26160 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 102 / Friday, May 24, 1996 / Notices

of the antidumping duty order on

certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate

from Germany. The review covered one

manufacturer/exporter and the period

February 4, 1993, through July 31, 1994.

Based on the correction of a ministerial

error, we are amending the final results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 24, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nancy Decker or Linda Ludwig, Office

of Agreements Compliance,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce,

Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202)

482–3793.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On March 28, 1996, the Department of

Commerce (the Department) published

in the Federal Register the final results

of its administrative review of the

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

Germany (61 FR 13834). The review

covered one manufacturer/exporter, AG

der Dillinger Huttenwerke (Dillinger),

and the period February 4, 1993,

through July 31, 1994.

After publication of our final results,

we received a timely allegation from

petitioners (Bethlehem Steel

Corporation, U.S. Steel Company, a Unit

of USX Corporation, Inland Steel

Industries, Inc., Geneva Steel, Gulf

States Steel Inc. of Alabama, Sharon

Steel Corporation, and Lukens Steel

Company) that the Department had

made a ministerial error in calculating

the final results for plate from Germany

sold by Dillinger. The respondent filed

a timely rebuttal to petitioners’

ministerial error allegation.

Petitioners allege that the Department

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

the conversion of gross unit price. The

petitioners state that the gross unit price

should have been divided, rather than

multiplied, by the weight conversion

factor. The respondent argues that the

error alleged by petitioners does not

qualify as a ministerial error under

Section 353.28(d) of the Department’s

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

Respondent also argues that if the

Department, nevertheless, decides to

change its methodology, it should also

make changes to the conversions of

expense related data (conversions of

home market inland freight, home

market other expenses, home market

global credits and debits, and home

market credit) to be consistent.

As defined by section 751(f) of the

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act)

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

‘‘ministerial error’’ includes errors ‘‘in

addition, subtraction, or other

arithmetic function, clerical errors

resulting from inaccurate copying,

duplication, or the like, and any other

type of unintentional error which the

[Department] considers ministerial.’’

We agree with petitioners’ allegation

that we should have divided, rather

than multiplied, gross unit price by the

conversion factor. This type of

unintentional error meets the definition

of ministerial error contained in the Act.

We also agree with respondent’s rebuttal

that, to be consistent, we should also

likewise change the conversions of

expense related data (home market

inland freight, home market other

expenses, home market global credits

and debits, and home market credit). We

have therefore corrected our analysis to

divide (rather than multiply) the

following by the applicable weight

conversion factor: gross unit price,

home market inland freight, home

market other expenses, home market

global credits and debits, and home

market credit.

Amended Final Results of Review

As a result of our correction of the

ministerial error, we have determined

the following margin exists for the

period February 4, 1993, through July

31, 1994:

Manufacturer/exporter Margin

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

We will direct the Customs Service to

collect cash deposits of estimated

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries in accordance with the

procedures discussed in the final results

of this review (61 FR 13834), as

amended by this determination.

These deposit requirements are

effective for all shipments of the subject

merchandise entered, or withdrawn

from warehouse, for consumption on or

after the date of publication of this

notice and shall remain in effect until

publication of the final results of the

next administrative review.

This notice also serves as a reminder

to importers of their responsibility

under 19 CFR 353.26 of file a certificate

regarding the reimbursement of

antidumping duties prior to liquidation

of the relevant entries during this

review period.

Failure to comply with this

requirement could result in the

Secretary’s presumption that

reimbursement of antidumping duties

occurred and the subsequent assessment

of double antidumping duties.

This notice is published in

accordance with section 751(f) of the

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19

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

Dated: May 17, 1996.

Paul L. Joffe,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

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

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M

[A–423–602]

Industrial Phosphoric Acid From

Belgium; Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of

antidumping duty administrative

review.

SUMMARY: In response to a request from

FMC Corporation and Monsanto

Company (petitioners), the Department

of Commerce (the Department) is

conducting an administrative review of

the antidumping duty order on

industrial phosphoric acid (IPA) from

Belgium. The review covers exports by

one manufacturer, Socie ́te ́ Chimique

Prayon-Rupel (Prayon), during the

period August 1, 1994 through July 31,

1995.

We have preliminarily determined

that sales have been made below normal

value (NV). If these preliminary results

are adopted in our final results of

administrative review, we will instruct

the U.S. Customs Service (Customs) to

assess antidumping duties equal to the

difference between the United States

price (USP) and the NV. Interested

parties are invited to comment on these

preliminary results. Parties who submit

argument in this proceeding are

requested to submit with the argument:

(1) A statement of the issue; and (2) a

brief summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 24, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David Genovese or Zev Primor, Office of

Antidumping Compliance, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

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

telephone (202) 482–5253.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute are references to

the provisions effective January 1, 1995,

the effective date of the amendments

made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act)
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 102 / Friday, May 24, 1996 / Notices 26161

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).

Background

The Department published in the

Federal Register the antidumping duty

order on IPA from Belgium on August

20, 1987 (52 FR 31439). The Department

published in the Federal Register a

notice of ‘‘Opportunity To Request an

Administrative Review’’ of the

antidumping duty order on IPA from

Belgium covering the period August 1,

1994 through July 31, 1995, on August

1, 1995 (60 FR 39150). On August 25,

1995, petitioners requested that the

Department conduct an administrative

review of sales by Prayon. We initiated

the review on September 15, 1995 (60

FR 47930). The Department is

conducting this administrative review

in accordance with section 751 of the

Act.

Scope of the Review

The products covered by this review

include shipments of IPA from Belgium.

This merchandise is currently

classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule (HTS) item number 2809.20.

The HTS item numbers are provided for

convenience and Customs purposes.

The written description remains

dispositive.

United States Price

We based our margin calculations on

export price (EP), as defined in section

772(a) of the Act, because the

merchandise was sold to unaffiliated

U.S. purchasers prior to the date of

importation. We based EP on the

delivered price to unaffiliated

purchasers in the United States. In

accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of

the Act, we made deductions for inland

and marine insurance, brokerage and

handling costs and freight expenses

incurred to deliver the merchandise to

the first unaffiliated customer in the

United States. No other adjustments to

EP were claimed or allowed.

Normal Value

In order to determine whether there

was a sufficient volume of sales in the

home market to serve as a viable basis

for calculating NV, we compared

Prayon’s volume of home market sales

of the foreign like product to the volume

of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise,

in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)

of the Act. Because Prayon’s aggregate

volume of home market sales of the

foreign like product was greater than

five percent of its aggregate volume of

U.S. sales of the subject merchandise,

we determined that the home market

provides a viable basis for calculating

NV for Prayon, pursuant to section

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

Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2), we

compared the EPs of individual

transactions to the monthly weightedaverage price of sales of the foreign like

product. We based NV on the delivered

or ex-works price at which the foreign

like product is first sold to unaffiliated

purchasers for consumption in the

exporting country, in the usual

commercial quantities and in the

ordinary course of trade, and to the

extent practicable, at the same level of

trade as the export price, as defined by

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

We excluded from our analysis of NV

sales to an affiliated home market

customer because the weighted-average

sales price to the affiliated party was

less than the weighted-average sales

price to unaffiliated parties.

We reduced NV by freight costs,

including inland insurance costs,

incurred in the home market, in

accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii).

We made a circumstance of sale

adjustment to NV to account for any

differences between EP and NV due to

differences in credit expenses, rebates,

and commissions in accordance with

773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act.

Because sales commissions incurred

in the home market were paid to an

affiliated party, and there is no

information on the record to establish

that these commissions were at arm’slength, we offset U.S. commissions with

the weighted-average of home market

indirect selling expenses up to the

amount of the commissions paid on U.S.

sales in accordance with 19 CFR

353.56(b)(1).

No other adjustments were claimed or

allowed.

Preliminary Results

As a result of this review, we

preliminarily determine that a margin of

11.36 percent exists for Prayon for the

period August 1, 1994, through July 31,

1995.

Parties to this proceeding may request

disclosure within five days of

publication of this notice and any

interested party may request a hearing

within 10 days of publication. Any

hearing, if requested, will be held 44

days after the date of publication, or the

first working day thereafter. Interested

parties may submit case briefs no later

than 30 days after the date of

publication. Rebuttal briefs, which must

be limited to issues raised in the case

briefs, may be filed no later than 37 days

after the date of publication. Parties who

submit arguments are requested to

submit with the argument (1) a

statement of the issue and (2) a brief

summary of the argument. The

Department will publish a notice of the

final results of the administrative

review, which will include the results of

its analysis of issues raised in any such

comments.

The Department shall determine, and

Customs shall assess, antidumping

duties on all appropriate entries.

Individual differences between USP and

NV may vary from the percentage stated

above. Upon completion of this review,

the Department will issue appraisement

instructions directly to Customs.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective upon

completion of the final results of this

administrative review for all shipments

of IPA from Belgium entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after the publication

date of the final results of this

administrative review, as provided by

section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The

cash deposit rate for Prayon will be the

rate established in the final results of

this administrative review; (2) for

merchandise exported by manufacturers

or exporters not covered in this review

but covered in the original LTFV

investigation or a previous review, the

cash deposit will continue to be the rate

established for the most recent period

for which the manufacturer or exporter

received a company-specific rate; (3) if

the exporter is not a firm covered in this

review, or the original 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) if neither the

exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm

covered in this or any previous reviews,

the cash deposit rate will be 14.67

percent, the all-others rate established

in the LTFV investigation.

This notice also serves as a

preliminary reminder to importers of

their responsibility under 19 CFR

353.26(b) 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.
26162 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 102 / Friday, May 24, 1996 / Notices

Dated: May 17, 1996.

Paul L. Joffe.

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 96–13173 Filed 5–23–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[C–201–017]

Bricks From Mexico; Amended

Revocation of the Countervailing Duty

Order and Amended Final Results of

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Amended Revocation of the

Countervailing Duty Order and

Amended Final Results of

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Review.

SUMMARY: On September 6, 1995, the

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

(the CAFC) held in Ceramica

Regiomontana v. United States, Court

No. 95–1026 (Fed. Cir., Sept. 6, 1995)

(Ceramica) that the Department of

Commerce (the Department) lacks

statutory authority to impose

countervailing duties on dutiable goods

imported by Mexico after April 23,

1985, absent an injury determination.

On April 18, 1996, pursuant to the

Ceramica decision, the Court of

International Trade (CIT) remanded to

the Department the case Productos De

Barro Industrializados, S.A. de C.V.

(Court No. 88–10–00808), which was

stayed pending the Ceramica decision.

In the remand, the court ordered the

Department to (1) revoke the

countervailing duty order on bricks

from Mexico effective April 23, 1985,

the date Mexico was designated as a

‘‘country under the Agreement’’; and (2)

instruct the U.S. Customs Service to

refund any estimated countervailing

duties at issue in this case that were

deposited during the period April 23,

1985 through December 31, 1986. In

accordance with the CIT’s order, we are

hereby amending the revocation of the

countervailing duty order on bricks

from Mexico to be effective April 23,

1985, instead of August 24, 1986 (54 FR

53163; December 27, 1989).

In addition, pursuant to Ceramica

S.A. v. United States, Slip Op. 96–74,

Court No. 59–06–00323 (May 5, 1994),

the CIT ordered the Department to

recalculate the country-wide rate for

entries of bricks from Mexico exported

by Productos de Barro Industrializados,

S.A. de C.V. (Productos de Barro) that

were entered between July 1, 1984 and

April 22, 1985, by weight-averaging the

benefits received by all companies by

their proportion of exports to the United

States, inclusive of zero rate firms and

de minimis firms as well as all other

firms with significantly different rates.

In accordance with the CIT’s remand,

we are hereby amending the final results

of the countervailing duty

administrative review. The recalculated

rate applicable to unliquidated entries

exported by Productos de Barro is 2.92

percent ad valorem for the period July

1, 1984 through December 31, 1984 and

3.10 percent ad valorem for the period

January 1, 1985 through April 22, 1985.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 24, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gayle Longest or Kelly Parkhill at the

Office of Countervailing Compliance,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone:

(202) 482–2786.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On September 30, 1989 (53 FR 38314),

the Department published the final

results of administrative review of the

countervailing duty order on bricks

from Mexico, covering the review

period July 1, 1984, through December

31, 1985. For purposes of the final

results, the Department calculated the

‘‘all others’’ countervailing duty rate by

weight averaging the benefits received

by companies, excluding zero rate and

de minimis firms. The resultant

countervailing duty rate applicable to

non-de minimis firms was 3.32 percent

ad valorem during July 1, 1984 through

December 31, 1984, and 4.21 percent ad

valorem during January 1, 1985 through

December 31, 1985.

On December 27, 1989, the

Department published the final results

of changed circumstances

countervailing duty administrative

review and revocation of the

countervailing duty order on bricks

from Mexico revoking the

countervailing duty order as of August

24, 1986.

The respondents challenged the

Department’s final results of the

administrative review in the CIT with

respect to (1) the calculation of the

country-wide countervailing duty rate,

and (2) the effective date of the

revocation of the countervailing duty

order on bricks from Mexico. The CIT

stayed these cases pending the

resolution of the identical issues raised

in Ceramica, a case involving the

countervailing duty order on ceramic

tile from Mexico.

On September 6, 1995, the CAFC

ruled in Ceramica that, absent an injury

determination by the ITC, the

Department may not assess

countervailing duties under section

1303(a)(1) on entries from Mexico of

dutiable merchandise which occurred

on or after April 23, 1985, the date

Mexico was designated as a ‘‘country

under the Agreement’’ for purposes of

19 U.S.C. § 1671. On February 21, 1996,

the Department implemented the

CAFC’s ruling in the case of Mexican

ceramic tile. (61 FR 6630) On April 18,

1996, the CIT ordered the Department to

apply the CAFC’s decision in Ceramica

to bricks from Mexico. Accordingly, the

CIT ordered that the Department (1)

Amend the effective date of the

revocation of the order on bricks from

Mexico to April 23, 1985, and (2)

recalculate ‘‘the countervailing duty rate

for plaintiff’s entries of bricks from

Mexico that were entered between July

1, 1984 and April 22, 1985, by weightaveraging the benefits received by all

companies by their proportion of

exports to the United States, inclusive of

zero rate firms and de minimis firms as

well as all other firms with significantly

different rates’’ pursuant to the

methodology set forth in Ipsco v. United

States, 899 F.2d 1192 (Fed. Cir. 1990).’’

Amended Revocation and Final

Remand Results

Pursuant to the CIT’s order of April

18, 1996, the Department is hereby

amending the revocation of the

countervailing duty order on bricks

from Mexico to be effective for all

entries made on or after April 23, 1985.

We will instruct the U.S. Customs

Service to liquidate all unliquidated

entries of the subject merchandise

entered or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after April 23,

1985, without regard to countervailing

duties. We will instruct the U.S.

Customs Service to refund with interest

any estimated countervailing duties

collected with respect to those entries.

We note that the requirements for a cash

deposit of estimated countervailing

duties were previously terminated in

conjunction with the revocation under

section 751 (b) and (c) of the Act.

Furthermore, the Department has

complied with the CIT’s order and

recalculated the ‘‘all others’’

countervailing duty rates applicable to

entries exported by Productos de Barro

by weight-averaging the benefits

received by all of the companies,

including the de minimis or zero rate

firms as well as companies with

significantly different rates, that were

subject to the review covering the

period July 1, 1984 through December