to privatization. On this basis, and

in accordance with the CIT’s

instructions, the Department

determined that the pre-privatization

subsidies remained countervailable in

full. The Department did not attribute

any portion of the sales price for any of

the producers to a partial repayment of

prior subsidies.

On April 2, 1996, the CIT affirmed the

Department’s remand determination.

British Steel II. In so doing, the Court

implicitly rejected the ‘‘repayment’’

aspect of the Department’s privatization

methodology, as set forth in the General

Issues Appendix.

In its decision in Timken Co. v.

United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir.

1990), the United States Court of

Appeals for the Federal Circuit held

that, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. section

1516a(e), the Department must publish

a notice of a court decision which is not

‘‘in harmony’’ with a Department

determination, and must suspend

liquidation of entries pending a

‘‘conclusive’’ court decision. The CIT’s

decision in British Steel II on April 2,

1996, constitutes a decision not in

harmony with the Departments final

affirmative determinations. Publication

of this notice fulfills the Timken

requirement.

Accordingly, the Department will

continue to suspend liquidation

pending the expiration of the period of

appeal, or, if appealed, until a

‘‘conclusive’’ court decision.

Dated: May 9, 1996.

Paul L. Joffe,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 96–12518 Filed 5–17–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

Export Trade Certificate of Review

AGENCY: International Trade

Administration, Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Initiation of Process to

Revoke Export Trade Certificate of

Review No. 94–00006.

SUMMARY: The Secretary of Commerce

issued an export trade certificate of

review to P & B International. Because

this certificate holder has failed to file