26876 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 29, 1996 / Notices

International Trade Administration

[A–421–805]

Aramid Fiber Formed of Poly ParaPhenylene Terephthalamide From the

Netherlands; Extension of Time Limit

of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Extension of Time

Limit of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

(the Department) is extending the time

limit for the final results in the

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on aramid fiber

formed of poly para-phenylene

terephthalamide (PPD–T aramid) from

the Netherlands, covering the period

December 16, 1993, through May 31,

1995, because it is not practicable to

complete the review within the time

limits mandated by the Tariff Act of

1930, as amended (the Act).

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 29, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Donald Little or Maureen Flannery,

Office of Antidumping Compliance,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th and Constitution

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

telephone: (202) 482–4733.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On April 9, 1996, the Department

published the preliminary results of this

review (see Aramid Fiber Formed of

Poly Para-Phenylene Terephthalamide

from the Netherlands; Preliminary

Results of Antidumping Administrative

Review, 61 FR 15766). The review

covers the period December 16, 1993,

through May 31, 1995.

It is not practicable to complete this

review within the time limits mandated

by section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act (see

Memorandum for Paul Joffe from Joe

Spetrini, Extension of Time Limits for

1993–95 Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review of Aramid Fiber

Formed of Poly Para-Phenylene

Terephthalamide from the Netherlands,

May 9, 1996). Therefore, in accordance

with that section, the Department is

extending the time limits for the final

results to September 25, 1996. The

Department adjusted the time limits by

28 days due to the government

shutdowns, which lasted from

November 14, 1995, to November 20,

1995, and from December 15, 1995, to

January 6, 1996. See Memorandum to

the file from Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration, January 11, 1996. These

extensions are in accordance with

section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

Dated: May 16, 1996.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Compliance.

[FR Doc. 96–13321 Filed 5–28–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M

[A–602–803]

Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon

Steel Flat Products From Australia:

Preliminary Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review.

SUMMARY: In response to a request by the

petitioners, Bethlehem Steel

Corporation, U.S. Steel Group, a Unit of

USX Corporation, Inland Steel

Industries, Inc., LTV Steel Company,

Inc., National Steel Corporation, AK

Steel Corporation, Gulf States Steel Inc.

of Alabama, Sharon Steel Corporation,

WCI Steel, Inc., and Lukens Steel

Company, the Department of Commerce

(the Department) is conducting an

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on Certain

Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat

Products from Australia. This review

covers The Broken Hill Proprietary

Company, Ltd. (BHP), the sole

manufacturer/exporter of the subject

merchandise to the United States during

the period of review (POR) August 1,

1994, through July 31, 1995. Because

BHP failed to submit a response to our

questionnaire, we have preliminarily

determined to use facts otherwise

available for cash deposit and

assessment purposes.

Interested parties are invited to

comment on these preliminary results.

Parties who submit argument in this

proceeding are requested to submit with

each argument (1) a statement of the

issue and (2) a brief summary of the

argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 29, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert Bolling or Jean Kemp, Office of

Agreements Compliance, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230,

telephone: (202) 482–3793.

Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute are references to

the provisions effective January 1, 1995,

the effective date of the amendments

made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act)

by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act

(URAA). In addition, unless otherwise

indicated, all citations to the

Department’s regulations are to the

current regulations, as amended by the

interim regulations published in the

Federal Register on May 11, 1995 (60

FR 25130).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On July 9, 1993, the Department

published in the Federal Register (58

FR 37079) the final affirmative

antidumping duty determination on

certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel

flat products from Australia, and

published an antidumping duty order

on August 19, 1993 (58 FR 44161). On

August 1, 1995, the Department

published in the Federal Register (60

FR 39150) a notice of ‘‘Opportunity to

Request an Administrative Review’’ of

the antidumping duty order on certain

corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat

products from Australia. On August 31,

1995, petitioners requested an

administrative review of BHP, a

manufacturer/exporter of this

merchandise to the United States. We

initiated the review on September 8,

1995 (60 FR 46817).

Scope of the Review

Imports covered by this

administrative review constitute one

‘‘class or kind’’ of merchandise: certain

corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat

products. The class or kind includes

flat-rolled carbon steel products, of

rectangular shape, either clad, plated, or

coated with corrosion-resistant metals

such as zinc, aluminum, or zinc-,

aluminum-, nickel- or iron-based alloys,

whether or not corrugated or painted,

varnished or coated with plastics or

other nonmetallic substances in

addition to the metallic coating, in coils

(whether or not in successively

superimposed layers) and of a width of

0.5 inch or greater, or in straight lengths

which, if of a thickness less than 4.75

millimeters, are of a width of 0.5 inch

or greater and which measures at least

10 times the thickness or if of a

thickness of 4.75 millimeters or more

are of a width which exceeds 150

millimeters and measures at least twice

the thickness, as currently classifiable in

the HTS under item numbers

7210.31.0000, 7210.39.0000,

7210.41.0000, 7210.49.0030,
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 29, 1996 / Notices 26877

7210.49.0090, 7210.60.0000,

7210.70.6030, 7210.70.6060,

7210.70.6090, 7210.90.1000,

7210.90.6000, 7210.90.9000,

7212.21.0000, 7212.29.0000,

7212.30.1030, 7212.30.1090,

7212.30.3000, 7212.30.5000,

7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000,

7212.50.0000, 7212.60.0000,

7215.90.1000, 7215.90.5000,

7217.12.1000, 7217.13.1000,

7217.19.1000, 7217.19.5000,

7217.22.5000, 7217.23.5000,

7217.29.1000, 7217.29.5000,

7217.32.5000, 7217.33.5000,

7217.39.1000, and 7217.39.5000.

Included are flat-rolled products of

nonrectangular cross-section where

such cross-section is achieved

subsequent to the rolling process (i.e.,

products which have been ‘‘worked

after rolling’’)—for example, products

which have been bevelled or rounded at

the edges. Excluded are flat-rolled steel

products either plated or coated with

tin, lead, chromium, chromium oxides,

both tin and lead (‘‘terne plate’’), or both

chromium and chromium oxides (‘‘tinfree steel’’), whether or not painted,

varnished or coated with plastics or

other nonmetallic substances in

addition to the metallic coating. Also

excluded are clad products in straight

lengths of 0.1875 inch or more in

composite thickness and of a width

which exceeds 150 millimeters and

measures at least twice the thickness.

Also excluded are certain clad stainless

flat-rolled products, which are threelayered corrosion-resistant carbon steel

flat-rolled products less than 4.75

millimeters in composite thickness that

consist of a carbon steel flat-rolled

product clad on both sides with

stainless steel in a 20%–60%–20%

ratio. These HTS item numbers are

provided for convenience and Customs

purposes. The written description

remains dispositive.

The review covers BHP and the

period August 1, 1994 through July 31,

1995 (POR).

Use of Facts Otherwise Available

We preliminarily determine, in

accordance with section 776 of the Act,

that the use of facts available is

appropriate for BHP because it did not

respond to the Department’s

antidumping questionnaire. We sent

BHP a questionnaire on September 14,

1995, with deadlines of October 16,

1995 for section A and November 13,

1995 for the remaining sections. On

October 11, 1995, BHP requested that

the Department extend the deadlines for

section A and all other portions of the

questionnaire for one month. On

October 13, 1995, the Department

granted BHP a one-week extension for

its section A response. However, the

Department did not grant an extension

for the remaining sections because we

are conducting this review under

statutory deadlines. Section A of the

Department’s questionnaire is a general

information section that the Department

uses to gather information on the

respondents, (corporate structure,

distribution process, sales process,

accounting/financial practices,

merchandise, aggregate quantity and

value of sales, further manufacture or

assembly in the United States, etc.). On

October 23, 1995, we received a

response to section A. Since section A

is the general information section of the

Department’s questionnaire, the only

relevant numerical data provided in

section A is the aggregate quantity and

value of sales. Sections B through E of

the Department’s questionnaire provide

the Department with transactionspecific pricing and cost data used in

the Department’s calculation

methodology. On November 20, 1995,

BHP informed the Department that it no

longer intended to continue to

participate in this review. We did not

receive a response to sections B through

E of the questionnaire. Therefore, we

must make our preliminary

determination based on facts otherwise

available (section 776(a) of the Act).

The Department finds that, in not

responding to the questionnaire, BHP

failed to cooperate by not acting to the

best of its ability to comply with a

request for information from the

Department. Therefore, pursuant to

section 776(b) of the Act, we may, in

making our determination, use an

adverse inference in selecting from the

facts otherwise available. This adverse

inference may include reliance on data

derived from the petition, a previous

determination in an investigation or

review, or any other information placed

on record. Accordingly, in this case, we

preliminary assign to BHP a margin of

39.11 percent, the margin calculated in

the first administrative review using

information provided by BHP in that

review (see Certain Corrosion-Resistant

Carbon Steel Flat Products from

Australia, Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR

14049–14057 (March 29, 1996)).

Because the margin selected for this

review is based on information obtained

in the course of an earlier segment of the

proceeding, the Department is required,

pursuant to section 776(c) of the Act, to

corroborate this information to the

extent practicable from independent

sources reasonably at its disposal. This

simply means that the Department will

satisfy itself that the secondary

information used has probative value

(See Statement of Administrative Action

accompanying the URAA, published in

H. Doc. 103–106, 103d Cong., 2d Sess.

At 870).

To corroborate secondary information,

the Department will, to the extent

practicable, examine the reliability and

relevance of the information to be used.

However, unlike other types of

information, such as input costs or

selling expenses, there are no

independent sources for calculated

dumping margins. The only source for

margins is administrative

determinations. Thus, in an

administrative review, if the Department

chooses as total adverse facts available

a calculated dumping margin from a

prior segment of the proceeding, it is not

necessary to question the reliability of

the margin for that time period. With

respect to the relevance aspect of

corroboration, however, the Department

will consider information reasonably at

its disposal as to whether there are

circumstances that would render a

margin not relevant. Where

circumstances indicate that the selected

margin is not appropriate as adverse

facts available, the Department will

disregard the margin and determine an

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

Flowers from Mexico; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 61 FR 6812 (February 22, 1996),

where the Department disregarded the

highest margin in that case as adverse

BIA because the margin was based on

another company’s uncharacteristic

business expense resulting in an

unusually high margin). In this case, we

have used the margin calculated in the

most recently completed segment of this

proceeding, the previous administrative

review (see Certain Corrosion-Resistant

Carbon Steel Flat Products from

Australia, Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR

14049–14057 (March 29, 1996)). The

margin calculated in the above first

administrative review, 39.11 percent,

was a calculated rate, based on

information provided by BHP. There are

no circumstances indicating that this

margin is not relevant for use as adverse

facts available.

Preliminary Results of Review

As a result of our review, we

preliminarily determine that a margin of

39.11 percent exists for BHP for the

period August 1, 1994 through July 31,

1995.

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. Case
26878 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 29, 1996 / Notices

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 the case briefs and

comments, may be filed not later than

37 days after the date of publication of

this notice. Any hearing, if requested,

will be held 44 days after the date of

publication, or the first workday

thereafter. The Department will publish

the final results of this administrative

review including the results of its

analysis of issues raised in any such

written comments or at a hearing.

The Department shall determine, and

the Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. Upon completion of this

administrative review, the Department

will issue appraisement instructions

directly to the Customs Service.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective upon

publication of the final results of this

administrative review for all shipments

of corrosion-resistant steel from

Australia entered, or withdrawn from

warehouse, for consumption on or after

the publication date, as provided for by

section 751(a)(2)(c) of the Tariff Act: (1)

the cash deposit rate for the reviewed

company will be the rate established in

the final results of this review; (2) for

exporters not covered in this review, but

covered in previous reviews or the

original less-than-fair-value (LTFV)

investigation, the cash deposit rate will

continue to be the company-specific rate

published for the most recent period; (3)

if the exporter is not a firm covered in

this review, previous reviews, or the

original LTFV investigation, but the

manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate

will be that established for the most

recent period for the manufacturer of

the merchandise; and (4) the cash

deposit rate for all other manufacturers

or exporters will continue to be the ‘‘All

Others’’ rate established in the original

LTFV investigation, which is 24.96

percent.

These requirements, when imposed,

shall remain in effect until publication

of the final results of the next

administrative review.

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.

This administrative review and this

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 20, 1996.

Paul L. Joffe,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 96–13430 Filed 5–28–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[A–403–801]

Fresh and Chilled Atlantic Salmon

From Norway; Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review; Time Limits

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Extension of Time

Limits.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

(the Department) is extending the time

limit of the preliminary results of the

new shipper antidumping duty

administrative review of fresh and

chilled Atlantic salmon from Norway.

The review covers one manufacturer/

exporter of the subject merchandise to

the United States and the period May 1,

1995 through October 31, 1995

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 29, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Todd Peterson or Thomas Futtner,

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) 482–4195/3814.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Because

this review is extraordinarily

complicated, the Department is

extending the time limits for the

completion of the preliminary results

until September 30, 1996, in accordance

with Section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the

Trade and Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended by the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act of 1994. (See

Memorandum to the file.) We will issue

our final results for this review by

December 30, 1996.

These extensions are in accordance

with section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Tariff

Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C.

1675(a)(3)(A)).

Dated: May 14, 1996.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Compliance.

[FR Doc. 96–13320 Filed 5–28–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M

[A–588–839]

Notice of Postponement of Preliminary

Determination: Antidumping Duty

Investigation of Sodium Azide From

Japan

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 29, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Magd Zalok or John Beck, Office of

Antidumping Investigations, Import

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

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

telephone (202) 482–4162 or (202) 482–

3464, respectively.

The Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the

Act) are references to the provisions

effective January 1, 1995, the effective

date of the amendments made to the Act

by the Uruguay Rounds Agreements

Act.

Postponement of Preliminary

Determination

On May 13, 1996, the American Azide

Corporation, the petitioner in this

investigation, requested that the

Department postpone the preliminary

determination of this investigation. We

see no reason to deny this request.

Therefore, pursuant to section 733

(c)(1)(A) of the Act, we are postponing

the date of the preliminary

determination as to whether sales of

sodium azide from Japan have been

made at less then fair value until no

later than August 13, 1996.

This notice is published pursuant to

section 733(c)(2) of the Act.

Dated: May 20, 1996.

Barbara R. Stafford,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Investigations,

Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 96–13322 Filed 5–28–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M

[C–401–804]

Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel

Plate From Sweden; Extension of Time

Limit for Countervailing Duty

Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Extension of Time

Limit for Countervailing Duty

Administrative Review.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

(the Department) is extending the time