Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 102 / Friday, May 24, 1996 / Notices 26159

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On April 30, 1984, the Department

published in the Federal Register (49

FR 18336) the antidumping duty order

on CTVs from the Republic of Korea (the

order). On April 4, 1995, the

Department published (60 FR 17052) a

notice of ‘‘Opportunity to Request an

Administrative Review’’ of the order for

the period April 1, 1994, through March

31, 1995 (twelfth review). We received

a timely request for review and partial

revocation of the order from Samsung.

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.

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).

Scope of the Review

Imports covered by this review

include CTVs, complete and

incomplete, from the Republic of Korea.

This merchandise is currently classified

under item numbers 8528.10.08,

8528.10.11, 8528.10.13, 8528.10.17,

8528.10.19, 8528.10.24, 8528.10.28,

8528.10.34, 8528.10.38, 8528.10.44,

8528.10.48, 8528.10.54, 8528.10.58,

8528.10.61, 8528.10.63, 8528.10.67,

8528.10.69, 8528.10.71, 8528.10.73,

8528.10.77, 8528.10.79, 8529.90.03,

8529.90.06, and 8540.11.10 of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS).

Since the order covers all CTVs

regardless of HTS classification, the

HTS subheadings are provided for

convenience and for the U.S. Customs

Service purposes. Our written

description of the scope of the order

remains dispositive. The period of

review is April 1, 1994, through March

31, 1995.

Request for Revocation

On April 28, 1995, Samsung

submitted, along with its request for an

administrative review, a request that the

rider be revoked as it applies to

Samsung. In its letter, Samsung certified

that it did not sell subject merchandise

during the twelfth review at less than

normal value, and that it will not in the

future sell such merchandise at less

than normal value. Additionally,

Samsung attached to its letter a

certificate agreeing to the immediate

reinstatement of the order if Samsung is

subsequently found to have sold CTVs

at less than normal value.

We have preliminarily determined

that, because Samsung made no sales of

subject merchandise during the period

of review, the criteria necessary to

revoke an order based on an absence of

dumping have not been met. Pursuant to

section 353.25(a) of the Department’s

regulations, we may revoke an order in

part if the subject merchandise has been

sold at not less than normal value for a

period of at least three consecutive years

and it is not likely that future sales of

the subject merchandise will be made at

less than normal value.

Because Samsung did not sell the

subject merchandise during the period

of review, we have determined that the

regulatory requirements listed in

sections 353.25 (a) and (b) have not been

met. Accordingly, we have preliminarily

determined to deny Samsung’s request

for partial revocation.

Preliminary Results of Review

Sansung reported, and the

Department verified through the U.S.

Customs Service, that it made no sales

or shipments of subject merchandise to

the United States during the period of

review. Therefore, we preliminarily

determine to maintain Samsung’s

current cash deposit rate. This rate is

zero percent because the margin

assigned to Samsung in the most recent

final results of review in which it made

shipments was a de minimis rate (0.47

percent).

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective for all

shipments of CTVs 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)(2)(c) of the Act: (1) The

cash deposit rate for Samsung will

remain zero percent, the rate established

in the last review in which it made

shipments; (2) For previously reviewed

or investigated companies not covered

in this review, 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 (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 rates will be 13.90 percent, the

‘‘all others’’ rate established in the LTFV

investigation (49 FR 18336). These

deposit requirements will remain in

effect until publication of the final

results of the next administrative

review.

Parties to the proceeding may request

disclosure within five days of the date

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 as early as

convenient for the parties but not later

than 44 days after the date of

publication or the first work day

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

arguments are requested to submit with

the argument: (1) a statement of the

issue; and (2) a brief summary of the

argument. The Department will

published the final results of this

administrative review, including the

results of its analysis of issues raised in

any such written arguments.

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.

Dated: May 17, 1996.

Paul L. Joffe,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 96–13172 Filed 5–23–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M

[A–428–814, A–428–816]

Certain Cut-To-Length Carbon Steel

Plate From Germany: Amendment to

Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Amendment to Final

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review.

SUMMARY: On March 28, 1996, the

Department of Commerce published the

final results of its administrative review
26160 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 102 / Friday, May 24, 1996 / Notices

of the antidumping duty order on

certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate

from Germany. The review covered one

manufacturer/exporter and the period

February 4, 1993, through July 31, 1994.

Based on the correction of a ministerial

error, we are amending the final results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 24, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nancy Decker or Linda Ludwig, Office

of Agreements Compliance,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce,

Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202)

482–3793.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On March 28, 1996, the Department of

Commerce (the Department) published

in the Federal Register the final results

of its administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on certain cutto-length carbon steel plate from

Germany (61 FR 13834). The review

covered one manufacturer/exporter, AG

der Dillinger Huttenwerke (Dillinger),

and the period February 4, 1993,

through July 31, 1994.

After publication of our final results,

we received a timely allegation from

petitioners (Bethlehem Steel

Corporation, U.S. Steel Company, a Unit

of USX Corporation, Inland Steel

Industries, Inc., Geneva Steel, Gulf

States Steel Inc. of Alabama, Sharon

Steel Corporation, and Lukens Steel

Company) that the Department had

made a ministerial error in calculating

the final results for plate from Germany

sold by Dillinger. The respondent filed

a timely rebuttal to petitioners’

ministerial error allegation.

Petitioners allege that the Department

incorrectly applied Dillinger’s actual-totheoretical weight conversion factor in

the conversion of gross unit price. The

petitioners state that the gross unit price

should have been divided, rather than

multiplied, by the weight conversion

factor. The respondent argues that the

error alleged by petitioners does not

qualify as a ministerial error under

Section 353.28(d) of the Department’s

regulations (19 CFR 353.28(d) (1995)).

Respondent also argues that if the

Department, nevertheless, decides to

change its methodology, it should also

make changes to the conversions of

expense related data (conversions of

home market inland freight, home

market other expenses, home market

global credits and debits, and home

market credit) to be consistent.

As defined by section 751(f) of the

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act)

(19 U.S.C. 1675(f) (1988)), the term

‘‘ministerial error’’ includes errors ‘‘in

addition, subtraction, or other

arithmetic function, clerical errors

resulting from inaccurate copying,

duplication, or the like, and any other

type of unintentional error which the

[Department] considers ministerial.’’

We agree with petitioners’ allegation

that we should have divided, rather

than multiplied, gross unit price by the

conversion factor. This type of

unintentional error meets the definition

of ministerial error contained in the Act.

We also agree with respondent’s rebuttal

that, to be consistent, we should also

likewise change the conversions of

expense related data (home market

inland freight, home market other

expenses, home market global credits

and debits, and home market credit). We

have therefore corrected our analysis to

divide (rather than multiply) the

following by the applicable weight

conversion factor: gross unit price,

home market inland freight, home

market other expenses, home market

global credits and debits, and home

market credit.

Amended Final Results of Review

As a result of our correction of the

ministerial error, we have determined

the following margin exists for the

period February 4, 1993, through July

31, 1994:

Manufacturer/exporter Margin

AG der Dillinger Hu ̈ttenwerke ......... 2.61

We will direct the Customs Service to

collect cash deposits of estimated

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries in accordance with the

procedures discussed in the final results

of this review (61 FR 13834), as

amended by this determination.

These deposit requirements are

effective for all shipments of the subject

merchandise entered, or withdrawn

from warehouse, for consumption on or

after the date of publication of this

notice and shall remain in effect until

publication of the final results of the

next administrative review.

This notice also serves as a reminder

to importers of their responsibility

under 19 CFR 353.26 of 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 is published in

accordance with section 751(f) of the

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19

U.S.C. 1675(f)) and 19 CFR 353.28(c).

Dated: May 17, 1996.

Paul L. Joffe,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 96–13178 Filed 5–23–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M

[A–423–602]

Industrial Phosphoric Acid From

Belgium; 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 from

FMC Corporation and Monsanto

Company (petitioners), the Department

of Commerce (the Department) is

conducting an administrative review of

the antidumping duty order on

industrial phosphoric acid (IPA) from

Belgium. The review covers exports by

one manufacturer, Socie ́te ́ Chimique

Prayon-Rupel (Prayon), during the

period August 1, 1994 through July 31,

1995.

We have preliminarily determined

that sales have been made below normal

value (NV). If these preliminary results

are adopted in our final results of

administrative review, we will instruct

the U.S. Customs Service (Customs) to

assess antidumping duties equal to the

difference between the United States

price (USP) and the NV. Interested

parties are invited to comment on these

preliminary results. 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.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 24, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David Genovese or Zev Primor, 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) 482–5253.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The 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)