Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 1996 / Notices 2489

Period

COLOMBIA: Roses and Other Fresh Cut Flowers, (C–301–003) ................................................................................... 01/01/95–12/31/95

HUNGARY: Truck Trailer Axle and Brake Assemblies, (A–437–001) ............................................................................. 01/01/95–12/31/95

Countervailing Duty Proceedings:

BRAZIL: Brass Sheet & Strip, (C–351–604) .................................................................................................................... 01/01/95–12/31/95

KOREA: Stainless Steel Cooking Ware, (C–580–602) .................................................................................................... 01/01/95–12/31/95

SPAIN: Stainless Steel Wire Rod, (C–469–004) ............................................................................................................. 01/01/95–12/31/95

TAIWAN: Stainless Steel Cooking Ware, (C–583–604) .................................................................................................. 01/01/95–12/31/95

In accordance with sections 353.22(a)

and 355.22(a) of the regulations, an

interested party as defined by section

353.2(k) may request in writing that the

Secretary conduct an administrative

review. The Department has changed its

requirements for requesting reviews for

countervailing duty orders. Pursuant to

19 C.F.R. 355.22(a) of the Department’s

Interim Regulations (60 FR 25137 (May

11, 1995)), an interested party must

specify the individual producers or

exporters covered by the order for

which they are requesting a review.

Therefore, for both antidumping and

countervailing duty reviews, the

interested party must specify for which

individual producers or exporters

covered by an antidumping finding or

an antidumping or countervailing duty

order it is requesting a review, and the

requesting party must state why it

desires the Secretary to review those

particular producers or exporters. If the

interested party intends for the

Secretary to review sales of merchandise

by an exporter (or a producer if that

producer also exports merchandise from

other suppliers) which were produced

in more than one country of origin, and

each country of origin is subject to a

separate order, then the interested party

must state specifically, on an order-byorder basis, which exporter(s) the

request is intended to cover.

Seven copies of the request should be

submitted to the Assistant Secretary for

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, Room B–099,

U.S. Department of Commerce,

Washington, D.C. 20230. The

Department also asks parties to serve a

copy of their requests to the Office of

Antidumping Compliance, Attention:

Pamela Woods, in room 3065 of the

main Commerce Building. Further, in

accordance with section 353.31(g) or

355.31(g) of the regulations, a copy of

each request must be served on every

party on the Department’s service list.

The Department will publish in the

Federal Register a notice of ‘‘Initiation

of Antidumping (Countervailing) Duty

Administrative Review,’’ for requests

received by January 31, 1996. If the

Department does not receive, by January

31, 1996, a request for review of entries

covered by an order or finding listed in

this notice and for the period identified

above, the Department will instruct the

Customs Service to assess antidumping

or countervailing duties on those entries

at a rate equal to the cash deposit of (or

bond for) estimated antidumping or

countervailing duties required on those

entries at the time of entry, or

withdrawal from warehouse, for

consumption and to continue to collect

the cash deposit previously ordered.

This notice is not required by statute,

but is published as a service to the

international trading community.

Dated: January 22, 1996.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Compliance.

[FR Doc. 96–1453 Filed 1–25–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M

[A–588–707]

Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin

from Japan; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review.

SUMMARY: On August 30, 1995, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) published in the Federal

Register the preliminary results of its

1993–94 administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on granular

polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) resin

from Japan (60 FR 45141). The review

covers one manufacturer/exporter. The

review period is August 1, 1993,

through July 31, 1994. We gave

interested parties an opportunity to

comment on our preliminary results.

Based upon our analysis of the

comments received we have changed

the margin calculation. The final margin

for Daikin Industries (Daikin) is listed

below in the section ‘‘Final Results of

Review.’’

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 26, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Charles Riggle or Michael Rill, 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 30, 1995, the Department

published in the Federal Register (60

FR 45140) the preliminary results of its

1993–94 administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on granular

PTFE resin from Japan. There was no

request for a hearing. The Department

has now conducted this review in

accordance with section 751 of the

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the

Tariff Act).

Applicable Statutes and Regulations

Unless otherwise stated, all citations

to the Tariff Act and to the Department’s

regulations are references to the

provisions as they existed on December

31, 1994.

Scope of the Review

The antidumping duty order covers

granular PTFE resins, filled or unfilled.

The order explicitly excludes PTFE

dispersions in water and PTFE fine

powders. During the period covered by

this review, such merchandise was

classified under item number

3904.61.90 of the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule (HTS). We are providing this

HTS number for convenience and

Customs purposes only. The written

description of scope remains

dispositive.

The review covers one manufacturer/

exporter of granular PTFE resin, Daikin.

The review period is August 1, 1993,

through July 31, 1994.

Analysis of Comments Received

We gave interested parties an

opportunity to comment on the

preliminary results. We received a case

brief from Daikin.

Issue Raised by Daikin

Daikin claims that, in calculating

foreign market value, the Department

incorrectly deducted from the unit price

an amount representing a price

adjustment. Daikin argues that this
2490 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 1996 / Notices

adjustment should have been added to

the unit price. Daikin notes that in

previous reviews it reported a price

decrease, which needed to be deducted

from the unit price. However, in the

current review, Daikin reported a price

adjustment, which can be either a price

increase, reported as a positive number,

or a price decrease, reported as a

negative number. As such, Daikin

requests that the Department add the

reported price adjustment to the unit

price, which effectively adds price

increases and deducts price decreases.

DOC Position: We agree with Daikin.

We erroneously deducted Daikin’s

reported price adjustment from the unit

price. Daikin reported both price

increases and price decreases, and, for

these final results, we added the price

adjustment to the unit price to correctly

account for both price increases and

price decreases.

Home Market Consumption Tax

Although no party raised this as an

issue, in light of the Federal Circuit’s

decision in Federal Mogul v. United

States, CAFC No. 94–1097, we have

changed our treatment of home market

consumption taxes. Where merchandise

exported to the United States is exempt

from the consumption tax, we will add

to the U.S. price the absolute amount of

such taxes charged in the comparison

sales in the home market. This is the

same methodology that we adopted

following the decision of the Federal

Circuit in Zenith v. United States, 988

F. 2d 1573, 1582 (1993), and which was

suggested by that court in footnote 4 of

its decision. The Court of International

Trade (CIT) overturned this

methodology in Federal Mogul v. United

States, 834 F. Supp. 1391 (1993), and

we acquiesced in the CIT’s decision. We

then followed the CIT’s preferred

methodology, which was to calculate

the tax to be added to U.S. price by

multiplying the adjusted U.S. price by

the foreign market tax rate; we made

adjustments to this amount so that the

tax adjustment would not alter a ‘‘zero’’

pre-tax dumping assessment.

The foreign exporters in the Federal

Mogul case, however, appealed that

decision to the Federal Circuit, which

reversed the CIT and held that the

statute did not preclude the Department

from using the ‘‘Zenith footnote 4’’

methodology to calculate tax-neutral

dumping assessments (i.e., assessments

that are unaffected by the existence or

amount of home market consumption

taxes). Moreover, the Federal Circuit

recognized that certain international

agreements of the United States, in

particular the General Agreement on

Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the Tokyo

Round Antidumping Code, required the

calculation of tax-neutral dumping

assessments. The Federal Circuit

remanded the case to the CIT with

instructions to direct the Department to

determine which tax methodology it

will employ.

We have determined that the ‘‘Zenith

footnote 4’’ methodology should be

used. First, as we have explained in

numerous administrative

determinations and court filings over

the past decade, and as the Federal

Circuit has now recognized, Article VI

of the GATT and Article 2 of the Tokyo

Round Antidumping Code required that

dumping assessments be tax neutral.

This requirement continues under the

new Agreement on Implementation of

Article VI of the General Agreement on

Tariffs and Trade. Second, the Uruguay

Round Agreements Act (URAA)

explicitly amended the antidumping

law to remove consumption taxes from

the home market price and to eliminate

the addition of taxes to U.S. price, so

that no consumption tax is included in

the price in either market. The

Statement of Administrative Action (p.

159) explicitly states that this change

was intended to result in tax neutrality.

While the ‘‘Zenith footnote 4’’

methodology is slightly different from

the URAA methodology, in that section

772(d)(1)(C) of the pre-URAA law

required that the tax be added to U.S.

price rather than subtracted from home

market price, it does result in taxneutral duty assessments. In sum, we

have elected to treat consumption taxes

in a manner consistent with our

longstanding policy of tax neutrality

and with the GATT.

Final Results of Review

As a result of the comments received,

and the changes in our treatment of

consumption taxes, we have revised our

preliminary results and determine that

the following margin exists:

Manufacturer/exporter

Period Margin (percent)

Daikin

Industries 08/01/93–07/31/94 53.68

The Department shall determine, and

the Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. Individual differences between

United States price and foreign market

value may vary from the percentage

stated above. The Department will issue

appraisement instructions directly to

the Customs Service.

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 Daikin will be

the rate shown above; (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 (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) the cash deposit

rate for all other manufacturers or

exporters will be 91.74 percent, the ‘‘all

others’’ rate from the LTFV

investigation, for the reasons explained

in Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene

Resin from Japan; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 58 FR 50343 (September 27,

1993). 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.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 1996 / Notices 2491

Dated: December 14, 1995.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 96–1310 Filed 1–25–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

Annual Listing of Foreign Government

Subsidies on Articles of Cheese

Subject to an In-Quota Rate of Duty

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Publication of annual listing of

foreign government subsidies on articles

of cheese subject to an in-quota rate of

duty.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

(the Department), in consultation with

the Secretary of Agriculture, has

prepared its annual list of foreign

government subsidies on articles of

cheese subject to an in-quota rate of

duty, imported during the period

October 1, 1994 through September 30,

1995. We are publishing the current

listing of those subsidies that we have

determined exist.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 26, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Brian Albright or Maria MacKay, Office

of Countervailing Compliance, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20230,

telephone: (202) 482–2786.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section

702(a) of the Trade Agreements Act of

1979, as amended (the Act), requires the

Department to determine, in

consultation with the Secretary of

Agriculture, whether any foreign

government is providing a subsidy with

respect to any article of cheese subject

to an in-quota rate of duty, as defined

in section 702(h)(4) of the Act, and to

publish an annual list and quarterly

updates of the type and amount of those

subsidies. We hereby provide the

Department’s annual list of subsidies on

cheeses that were imported during the

period October 1, 1994 through

September 30, 1995.

The Department has developed, in

consultation with the Secretary of

Agriculture, information on subsidies

(as defined in section 702(h)(2) of the

Act) being provided either directly or

indirectly by foreign governments on

articles of cheese subject to an in-quota

rate of duty. The appendix to this notice

lists the country, the subsidy program or

programs, and the gross and net

amounts of each subsidy for which

information is currently available.

The Department will incorporate

additional programs which are found to

constitute subsidies, and additional

information on the subsidy programs

listed, as the information is developed.

The Department encourages any

person having information on foreign

government subsidy programs which

benefit articles of cheese subject to an

in-quota rate of duty to submit such

information in writing to the Assistant

Secretary for Import Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20230.

Due to the partial shutdown of the

Federal Government from December 16,

1995 through January 6, 1996, the

Department was unable to publish this

annual listing by January 1, 1996, as

required by the Act. Accordingly, the

Department has exercised its discretion

to toll this deadline for the duration of

the shutdown. This notice is published

in accordance with the extended

deadline.

This determination and notice are in

accordance with section 702(a) of the

Act.

Dated: January 18, 1996.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

APPENDIX—QUOTA CHEESE SUBSIDY PROGRAMS

Country Program(s) Gross 1 subsidy Net 2 subsidy

Austria ............................... Eurpoean Union (EU) Restitution Payments ........................................................... 36.8¢/lb 36.8¢/lb

Belguim ............................. EU Restitution Payments ......................................................................................... 38.6¢/lb 38.6¢/lb

Canada .............................. Export Assistance on Certain Types of Cheese ..................................................... 25.5¢/lb 25.5¢/lb

Denmark ............................ EU Restitution Payments ......................................................................................... 39.5¢/lb 39.5¢/lb

Finland ............................... EU Restitution Payments ......................................................................................... 38.3¢/lb 38.3¢/lb

France ............................... EU Restitution Payments ......................................................................................... 35.8¢/lb 35.8¢/lb

Germany ............................ EU Restitution Payments ......................................................................................... 43.4¢/lb 43.4¢/lb

Greece ............................... EU Restitution Payments ......................................................................................... 0.00¢/lb 0.00¢/lb

Ireland ............................... EU Restitution Payments ......................................................................................... 35.2¢/lb 35.2¢/lb

Italy .................................... EU Restitution Payments ......................................................................................... 73.0¢/lb 73.0¢/lb

Luxembourg ...................... EU Restitution Payments ......................................................................................... 38.6¢/lb 38.6¢/lb

Netherlands ....................... EU Restitution Payments ......................................................................................... 36.5¢/lb 36.5¢/lb

Norway .............................. Indirect (Milk) Subsidy ............................................................................................. 19.8¢/lb 19.8¢/lb

Consumer Subsidy ................................................................................................... 44.0¢/lb 44.0¢/lb

63.8¢/lb 63.8¢/lb

Portugal ............................. EU Restitution Payments ......................................................................................... 33.3¢/lb 33.3¢/lb

Spain ................................. EU Restitution Payments ......................................................................................... 42.0¢/lb 42.0¢/lb

Switzerland ........................ Deficiency Payments ............................................................................................... 187.9¢/lb 187.9¢/lb

U.K .................................... EU Restitution Payments ......................................................................................... 35.3¢/lb 35.3¢/lb

1 Defined in 19 U.S.C. 1677(5).

2 Defined in 19 U.S.C. 1677(6).