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

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective for all

shipments of the subject merchandise

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after the

publication date of these final results of

administrative review, as provided by

section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act: (1)

The cash deposit rate for Ausimont will

be 6.64 percent; (2) for previously

reviewed or investigated companies not

listed above, the cash deposit rate will

continue to be the company-specific rate

published for the most recent period; (3)

if the exporter is not a firm covered in

this review, a prior review, or the

original less than fair value

investigation, but the manufacturer is,

the cash deposit rate will be the rate

established for the most recent period

for the manufacturer of the

merchandise; (4) the cash deposit rate

for all other manufacturers or exporters

will be 46.46 percent for the reasons

explained in Granular

Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin From

Italy; Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

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

These deposit requirements shall

remain in effect until publication of the

final results of the next administrative

review.

This notice serves as a final reminder

to importers of their responsibility

under 19 CFR 353.26 to file a certificate

regarding the reimbursement of

antidumping duties prior to liquidation

of the relevant entries during this

review period. Failure to comply with

this requirement could result in the

Secretary’s presumption that

reimbursement of antidumping duties

occurred and the subsequent assessment

of double antidumping duties.

This notice also serves as a reminder

to parties subject to administrative

protective orders (APOs) of their

responsibility concerning the

disposition of proprietary information

disclosed under APO in accordance

with 19 CFR 353.34(d)(1). Timely

written notification of the return/

destruction of APO materials or

conversion to judicial protective order is

hereby requested. Failure to comply

with the regulations and the terms of an

APO is a sanctionable violation.

This administrative review and notice

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

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

and 19 CFR 353.22.

Dated: May 9, 1996.

Paul L. Joffe,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

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

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[A–570–815]

Sulfanilic Acid From the People’s

Republic of China; Preliminary Results

of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review.

SUMMARY: In response to requests by a

U.S. importer of the subject

merchandise to the United States and by

petitioner, the Department of Commerce

(the Department) is conducting an

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on sulfanilic

acid from the People’s Republic of

China (PRC). The review covers ten

manufacturers/exporters of subject

merchandise to the United States and

the period August 1, 1993 through July

31, 1994. The review indicates the

existence of dumping margins during

the period of review.

We have preliminarily determined

that sales have been made below foreign

market value (FMV). If these

preliminary results are adopted in our

final results of administrative review,

we will instruct U.S. Customs to assess

antidumping duties equal to the

difference between United States price

(U.S. price) and FMV.

Interested parties are invited to

comment on these preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 20, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Karin Price or Maureen Flannery, Office

of Antidumping Compliance, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

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

telephone: (202) 482–4733.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On August 19, 1992, the Department

published in the Federal Register (57

FR 37524) the antidumping duty order

on sulfanilic acid from the PRC. On

August 3, 1994, the Department

published in the Federal Register (59

FR 39544) a notice of opportunity to

request an administrative review of this

antidumping duty order. On August 30,

1994, in accordance with 19 CFR

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

sulfanilic acid from the PRC, PHT

International, Inc. (PHT), requested that

we conduct an administrative review of

four exporters, China National Chemical

Construction Company (CNCCC),

Hainan Garden Trading Company

(Hainan Garden), Yude Chemical

Industry Company (Yude), and

Zhenxing Chemical Industry Company

(Zhenxing). On August 31, 1994, in

accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(a),

petitioner, R–M Industries, Inc.,

requested that we conduct an

administrative review of Baoding No. 3

Chemical Factory (Baoding), China

National Chemical Construction

Corporation, Qingdao Branch (CNCCC

Qingdao), CNCCC, Jinxing Chemical

Factory (Jinxing), Sinochem Hebei

Import & Export Corporation (Sinochem

Hebei), Sinochem Qingdao, Sinochem

Shandong, Yude, and Zhenxing. We

published the notice of initiation of this

antidumping duty administrative review

on September 16, 1994 (59 FR 47609).

The notice of initiation was amended on

April 14, 1995 (60 FR 19017). The

Department is conducting this

administrative review in accordance

with section 751 of the Tariff Act of

1930, as amended (the Act).

Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise stated, all citations

to the statute and to the Department’s

regulations are references to the

provisions as they existed on December

31, 1994.

Scope of Review

Imports covered by this review are all

grades of sulfanilic acid, which include

technical (or crude) sulfanilic acid,

refined (or purified) sulfanilic acid and

sodium salt of sulfanilic acid.

Sulfanilic acid is a synthetic organic

chemical produced from the direct

sulfonation of aniline with sulfuric acid.

Sulfanilic acid is used as a raw material

in the production of optical brighteners,

food colors, specialty dyes, and concrete

additives. The principal differences

between the grades are the undesirable

quantities of residual aniline and alkali

insoluble materials present in the

sulfanilic acid. All grades are available

as dry, free flowing powders.

Technical sulfanilic acid, classifiable

under the subheading 2921.42.24 of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS),

contains 96 percent minimum sulfanilic

acid, 1.0 percent maximum aniline, and

1.0 percent maximum alkali insoluble

materials. Refined sulfanilic acid, also

classifiable under the subheading

2921.42.24 of the HTS, contains 98

percent minimum sulfanilic acid, 0.5

percent maximum aniline and 0.25

percent maximum alkali insoluble

materials.

Sodium salt, classifiable under the

HTS subheading 2921.42.79, is a

powder, granular or crystalline material

which contains 75 percent minimum

equivalent sulfanilic acid, 0.5 percent
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 1996 / Notices 25197

maximum aniline based on the

equivalent sulfanilic acid content, and

0.25 percent maximum alkali insoluble

materials based on the equivalent

sulfanilic acid content.

Although the HTS subheadings are

provided for convenience and customs

purposes, our written description of the

scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

This review covers 10 manufacturers/

exporters of sulfanilic acid from the

PRC, Baoding, CNCCC, CNCCC

Qingdao, Jinxing, Hainan Garden,

Sinochem Hebei, Sinochem Shandong,

Sinochem Qingdao, Yude, and

Zhenxing. The review period is August

1, 1993 through July 31, 1994.

Verification

As provided by section 776(b) of the

Act, we conducted verifications of the

information provided by CNCCC,

Hainan Garden, Sinochem Hebei, Yude,

and Zhenxing. We also conducted

verifications of two related importers of

the subject merchandise, Alchemy

International and PHT, at their facilities

in the United States. We conducted the

verifications using standard verification

procedures, including onsite inspection

of the manufacturers’ facilities, the

examination of relevant sales and

financial records, and selection of

original documentation containing

relevant information. Our verification

results are outlined in the public

versions of the verification reports.

Separate Rates

To establish whether a company is

sufficiently independent to be entitled

to a separate rate, the Department

analyzes each exporting entity under the

test established in the Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Sparklers from the People’s

Republic of China (56 FR 20588, May 6,

1991) (Sparklers), as amplified in the

Notice of Final Determination of Sales

at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide

from the People’s Republic of China (59

FR 22585, May 2, 1994) (Silicon

Carbide). Under this policy, exporters in

non-market-economy (NME) countries

are entitled to separate, companyspecific margins when they can

demonstrate an absence of government

control, both in law (de jure) and in fact

(de facto), with respect to exports.

Evidence supporting, though not

requiring, a finding of de jure absence

of government control over export

activities includes: (1) An absence of

restrictive stipulations associated with

an individual exporter’s business and

export licenses; (2) any legislative

enactments decentralizing control of

companies; and (3) any other formal

measures by the government

decentralizing control of companies. De

facto absence of government control

with respect to exports is based on four

criteria: (1) Whether the export prices

are set by or subject to the approval of

a government authority; (2) whether

each exporter retains the proceeds from

its sales and makes independent

decisions regarding the disposition of

profits and financing of losses; (3)

whether each exporter has autonomy in

making decisions regarding the

selection of management; and (4)

whether each exporter has the authority

to negotiate and sign contracts and other

agreements.

Baoding submitted its response to the

Department’s request for information

regarding separate rates in Chinese, but

did not respond to our request that the

response be translated into English or to

further requests for information. Jinxing,

CNCCC Qingdao, and Sinochem

Qingdao did not respond to our requests

for information. Sinochem Shandong

submitted a response indicating that it

had no exports of the subject

merchandise to the United States during

the period of review; however, it did not

submit a response to the Department’s

questionnaire regarding separate rates.

Therefore, we have not given Baoding,

Jinxing, CNCCC Qingdao, Sinochem

Qingdao, or Sinochem Shandong a

separate rate.

CNCCC, Hainan Garden, Sinochem

Hebei, Yude, and Zhenxing have

responded to the Department’s request

for information regarding separate rates.

We have found that the evidence on the

record demonstrates an absence of

government control, both in law and in

fact, with respect to their exports

according to the criteria identified in

Sparklers and Silicon Carbide for this

period of review, and have assigned to

each of these companies a separate rate.

For further discussion of the

Department’s preliminary determination

that each of these companies is entitled

to a separate rate, see Decision

Memorandum to Holly A. Kuga,

Director, Office of Antidumping

Compliance, dated August 24, 1995,

‘‘Separate rates in the 1993/1994

administrative review of sulfanilic acid

from the People’s Republic of China,’’

which is on file in the Central Records

Unit (room B–099 of the Main

Commerce Building).

Collapsing

The Department ‘‘collapses’’ related

firms (i.e., treats them as a single entity

for review purposes and assigns them a

single dumping margin) where the type

and degree of relationship is so

significant that we find that there is a

strong possibility of price manipulation

(Nihon Cement Co., Ltd. v. United

States, 17 CIT 400 (1993) (Nihon)).

Because Yude and Zhenxing each

formed joint ventures with PHT during

the period of review, we have

considered whether Yude and Zhenxing

should be collapsed for purposes of this

administrative review as a result of their

relationships with PHT.

In determining whether to collapse

related parties, the Department

considers the following criteria:

• Whether the companies have

interlocking boards of directors;

• Whether the companies have

similar production processes, facilities,

or equipment so as to facilitate shifting

of production between the facilities;

• Whether the companies operate as

separate and distinct entities;

• Whether the companies share

marketing and sales information or

offices; and

• Whether the companies are

involved in the pricing or production

decisions of the other entity.

See Final Determinations of Sales at

Less Than Fair Value: Certain HotRolled Carbon Steel Flat Products,

Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat

Products, Certain Corrosion-Resistant

Carbon Steel Flat Products, and Certain

Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from

Canada (58 FR 37099, July 9, 1993) and

Final Determinations of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value: Certain Hot-Rolled

Carbon Steel Flat Products, Certain

Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products,

and Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon

Steel Flat Products from Japan (58 FR

37154, July 9, 1993).

The use of these factors was upheld

by the Court of International Trade (CIT)

in Nihon. In Nihon, the CIT held that,

although each of these criteria does not

have to be met in order for the

Department to collapse related parties,

the Department must consider them all.

Based on our analysis of these criteria,

we have determined that there is a

strong possibility of price manipulation

between Yude and Zhenxing, and that

Yude and Zhenxing should be collapsed

as a result of their relationships with

PHT. We have found that some of the

same people sit on Yude’s and

Zhenxing’s boards of directors, that

Yude and Zhenxing have similar

production processes, and that PHT

makes sales decisions for each of the

joint ventures. For a further discussion

of this issue, see Memorandum from

Case Analyst to the File, dated February

20, 1996, ‘‘Analysis for the preliminary

results of the 1993/1994 administrative

review of sulfanilic acid from the

People’s Republic of China—Yude

Chemical Industry Company and
25198 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 1996 / Notices

Zhenxing Chemical Industry Company,’’

which is on file in the Central Records

Unit (room B–099 of the Main

Commerce Building).

We are collapsing Yude and Zhenxing

for the purposes of calculating margins,

and we are collapsing their factor data

for use in calculating FMV. We have

calculated one FMV for Yude and

Zhenxing by weight averaging Yude’s

and Zhenxing’s factors based on the

quantities of sulfanilic acid each

produced during the period of review.

United States Price

The Department used purchase price

and exporter’s sales price (ESP), in

accordance with sections 772 (b) and (c)

of the Act, in calculating U.S. price. We

made deductions from purchase price

and ESP sales, where appropriate, for

foreign inland freight, ocean freight, and

marine insurance, in accordance with

section 772(d)(2)(A). We used surrogate

data from India to value foreign inland

freight, marine insurance, and ocean

freight, in accordance with section

773(c). We selected India as the

surrogate country for reasons explained

in the ‘‘Foreign Market Value’’ section

of this notice. We made additional

deductions from ESP sales, where

appropriate, for U.S. duties, U.S.

brokerage and handling, U.S. inland

freight, containerization expenses, and

repacking in the United States, in

accordance with section 772(d)(2)(A).

Foreign Market Value

For companies located in NME

countries, section 773(c)(1) of the Act

provides that the Department shall

determine FMV using a factors of

production methodology if (1) the

merchandise is exported from a NME

country, and (2) the information does

not permit the calculation of FMV using

home market prices, third country

prices, or constructed value under

section 773(a) of the Act.

In every case conducted by the

Department involving the PRC, the PRC

has been treated as an NME country.

None of the parties to this proceeding

has contested such treatment in this

review. Accordingly, we calculated

FMV in accordance with section 773(c)

of the Act and section 353.52 of the

Department’s regulations. Pursuant to

section 773(c)(4), we determined that

India is comparable to the PRC in terms

of per capita gross national product

(GNP), the growth rate in per capita

GNP, and the national distribution of

labor, and that India is a significant

producer of comparable merchandise.

For further discussion of the

Department’s selection of India as the

primary surrogate country, see

Memorandum from Director, Office of

Policy, to Acting Division Director,

Office of Antidumping Compliance,

dated April 13, 1995, ‘‘Sulfanilic Acid

from the People’s Republic of China

(PRC): Nonmarket Economy Status and

Surrogate Country Selection,’’ and File

Memorandum, dated August 8, 1995,

‘‘India as a significant producer of

comparable merchandise in the 1993/

1994 administrative review of sulfanilic

acid from the People’s Republic of

China,’’ which are on file in the Central

Records Unit (room B099 of the Main

Commerce Building).

For purposes of calculating FMV, we

valued PRC factors of production as

follows, in accordance with section

773(c)(1) of the Act:

• To value aniline used in the

production of sulfanilic acid, we used

the rupee per kilogram value of imports

into India during April 1993–March

1994, obtained from the March 1994

Monthly Statistics of the Foreign Trade

of India, Volume II—Imports (Indian

Import Statistics). Using wholesale price

indices (WPI) obtained from the

International Financial Statistics,

published by the International Monetary

Fund (IMF), we adjusted this value to

reflect inflation through the period of

review. We made adjustments to

include freight costs incurred between

the suppliers and the sulfanilic acid

factories.

• To value sulfuric acid used in the

production of sulfanilic acid, we used

the rupee per kilogram value reported in

Chemical Weekly. We made adjustments

to include freight costs incurred

between the suppliers and the sulfanilic

acid factories.

• To value activated carbon used in

the production of sulfanilic acid, we

used the rupee per kilogram value

reported in Chemical Business. We

made adjustments to include freight

costs incurred between the suppliers

and the sulfanilic acid factories.

• For direct labor, we used the labor

rates reported in the Business

International Corporation reports IL&T

India, released November 1993. This

source breaks out labor rates between

skilled and unskilled labor for 1993 and

provides information on the number of

labor hours worked per week. Using

WPI obtained from the International

Financial Statistics, we adjusted the

labor rates to reflect inflation through

the period of review.

• For factory overhead, we used

information reported in the September

1994 Reserve Bank of India Bulletin.

From this information, we were able to

determine factory overhead as a

percentage of total cost of manufacture.

• For selling, general and

administrative (SG&A) expenses, we

used information obtained from the

September 1994 Reserve Bank of India

Bulletin. We calculated an SG&A rate by

dividing SG&A expenses by the cost of

manufacture.

• To calculate a profit rate, we used

information obtained from the

September 1994 Reserve Bank of India

Bulletin. We calculated a profit rate by

dividing the before-tax profit by the sum

of those components pertaining to the

cost of manufacturing plus SG&A.

• To value the inner and outer bags

used as packing materials, we used

import statistics for India obtained from

the Indian Import Statistics. Using WPI

obtained from the International

Financial Statistics, we adjusted these

values to reflect inflation through the

period of review. We adjusted these

values to include freight costs incurred

between the suppliers and the sulfanilic

acid factories.

• To value coal, we used the price of

steam coal reported in The Gazette of

India, June 16, 1994.

• To value electricity, we used the

price of electricity reported in the

Electric Utilities Data Book for the Asian

and Pacific Region, January 1993, for

the period April 1993 through March

1994. We adjusted the value of

electricity to reflect inflation through

the period of review using WPI

published by the IMF.

• To value truck freight, we used the

rate reported in a June 1992 cable from

the U.S. Embassy in India submitted for

the Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value: Sulfanilic Acid from

the People’s Republic of China (57 FR

29705, July 6, 1992). We adjusted the

truck freight rates to reflect inflation

through the period of review using WPI

published by the IMF.

• To value rail freight, we used the

price reported in a December 1989 cable

from the U.S. Embassy in India

submitted for the Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review: Shop Towels of Cotton from the

People’s Republic of China (56 FR 4040,

February 1, 1991). We adjusted the rail

freight rates to reflect inflation through

the period of review using WPI

published by the IMF.

Currency Conversion

We made currency conversions in

accordance with 19 CFR 353.60(a).

Currency conversions were made at the

rates certified by the Federal Reserve

Bank.

Best Information Available

We preliminarily determine, in

accordance with section 776(c) of the
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 1996 / Notices 25199

Act, that the use of best information

available (BIA) is appropriate for

Baoding, CNCCC Qingdao, Jinxing, and

Sinochem Qingdao because these

companies did not respond to our

requests for information. Section 776(c)

of the Act states that the Department

shall use BIA whenever a company

refuses or is unable to produce

information in a timely manner and in

the form required, or significantly

impedes an investigation.

In deciding what to use as BIA,

section 353.37(b) of the Department’s

regulations provide that the Department

may take into account whether a party

refuses to provide requested information

or impedes a proceeding. Thus, the

Department determines on a case-bycase basis what is BIA. The Department

uses a two-tiered approach in its choice

of BIA. When a company refuses to

provide the information requested in the

form required or otherwise significantly

impedes the Department’s review (first

tier), the Department will normally

assign to that company the higher of (1)

the highest rate found for any firm in

the less-than-fair-value (LTFV)

investigation or a prior administrative

review; or (2) the highest rate found in

the current review for any firm. When

a company has cooperated with the

Department’s request for information

but fails to provide information

requested in a timely manner or in the

form required such that margins for

certain sales cannot be calculated

(second tier), the Department will

normally assign to those sales the higher

of (1) the highest margin calculated for

that company in any previous review or

the original investigation for the same

class or kind of merchandise; or (2) the

highest calculated margin for any

respondent in the current review. See

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, Germany, Italy,

Japan, Romania, Singapore, Sweden,

Thailand and the United Kingdom) (58

FR 39729, July 26, 1993). This practice

has been upheld in Allied-Signal

Aerospace Co. v. United States, 996

F.2d 1185 (Fed. Cir. 1993), and Krupp

Stahl AG et al. v. United States, 822 F.

Supp. 789 (CIT 1993).

We have applied BIA to sales made by

Baoding, CNCCC Qingdao, Jinxing, and

Sinochem Qingdao. Because these firms

did not respond to our questionnaires,

as BIA we have applied the highest

margin ever in the LTFV investigation,

prior administrative reviews, or in this

review, which is 85.20 percent. Because

these firms have not been found eligible

for a separate rate, they form the basis

of the PRC country-wide rate, which is

therefore also based on non-cooperative

BIA.

Non Shipper

Sinochem Shandong submitted a

response to the Department’s

questionnaire stating that it did not ship

sulfanilic acid to the United States

during the period of review. There is no

evidence on the record to demonstrate

that Sinochem Shandong shipped

subject merchandise to the United

States during the period of review.

Since we have no information to

determine whether Sinochem Shandong

merits a separate rate for this review, as

discussed in the separate rates section

above, Sinochem Shandong falls within

the PRC country-wide rate.

Preliminary Results of Review

As a result of our review, we

preliminarily determine that the

following margins exist:

Manufacturer/Exporter Time period Margin

(percent)

China National Chemical Construction Corporation .............................................................................................. 8/1/93–7/31/94 47.51

Hainan Garden Trading Company ......................................................................................................................... 8/1/93–7/31/94 53.36

Sinochem Hebei Import & Export Corporation ...................................................................................................... 8/1/93–7/31/94 2.01

Yude Chemical Industry Company 1 ...................................................................................................................... 8/1/93–7/31/94 0.00

Zhenxing Chemical Industry Company 1 ................................................................................................................ 8/1/93–7/31/94 0.00

PRC Rate ............................................................................................................................................................... 8/1/93–7/31/94 85.20

1Yude and Zhenxing have been collapsed for the purposes of this administrative review. However, we have listed them separately on this

chart for Customs purposes.

Parties to the proceeding may request

disclosure within 5 days of the date of

publication of this notice. Any

interested party may request a hearing

within 10 days of publication. Any

hearing, if requested, will be held 44

days after the publication of this notice,

or the first workday 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. See

section 353.38(d) of the Department’s

regulations. The Department will

publish a notice of final results of this

administrative review, which will

include the results of its analysis of

issues raised in any such comments.

The Department shall determine, and

the Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. Individual differences between

U.S. price and FMV may vary from the

percentages stated above. 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 this

administrative review for all shipments

of sulfanilic acid from the PRC entered,

or withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after the publication

date, as provided for by section

751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit

rates for the reviewed companies named

above which have separate rates will be

the rates for those firms established in

the final results of this administrative

review; (2) for the companies named

above which were not found to have

separate rates, Baoding, CNCCC

Qingdao, Jinxing, Sinochem Qingdao,

and Sinochem Shandong, as well as for

all other PRC exporters, the cash deposit

rate will be the highest margin ever in

the LTFV investigation or in this or

prior administrative reviews, the PRC

rate; and (3) the cash deposit rate for

non-PRC exporters of subject

merchandise from the PRC will be the

rate applicable to the PRC supplier of

that exporter. These deposit

requirements, when imposed, shall

remain in effect until publication of the

final results of the next administrative

review.

Notification of Interested Parties

This notice serves as a preliminary

reminder to importers of their

responsibility under section 353.26 of

the Department’s regulations to file a

certificate regarding the reimbursement

of antidumping duties prior to

liquidation of the relevant entries

during this review period. Failure to
25200 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 1996 / Notices

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

section 353.22 of the Department’s

regulations.

Date: May 9, 1996.

Paul L. Joffe,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 96–12517 Filed 5–17–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[A–588–604; A–588–054]

Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts

Thereof, Finished and Unfinished,

From Japan, and Tapered Roller

Bearings, Four Inches or Less in

Outside Diameter, and Components

Thereof, From Japan; Preliminary

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Reviews and

Termination in Part

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Reviews and Termination in Part.

SUMMARY: In response to requests by the

petitioner and two respondents, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) has conducted

administrative reviews of the

antidumping duty order on tapered

roller bearings and parts thereof,

finished and unfinished, from Japan (A–

588–604), and of the finding on tapered

roller bearings, four inches or less in

outside diameter, and components

thereof, from Japan (A–588–054). The

review of the A–588–054 finding covers

four manufacturers/exporters and ten

resellers/exporters of the subject

merchandise to the United States during

the period October 1, 1993, through

September 30, 1994, and one

manufacturer/exporter for the period

October 1, 1992, through September 30,

1993. The review of the A–588–604

order covers five manufacturers/

exporters, ten resellers/exporters, and

seventeen firms identified by the

petitioner in this case as forging

producers, and the period October 1,

1993, through September 30, 1994. The

A–588–604 review also covers one

manufacturer/exporter for the period

October 1, 1992, through September 30,

1993.

We have preliminarily determined

that sales of tapered roller bearings

(TRBs) have been made below the

foreign market value (FMV). If these

preliminary results are adopted in our

final results of administrative review,

we will instruct the U.S. Customs

Service to assess antidumping duties

equal to the difference between the

United States price (USP) and the FMV.

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 20, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Valerie Turoscy or Robert James, 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:

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.

Background

On August 18, 1976, the Treasury

Department published in the Federal

Register (41 FR 34974) the antidumping

finding on TRBs from Japan, and on

October 6, 1987, the Department

published the antidumping duty order

on TRBs from Japan (52 FR 37352). On

October 7, 1994 (59 FR 51166), the

Department published the notice of

‘‘Opportunity to Request an

Administrative Review’’ for both TRB

cases. The petitioner, the Timken Co.,

and two respondents requested

administrative reviews. We initiated the

A–588–054 and A–588–604

administrative reviews for the period

October 1993 through September 1994

on November 14, 1994 (59 FR 56459).

The Department has now conducted

these reviews in accordance with

section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended (the Tariff Act). However, we

have not conducted a review of Honda

Motor Co., Ltd. (Honda) for either the

A–588–054 or the A–588–604 case. In

our preliminary results notice for the

1992–93 administrative reviews, we

published our intent to revoke the A–

588–054 finding as to Honda and

explained that our final determination

concerning Honda’s revocation would

be published in our final results notice

for the 1992–93 administrative reviews

(see Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts

Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from

Japan and Tapered Roller Bearings,

Four Inches or Less in Outside

Diameter, and Components Thereof,

from Japan; Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Reviews, Termination in Part, and

Intent to Revoke in Part, 60 FR 22349

(May 5, 1995)). We have not yet

completed those final results and our

final determination concerning Honda’s

revocation has not yet been made. Upon

our determination concerning Honda’s

revocation and the publication of our

final results of review for the 1992–93

administrative review period, we will

proceed accordingly for Honda in both

the A–588–054 and A–588–604 cases.

This notice also includes, along with

our 1993–94 preliminary results of

review for Koyo Seiko Co., Ltd. (Koyo),

our 1992–93 preliminary results of

review for Koyo for both the A–588–054

finding and the A–588–604 order.

Because our scope proceeding regarding

Koyo’s rough forgings was concurrent

with our 1992–93 preliminary results

analysis, we determined that, rather

than delay our 1992–93 preliminary

results of review for all other reviewed

firms, we would conduct Koyo’s 1992–

93 reviews in both cases after making

our final scope determination

concerning Koyo’s rough forgings. On

February 2, 1995, we published in the

Federal Register our final scope

decision concerning Koyo’s rough

forgings (60 FR 6519), in which we

determined that Koyo’s rough forgings

are within the scope of the A–588–604

order. We provided Koyo additional

time to submit its sales and cost

information concerning its rough

forgings for both the 1992–93 and 1993–

94 administrative reviews and have now

conducted our review of Koyo for both

these periods in accordance with

section 751 of the Tariff Act.

Scope of the Review

Imports covered by the A–588–054

finding are sales or entries of TRBs, four

inches or less in outside diameter when

assembled, including inner race or cone

assemblies and outer races or cups, sold

either as a unit or separately. This

merchandise is classified under the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) item

numbers 8482.20.00 and 8482.99.30.

Imports covered by the A–588–604

order include TRBs and parts thereof,

finished and unfinished, which are

flange, take-up cartridge, and hanger

units incorporating TRBs, and tapered

roller housings (except pillow blocks)

incorporating tapered rollers, with or

without spindles, whether or not for