25190 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 1996 / Notices

Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington,

DC 20230.

Dated: May 9, 1996.

Dennis Puccinelli,

Acting Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–12513 Filed 5–17–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[Docket 37–96]

Foreign-Trade Zone 43—Battle Creek,

MI Area; Application for Expansion

An application has been submitted to

the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the

Board) by the City of Battle Creek,

Michigan, grantee of FTZ 43, requesting

authority to expand its zone at a site in

Benton Harbor, Michigan, adjacent to

the Battle Creek Customs port of entry.

The application was submitted pursuant

to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade

Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a–

81u), and the regulations of the Board

(15 CFR Part 400). It was formally filed

on May 7, 1996.

FTZ 43 was approved on October 19,

1978 (Board Order 138, 43 FR 50233;

10/27/78). Since then the zone has been

expanded three times (B.O.s 496, 554 &

555). It currently consists of three sites

in the Battle Creek area: Site 1: (1,731

acres)—within the Fort Custer Industrial

Park and adjacent Columbia West

Industrial Park, Battle Creek; Site 2: (23

acres)—warehouse facility owned and

operated by TLC Warehousing Services,

Inc. (TLC), at 6677 Beatrice Drive in

Texas Township (Kalamazoo County);

and Site 3: (22 acres)—warehouse

facility, also operated by TLC, 8250

Logistic Drive, Zeeland Township

(Ottawa County), some 20 miles

southwest of Grand Rapids.

The applicant is now requesting

authority to expand the general-purpose

zone to include a site (30 acres—2

parcels) located within the 120-acre St.

Joseph River Harbor Development Area

adjacent to Lake Michigan in Benton

Harbor (Berrien County), Michigan,

some 50 miles east of Battle Creek. The

first parcel is bordered by North

Riverview Street, BL–94, the St. Joseph

River and the Paw Paw River. The

second parcel is bordered by Graham

Street, 8th Street, the CSX Railroad Line

and the Paw Paw River. The site will be

operated by Cornerstone Alliance

Council of Commerce and Community

Development, a local economic

development corporation.

In accordance with the Board’s

regulations (as revised, 56 FR 50790–

50808, 10–8–91), a member of the FTZ

Staff has been designated examiner to

investigate the application and report to

the Board.

Public comment (original and 3

copies) is invited from interested parties

(see FTZ Board address below). The

closing date for their receipt is July 19,

1996. Rebuttal comments in response to

material submitted during the foregoing

period may be submitted during the

subsequent 15-day period August 5,

1996.

A copy of the application and

accompanying exhibits will be available

for public inspection at each of the

following locations:

U.S. Customs Service, North Central

Region, 4950 W. Dickman Road,

Battle Creek, Michigan 49016

Office of the Executive Secretary,

Foreign-Trade Zones Board, U.S.

Department of Commerce, Room

3716, 14th & Pennsylvania Avenue,

NW,Washington, DC 20230

Dated: May 10, 1996.

Dennis Puccinelli,

Acting Executive Secretary,

[FR Doc. 96–12514 Filed 5–17–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[Docket 38–96]

Foreign-Trade Zone 21—Charleston,

SC; Request for Manufacturing

Authority, Quoizel, Inc., (Lighting

Fixtures)

An application has been submitted to

the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the

Board) by the South Carolina State Ports

Authority, grantee of FTZ 21, requesting

authority on behalf of Quoizel, Inc., to

manufacture lighting fixtures under

zone procedures within FTZ 21, Site 3,

Crowfield Corporate Center, Goose

Creek, South Carolina. The application

was submitted pursuant to the

provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones

Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a–81u),

and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR

part 400). It was formally filed on May

8, 1996.

Quoizel is planning to move its

headquarters and manufacturing facility

to a site located within FTZ 21, Site 3,

Crowfield Corporate Center by July

1996. The facility (300 employees) will

produce lighting fixtures for households

and commercial markets. Some 60

percent of the components are sourced

abroad, including lighting fixture parts

of glass, plastic, brass and steel. Exports

will account for some 10 percent of

production.

Zone procedures would exempt

Quoizel from Customs duty payments

on foreign materials used in

manufacturing for export. On domestic

sales, the company would be able to

choose the duty rates that apply to

lighting fixtures (ranging from 3.7% to

7.6%), rather than the duty rates that

would otherwise apply to the foreign

components (ranging from 4.7% to

13.2%). The application indicates that

the savings from zone procedures would

help improve the international

competitiveness of the Quoizel facility.

In accordance with the Board’s

regulations, a member of the FTZ Staff

has been designated examiner to

investigate the application and report to

the Board.

Public comment is invited from

interested parties. Submissions (original

and 3 copies) shall be addressed to the

Board’s Executive Secretary at the

address below. The closing period for

their receipt is July 19, 1996. Rebuttal

comments in response to material

submitted during the foregoing period

may be submitted during the subsequent

15-day period (to August 5, 1996).

A copy of the application and

accompanying exhibits will be available

for public inspection at each of the

following locations:

U.S. Department of Commerce District

Office, 81 St. Mary St., Charleston,

South Carolina 29403

Office of the Executive Secretary,

Foreign-Trade Zones Board, U.S.

Department of Commerce, Room

3716, 14th & Pennsylvania Avenue,

NW., Washington, DC 20230

Dated: May 10, 1996.

Dennis Puccinelli,

Acting Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–12515 Filed 5–17–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

International Trade Administration

[A–557–805]

Notice of Preliminary Results and

Termination in Part of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review: Extruded

Rubber Thread From Malaysia

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 20, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Cameron Werker or Shawn Thompson,

Office of Antidumping Investigations,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 1996 / Notices 25191

Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone:

(202) 482–3874 or (202) 482–1776,

respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On October 18, 1993, the Department

of Commerce (the Department)

published in the Federal Register a

notice of ‘‘Opportunity to Request an

Administrative Review’’ of the

Antidumping Duty Order on Extruded

Rubber Thread from Malaysia (58 FR

53709). In accordance with 19 CFR

353.22(a)(2), in October 1993, the

following producers and exporters of

extruded rubber thread requested an

administrative review of the

antidumping order covering the period

April 2, 1992, through September 30,

1993: Heveafil Sdn. Bhd. (‘‘Heveafil’’),

Rubberflex Sdn. Bhd. (‘‘Rubberflex’’),

Filati Lastex Elastfibre (Malaysia)

(‘‘Filati’’), and Rubfil Sdn. Bhd

(‘‘Rubfil’’). On November 17, 1993, the

Department initiated an administrative

review for Rubberflex (58 FR 60600). On

December 17, 1993, the Department

initiated an administrative review for

Heveafil, Filati, and Rubfil (58 FR

65964).

On January 26, 1994, the Department

issued sales and cost questionnaires to

the four companies requesting an

administrative review. On March 8,

1994, Filati and Rubfil withdrew their

request for administrative review in

accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(a)(5).

Accordingly, we are terminating this

review for Filati and Rubfil.

On March 21, 1994, Heveafil

submitted a request to withdraw from

this administrative review with respect

to sales made during the period April 2,

1992, through August 25, 1992. This

request was based on Heveafil’s

assertion that the company was having

difficulty in collecting information for

this period. On March 24, 1994, we

rejected Heveafil’s partial termination

request.

Heveafil and Rubberflex submitted

questionnaire responses in April 1994.

We issued supplemental questionnaires

in May 1994 (to both respondents), in

April 1995 (to Heveafil) and in July

1995 (to Rubberflex). Responses to these

questionnaires were received in June

1994, May 1995, and August 1995,

respectively.

In July and August 1995, the

Department conducted sales and cost

verifications of Heveafil’s questionnaire

responses, in accordance with 19 CFR

353.36(a)(iv), based in part on Heveafil’s

assertion that it did not maintain

detailed sales and cost records during

the first five months of the review

period. Regarding Rubberflex, we

determined that it was unnecessary to

conduct verification, in accordance with

19 CFR 353.36, because (1) Rubberflex

was involved in the original

investigation (and therefore had been

verified during that proceeding); and (2)

no data collection problems were

indicated for this company in the

instant proceeding.

Scope of the Review

The product covered by this review is

extruded rubber thread. Extruded rubber

thread is defined as vulcanized rubber

thread obtained by extrusion of stable or

concentrated natural rubber latex of any

cross sectional shape, measuring from

0.18 mm, which is 0.007 inch or 140

gauge, to 1.42 mm, which is 0.056 inch

or 18 gauge, in diameter. Extruded

rubber thread is currently classified

under subheading 4007.00.00 of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (HTSUS). The HTSUS

subheadings are provided for

convenience and Customs purposes.

Our written description of the scope of

this review is dispositive.

Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Statute and to the

Department’s regulations are in

reference to the provisions as they

existed on December 31, 1994.

We are conducting this administrative

review for Heveafil and Rubberflex in

accordance with section 751(a) of the

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

Such or Similar Merchandise

In determining similar merchandise

comparisons, in accordance with

section 771(16) of the Act, we

considered the following physical

characteristics, which appear in order of

importance: (1) Quality (i.e., first vs.

second); (2) size; (3) finish; (4) color; (5)

special qualities; (6) uniformity; (7)

elongation; (8) tensile strength; and (9)

modulus. With the exception of quality,

these characteristics are in accordance

with matching criteria set forth in the

January 26, 1994, memorandum to the

file. Regarding quality, we have added

this characteristic in order to address

respondents’ concerns regarding

differences in value related to

significant differences in quality.

Regarding color, both respondents

assigned separate codes to each shade of

color. We reassigned color codes to sales

of subject merchandise, in accordance

with the instructions contained in the

questionnaire. This resulted in our

treating all shades of white as equally

similar to each other, all shades of black

as equally similar, etc., instead of

treating a specific shade as most similar

to another specific shade.

Fair Value Comparisons

To determine whether sales of

extruded rubber thread from Malaysia to

the United States were made at less than

fair value, we compared the United

States price (USP) to the foreign market

value (FMV) for Rubberflex and

Heveafil, as specified in the ‘‘United

States Price’’ and ‘‘Foreign Market

Value’’ sections of this notice.

Respondents reported bad debt as

indirect selling expenses. Therefore,

because bad debt was included in the

indirect selling expenses, we

disregarded sales to all markets (i.e.,

United States and third country) which

were written off as bad debt in order to

avoid double-counting these

transactions.

United States Price

For sales by both respondents, we

based USP on purchase price, in

accordance with section 772(b) of the

Act, when the subject merchandise was

sold to unrelated purchasers in the

United States prior to importation and

when the exporter’s sales price (ESP)

methodology of section 772(c) of the Act

was not otherwise indicated. In

addition, where sales to the first

unrelated purchaser took place after

importation into the United States, we

based USP on ESP, in accordance with

section 772(c) of the Act.

A. Heveafil

We removed all sales from the sales

database with entry dates after the

period of review (POR). In addition, at

verification, we found that certain sales

Heveafil had designated as U.S. sales

were actually sales to a U.S. customer

but shipped to Hong Kong to be further

manufactured into non-subject

merchandise before entering the United

States. Accordingly, the merchandise

that eventually entered the United

States was not subject to the dumping

order. Therefore, we consider these

sales to be third country sales and have

eliminated them from the U.S. sales

listing.

We based purchase price on packed,

CIF prices to the first unrelated

purchaser in the United States. We

revised Heveafil’s data based on our

findings at verification. We made

deductions from USP, where

appropriate, for rebates. In addition,

where appropriate, we made deductions

for foreign inland freight, foreign

brokerage and handling, ocean freight,

marine insurance, U.S. customs duty,

harbor maintenance and merchandise
25192 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 1996 / Notices

processing fees, and U.S. brokerage and

handling expenses, in accordance with

section 772(d)(2) of the Act.

At verification, we found that

Heveafil did not report certain purchase

price sales of extruded rubber thread

which entered the United States during

the POR. Because we specifically

instructed Heveafil to report all entries

into the United States during the POR

as well as all sales made during the

POR, we based the margin for these

unreported sales on the best information

otherwise available (BIA) in accordance

with section 776(c) of the Act. As BIA,

we applied the weighted-average margin

found in the this first administrative

review, because it is the highest rate

ever determined for Heveafil. This is

consistent with the Department’s

general application of partial BIA (see,

e.g., Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Reviews and Revocation

in Part of an Antidumping Duty Order;

Antifriction Bearings (Other Than

Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts

Thereof From France, et al, 60 FR

10900, 10907 (February 28, 1995)

(AFBs)).

For sales made from the inventory of

the U.S. branch office, we based USP on

ESP, in accordance with section 772(c)

of the Act. In addition, we reclassified

certain purchase price sales as ESP sales

because we found at verification that

they were canceled by the original

purchaser after shipment and resold

after importation into the United States.

We calculated ESP based on packed,

delivered prices to unrelated customers

in the United States. We revised the

reported data based on our findings at

verification. We made deductions,

where appropriate, for rebates. We also

made deductions for foreign inland

freight, foreign brokerage, ocean freight,

marine insurance, U.S. inland freight,

U.S. brokerage, entry fees, harbor

maintenance and processing fees, and

inspection charges. In accordance with

section 772(e)(2) of the Act, we made

additional deductions, where

appropriate, for credit and indirect

selling expenses.

B. Rubberflex

We based purchase price on packed,

CIF prices to the first unrelated

purchaser in the United States. We

made deductions from USP, where

appropriate, for foreign inland freight,

foreign brokerage, containerization

expenses, ocean freight, marine

insurance, U.S. customs duties, harbor

maintenance and merchandise

processing fees, and U.S. inland freight

expenses, in accordance with section

772(d)(2) of the Act. Rubberflex did not

report certain movement charges,

although the company reported that it

incurred them on all purchase price

transactions. Accordingly, we based the

amount of the unreported expenses on

BIA. As BIA, we used the highest

amount reported in the purchase price

sales listing for each specific charge (see

e.g., Chrome-Plated Lug Nuts From the

People’s Republic of China; Final

Results of Antidumping Administrative

Review 60 FR 48687 (September 20,

1995)). We disregarded a rebate reported

for one purchase price sale, because

Rubberflex stated in its questionnaire

response that the company did not grant

any U.S. rebates during the POR.

For sales made from the inventory of

the U.S. subsidiary, we based USP on

ESP, in accordance with section 772(c)

of the Act. We calculated ESP based on

packed, delivered prices to unrelated

customers in the United States. We

made deductions, where appropriate,

for foreign inland freight, foreign

brokerage, containerization expenses,

ocean freight, marine insurance, U.S.

customs duties, harbor maintenance and

processing fees, and U.S. inland freight.

In accordance with section 772(e)(2) of

the Act, we made additional deductions,

where appropriate, for credit and

indirect selling expenses.

Rubberflex did not report complete

data for certain ESP sales. Accordingly,

we used BIA to determine these data, as

follows: Where price and/or credit

expense data was missing for sales of

second quality merchandise, we used

the average price and expense data

reported for other second quality sales.

Where the date of sale was missing and/

or the control number was missing, we

applied the weighted-average margin

found in the LTFV investigation,

because it is the highest rate ever

determined for Rubberflex. This is

consistent with the Department’s

general application of partial BIA (see,

e.g., AFBs).

Foreign Market Value

In order to determine whether the

home market was viable during the

POR, (i.e., whether there were sufficient

sales of extruded rubber thread in the

home market to serve as a viable basis

for calculating FMV), we compared the

volume of each of the respondent’s

home market sales to the volume of its

third country sales, in accordance with

section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act and 19

CFR 353.48. Based on this comparison,

we determined that neither respondent

had a viable home market during the

POR. Consequently, we based FMV on

third country sales.

In accordance with 19 CFR 353.49(b),

we selected the appropriate third

country markets for Heveafil and

Rubberflex based on the following

criteria: similarity of merchandise sold

in the third country to the merchandise

exported to the United States, the

volume of sales to the third country, and

the similarity of market organization

between the third country and U.S.

markets. Specifically, we chose, as the

appropriate third country markets, Italy

for Heveafil and Hong Kong for

Rubberflex.

Because the Department disregarded

sales below the cost of production (COP)

for both Heveafil and Rubberflex in the

original investigation (see Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Extruded Rubber Thread

from Malaysia, 57 FR 38465 (August 25,

1992)), in accordance with our standard

practice, there were reasonable grounds

to believe or suspect that both Heveafil

and Rubberflex had made third country

sales at prices below its COP in this

review.

In accordance with section 773(b) of

the Act, and longstanding

administrative practice (see, e.g., Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Polyethylene Terephthalate

Film, Sheet, and Strip from Korea, 56

FR 16306 (April 22, 1991) and Final

Results Administrative Review:

Mechanical Transfer Presses from

Japan, 59 FR 9958 (March 2, 1994)), if

over ninety percent of respondent’s

sales of a given model were at prices

above the COP, we did not disregard

any below-cost sales because we

determined that the below-cost sales

were not made in substantial quantities.

Where we found between ten and ninety

percent of respondent’s sales of a given

product were at prices below the COP,

and the below cost sales were made over

an extended period of time, we

disregarded only the below-cost sales.

Where we found that more than ninety

percent of respondent’s sales were at

prices below the COP, and the sales

were made over an extended period of

time, we disregarded all sales for that

product and calculated FMV based on

constructed value (CV), in accordance

with section 773(e) of the Act.

In order to determine whether third

country prices were above the COP, we

calculated the COP for each model

based on the sum of the respondent’s

cost of materials, labor, other fabrication

costs, and general expenses and

packing. We calculated CV for each

model based on the sum of respondent’s

cost of manufacture (COM), plus general

expenses, profit and U.S. packing. For

general expenses, which includes

selling and financial expenses (SG&A),

we used the greater of the reported

general expenses or the statutory

minimum of ten percent of the COM.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 1996 / Notices 25193

For profit, we used the greater of the

weighted-average third country profit

during the POR or the statutory

minimum of eight percent of the COM

and SG&A, in accordance with section

773(e)(B) of the Act.

A. Heveafil

We made the following adjustments to

Heveafil’s reported COP and CV data

based on our findings at verification. We

increased direct material costs to

account for yield loss during

production. We increased direct labor to

include accrued retirement benefits and

other labor costs that had been excluded

from COP and CV. We also reclassified

certain variable labor costs to fixed

overhead. We revised Heveafil’s net

financing costs to account for the

financing cost incurred by its parent

company. We recomputed Heveafil’s

G&A expense to include certain nonproduction labor costs, general

depreciation, the write-off of idle

equipment, and a portion of Heveafil’s

parent company’s G&A expense. For

further discussion of these adjustments,

see the cost calculation memorandum

from Stan Bowen and Dennis McClure,

accountants in the Office of Accounting,

to Christian Marsh, Director of the

Office of Accounting, dated April 30,

1996.

Where FMV was based on third

country sales, as in the original

investigation, we based FMV on CIF

prices to unrelated Italian customers in

comparable channels of trade as the U.S.

customer. Specifically, FMV was based

on direct sales from Malaysia for

purchase price sales comparisons, and

on sales from the inventory of Heveafil’s

Italian branch office for ESP sales

comparisons, in accordance with

section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act. We made

adjustments to Heveafil’s reported sales

data based on our findings at

verification. We made no adjustment to

FMV for credits issued by the Italian

branch office based on our finding at

verification that these credits were

incorrectly reported (see the Italian

Branch’s sales verification report, dated

August 30, 1995).

For third country price-to-purchase

price comparisons, we made

deductions, where appropriate, for

rebates. We also deducted post-sale

home market movement charges from

FMV under the circumstance of sale

provision of section 773 (a)(4)(B) of the

Act and 19 CFR 353.56. This adjustment

included Malaysian foreign inland

freight, brokerage, ocean freight, marine

insurance, Italian brokerage, and inland

freight to Heveafil’s unrelated customers

in Italy, where appropriate. Pursuant to

19 CFR 353.56(a)(2), we made

circumstance of sale adjustments, where

appropriate, for differences in credit

expenses.

For third country price-to-ESP

comparisons, where appropriate, we

made deductions for rebates and credit

expenses. We deducted the third

country market indirect selling

expenses, including inventory carrying

costs, pre-sale freight (i.e., foreign

inland freight, brokerage, ocean freight,

marine insurance, Italian brokerage, and

Italian freight to Heveafil’s warehouse)

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 price-to-price comparisons, we

deducted third country packing costs

and added U.S. packing costs, in

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

Act. At verification, we found that

Heveafil had incorrectly reported its

third country and U.S. packing material

expenses. Therefore, we based the

adjustment for packing materials on

BIA. As BIA, we used the lowest

packing material expense reported for

any Italian sale and the highest packing

expense reported for any U.S. sale (see

Concurrence Memorandum to Barbara

R. Stafford from Team, dated April 30,

1996). In addition, where appropriate,

we made adjustments to FMV to

account for differences in physical

characteristics of the merchandise, in

accordance with section 773(a)(4)(c) of

the Act and 19 CFR 353.57.

For CV-to-purchase price

comparisons, we made circumstance of

sale adjustments, where appropriate, for

credit expenses in accordance with 773

(a)(4)(B) and 19 CFR 353.56.

For CV-to-ESP comparisons, we made

deductions, where appropriate, for

credit expenses. We also deducted the

third country market indirect selling

expenses, including inventory carrying

costs 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 as

specified above, in accordance with

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

B. Rubberflex

We made adjustments to Rubberflex’s

reported COP and CV data as follows:

We recalculated general and

administrative expenses, as well as

interest expenses, based on the data

contained in Rubberflex’s audited

financial statements. For further

discussion of these adjustments, see the

cost calculation memorandum from

Elizabeth Lofgren, accountant in the

Office of Accounting, to Christian

Marsh, Director of the Office of

Accounting, dated April 30, 1996.

Where FMV was based on third

country sales, as in the original

investigation, we based FMV on CIF

prices to unrelated Hong Kong

customers in comparable channels of

trade as the U.S. customer. Specifically,

FMV was based on direct sales from

Malaysia for purchase price sales

comparisons, and on sales from the

inventory of Rubberflex’s Hong Kong

subsidiary for ESP sales comparisons.

For third country price-to-purchase

price comparisons, we made

deductions, where appropriate, for

rebates. We also deducted post-sale

home market movement charges from

FMV under the circumstance of sale

provision of 19 CFR 353.56. This

adjustment included Malaysian foreign

inland freight, brokerage and handling

charges, containerization, ocean freight,

and marine insurance. Pursuant to

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

353.56(a)(2), we made circumstance of

sale adjustments, where appropriate, for

differences in credit expenses.

For third country price-to-ESP

comparisons, we made deductions for

rebates, where appropriate. We also

made deductions for credit expenses.

We deducted the third country market

indirect selling expenses, including

inventory carrying costs, bank charges,

pre-sale freight expenses (i.e., foreign

inland freight, brokerage and handling

charges, containerization, ocean freight,

marine insurance, Hong Kong duty and

brokerage expenses, and freight from the

port in Hong Kong to Rubberflex’s

warehouse), 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).

Regarding Hong Kong duties,

Rubberflex reported a combined amount

for document declaration fees, terminal

handling charges, and bank charges.

Because the Department’s practice is to

treat bank charges as a selling expense

(rather than a movement charge), we

reclassified bank charges as indirect

selling expenses and recalculated Hong

Kong duties accordingly (see, e.g., Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value (LTFV); Oil Country Tubular

Goods from Korea 60 FR 33561, 33562

(June 28, 1995) and Final Determination

of Sales at LTFV; Dynamic Random

Access Memory Semiconductors of One

Megabit and Above from Korea 58 FR

15467, 15467–70 (March 23, 1993)).

For all price-to-price comparisons, we

deducted third country packing costs

and added U.S. packing costs, in

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

Act. In addition, where appropriate, we

made adjustments to FMV to account for
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