28166 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 4, 1996 / Notices

injury to the domestic producers of a

like product by reason of the subject

imports, allegedly sold at less than fair

value. Therefore, we are initiating an

antidumping duty investigation to

determine whether imports of turbocompressor systems from Japan are

being, or are likely to be, sold at less

than fair value in the United States.

Unless extended, we will make our

preliminary determination by October

15, 1996.

Distribution of Copies of the Petition

In accordance with section

732(b)(3)(A) of the Act, a copy of the

public version of the petition has been

provided to the representatives of the

Government of Japan. We will attempt

to provide a copy of the public version

of the petition to each exporter of turbocompressor systems named in the

petition.

International Trade Commission

(‘‘ITC’’) Notification

We have notified the ITC of our

initiation, as required by section 732(d)

of the Act.

Preliminary Determinations by the ITC

The ITC will determine by June 24,

1996, whether there is a reasonable

indication that imports of turbocompressor systems from Japan are

causing material injury, or threatening

to cause material injury, to a U.S.

industry. A negative ITC determination

will result in the investigation being

terminated; otherwise, the investigation

will proceed according to statutory and

regulatory time limits.

Dated: May 28, 1996.

Paul L. Joffe,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 96–13966 Filed 6–3–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[A–201–601]

Fresh Cut Flowers From Mexico;

Preliminary Results and Partial

Termination of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, and Intent to

Revoke Antidumping Duty Order in

Part

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results

and partial termination of antidumping

duty administrative review, and intent

to revoke antidumping duty order in

part.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

(the Department) is conducting an

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on certain

fresh-cut flowers from Mexico, in

response to a request by a respondent,

Rancho El Aguaje (Aguaje). Although

we initiated reviews for two other

producers, Rancho El Toro (Toro) and

Rancho Guacatay (Guacatay), we are

terminating these reviews because Toro

and Guacatay timely withdrew their

requests for review. We preliminarily

intend to revoke the antidumping duty

order with respect to Aguaje, based on

our preliminary determination that

Aguaje has had a three-year period of

sales at not less than normal value (NV).

This review covers one producer/

exporter and entries of the subject

merchandise into the United States

during the period April 1, 1994 through

March 31, 1995.

We have preliminarily determined

that sales have not been made below

NV. Interested parties are invited to

comment on these preliminary results.

Parties who submit comments are

requested to submit with each comment

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

brief summary of the comment.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 4, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Rebecca Trainor or Maureen Flannery,

Office of Antidumping Compliance,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–4733.

Applicable Statutes and Regulations

Unless otherwise states, 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 April 23, 1987, the Department

published in the Federal Register an

antidumping duty order on certain fresh

cut flowers from Mexico (52 FR 13491).

On April 27, 1995, Toro and Guacatay

requested that the Department conduct

an administrative review in accordance

with 19 CFR 353.22(a)(1). Toro and

Guacatay also requested that the

Department revoke the antidumping

duty order as it pertains to them upon

completion of the review. On April 28,

1995, Aguaje requested an

administrative review and revocation of

the order as it pertains to it upon

completion of the review. We published

a notice of initiation on May 15, 1995

(60 FR 25885), covering Toro, Guacatay,

and Aguaje, and the period April 1,

1994 through March 31, 1995. On

August 11, 1995, Toro and Guacatay

timely withdrew their requests for

review. Because there were no other

requests for review for these two

respondents from any other interested

party, the Department is now

terminating this review for Toro and

Guacatay in accordance with section

353.22(a)(5) of the Department’s

regulations. We shall instruct the

Customs Service to liquidate Toro’s and

Guacatay’s entries of this period at the

rates in effect at the time of entry.

Because they are previously reviewed

companies, the cash deposit rates will

continue to be the company-specific

rates currently in effect.

The Department is conducting this

review in accordance with section 751

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended

(the Act).

Scope of the Review

The products covered by this review

are certain fresh cut flowers, defined as

standard carnations, standard

chrysanthemums, and pompon

chrysanthemums. During the period of

review, such merchandise was

classifiable under Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)

items 0603.10.7010 (pompon

chrysanthemums), 0603.10.7020

(standard chrysanthemums), and

0603.10.7030 (standard carnations). The

HTSUS item numbers are provided for

convenience and Customs purposes

only. The written description remains

dispoitive as to the scope of the order.

This review covers sales of the subject

merchandise entered into the United

States during the period April 1, 1994

through March 31, 1995.

Verification

From April 17 through April 19, 1996,

the Department conducted verification

of the questionnaire responses

submitted by Aguaje, as provided in

section 782(i) of the Act. We used

standard verification procedures,

including onsite inspection of the

manufacturer’s facilities, the

examination of relevant accounting,

sales, and other financial records, and

selection of original documentation

containing relevant information. Our

verification results are outlined in the

public version of the verification report.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 4, 1996 / Notices 28167

Intent to Revoke

Aguaje submitted a request, in

accordance with 19 CFR 353.25(b), that

the Department revoke the order

covering certain fresh cut flowers from

Mexico with respect to its sales of this

merchandise.

In accordance with 19 CFR

353.25(b)(1), this request was

accompanied by a certification from

Aguaje that it had not sold the relevant

class or kind of merchandise at less then

NV for a three year period including this

review period, and would not be so in

the future. Aguaje also agreed to its

immediate reinstatement in the relevant

antidumping order, as long as any firm

is subject to that order, if the

Department concludes under 19 CFR

353.22(f) that, subsequent to revocation,

it sold the subject merchandise at less

than NV.

In the two prior reviews of this order,

we determined that Aguaje sold the

subject flowers from Mexico at not less

than NV. The Department conducted a

verification of the ranch’s response for

this period of review. In this review, we

preliminarily determine that Aguaje has

sold flowers at not less than NV, which

will satisfy the three-year period of no

sales at less than NV. Therefore, we

intend to revoke the order in part on

certain fresh cut flowers from Mexico

with respect to Aguaje, if these

preliminary findings are affirmed in our

final results.

United States Price

In calculating United States price, we

used constructed export price (CEP), in

accordance with subsections 772(b), (c)

and (d) of the Act, because Aguaje’s

sales to the first unaffiliated purchaser

occurred after importation into the

United States. As in the original lessthan-fair-value (LTFV) investigation and

in all prior administrative reviews, all

United States prices were weightaveraged on a monthly basis to account

for perishability of the product. CEP was

based on the packed prices to the first

unrelated purchaser in the United

States.

Where appropriate, we made

deductions from CEP for Mexican and

U.S. inland freight, Mexican and U.S.

brokerage and handling, and those

imputed credit and warranty expenses

that were incurred in the United States.

We also deducted those selling expenses

that related to commercial activity in

the United States, and added amounts

for revenues earned from box charges

and delivery charges. Finally, we made

an adjustment for CEP profit in

accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the

Act.

Normal Value

Because Aguaje had no sales of

comparable merchandise in the home

market or to third countries, we based

NV on constructed value (CV) as

defined in section 773(a) of the Act. CV

consists of the cost of materials and

cultivation, general expenses, profit,

and U.S. packing costs. We made a

circumstance-of-sale adjustment to CV

for the differences in direct selling

expenses between CEP and CV.

Aguaje reported no profit figure to be

added to CV because it had no home

market or third country sales of subject

merchandise. As there was no suitable

information on the record from which to

derive a home market profit rate, we

used facts otherwise available for

Aguaje’s profit rate. There was no

suitable publicly available information

on the record for Aguaje for any prior

review period and no other respondent

in the current review. In addition, there

is insufficient information on the record

to calculate Aguaje’s profit for the same

general category of product as the

subject merchandise. Therefore, we

used the weighted average publicly

available profit rate for other flower

producers examined in the 1992–1993

review.

Aguaje’s overall corporate G&A figure

could not be verified because Aguaje

could not locate all of the G&A support

documents at verification. However, the

company was generally cooperative.

From the information in the current

review and publicly available

information from prior reviews, we

identified three possible alternatives for

G&A in this case: (1) Aguaje’s submitted

G&A data; (2) Aguaje’s publicly

available G&A data from a prior review

period; and (3) publicly available G&A

data submitted by other Mexican flower

producers for prior review periods. We

chose the alternative that resulted in the

highest G&A percentage. Therefore, we

have calculated an amount for G&A

based on Aguaje’s publicly available

information from the most recently

verified review period as facts otherwise

available. For each month, we used the

higher of this amount, or Aguaje’s

reported G&A costs. Our calculation of

profit and G&A is discussed further in

the memo to the file dated May 23,

1996, on file in Room B–099 of the

Commerce Department.

Use of Facts Otherwise Available

Section 776(b) of the Act authorizes

the Department to use as facts otherwise

available information derived from the

petition, the final determination, a

previous administrative review, or other

information place on the record.

Because information from prior

proceedings constitutes secondary

information, section 776(c) provides

that the Department shall, to the extent

practicable, corroborate that secondary

information from independent sources

reasonably at its disposal. The

Statement of Administrative Action

(SAA) provides that ‘‘corroborate’’

means simply that the Department will

satisfy itself that the secondary

information to be used has probative

value.

In this case, we used the weightedaverage publicly available profit rates of

different Mexican flower producers,

from verified data they reported for the

1992–1993 review period. We compared

the separate home market profit rates of

these companies to each other, and

found them to be comparable. The profit

rate we have applied to Aguaje is

reliable and relevant, and therefore has

probative value, because it is

representative of the profits found to be

earned by other Mexican flower

producers during a recent review

period. The G&A percentage we used

also has probative value because it is the

company’s own verified rate from a

recent review period.

Preliminary Results of Review

As a result of our comparison of CEP

and CV, we preliminarily determine that

the following weighted-average

dumping margin exists:

Manufacturer/exporter Margin (percent)

Rancho El Aguaje ..................... 0.00

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 no later than 37

days after the date of publication.

Parties who submit comments are

requested to submit with their

comments (1) a statement of the issue

and (2) a brief summary of the comment.

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
28168 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 4, 1996 / Notices

entries. Individual differences between

CEP and NV may vary from the

percentage stated above. Upon

completion of this review, the

Department will issue appraisement

instructions directly to the Customs

Service.

Furthermore, the following deposit

rates will be effective upon publication

of the final results of this administrative

review for all shipments of certain fresh

cut flowers from Mexico entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after the publication

date, as provided for by section 751

(a)(2)(c) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit

rate for the reviewed company will be

the rate established in the final results

of this review; (2) for merchandise

exported by manufacturers or exporters

not covered in these reviews but

covered in the original LTFV

investigation or previous review, the

cash deposit 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 or a previous

review, or the original LTFV

investigation, but the manufacturer is,

the cash deposit rate will be the rate

established for the most recent period

for the manufacturer of the

merchandise; and (4) for all other

producers and/or exporters of the

merchandise, the cash deposit rate shall

be 18.20 percent, the rate established in

the LTFV investigation.

These deposit rates, 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 notice

are in accordance with sections

751(a)(1) and 751(d)(1) of the Act (19

U.S.C. 1675(a)) and 19 CFR 353.22 and

353.25.

Dated: May 23, 1996.

Paul L. Joffe,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 96–13964 Filed 6–3–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P–M

[A–588–028]

Roller Chain, Other Than Bicycle, From

Japan; Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review and Intent to Revoke Order (in

Part)

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of

antidumping administrative review and

intent to revoke order (in part).

SUMMARY: In response to requests from

the American Chain Association (ACA),

petitioner in this proceeding, Izumi

Chain Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (Izumi),

Daido Kogyo Co., Ltd (Daido), and

Enuma Chain Mfg. Co., Ltd. (Enuma),

respondents in this proceeding, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) is conducting an

administrative review of the

antidumping finding on roller chain,

other than bicycle, from Japan. This

review covers seven manufacturers/

exporters of the subject merchandise to

the United States during the April 1,

1994 through March 31, 1995 period of

review (POR).

While we have preliminarily

determined that four manufacturers/

exporters reviewed made sales below

normal value (NV) during the POR, we

determined the weighted-average

dumping margin for three of the four

manufacturers/exporters to be de

minimis. We have also preliminarily

determined that the remaining three

manufacturers/exporters reviewed had

no sales or shipments of the subject

merchandise during the POR. 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.

In accordance with section 353.25 of

the Department’s regulations, we intend

to revoke the antidumping duty finding

with respect to Daido and Enuma

because we have reason to believe that

Daido and Enuma have sold the subject

merchandise at not less than NV for a

period of at least three consecutive years

and are not likely to sell the subject

merchandise at less than NV in the

future. 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: June 4, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jack

K. Dulberger, Matt Blaskovich, Ron

Trentham, or Joseph Hanley, Office of

Antidumping Compliance, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 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)

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 225130).

Background

The Department published an

antidumping duty finding on roller

chain, other than bicycle, from Japan on

April 12, 1973 (38 FR 9926). The

Department published a notice of

‘‘Opportunity to Request an

Administrative Review’’ of the

antidumping finding for the 1994–95

review period on April 4, 1995 (60 FR

17052). On April 25, 1995, petitioner

requested that the Department conduct

an administrative review of the

antidumping duty finding on roller

chain, other than bicycle, from Japan for

seven manufacturers/exporters (Daido,

Enuma, Izumi, Hitachi Metals Techno

Ltd. (Hitachi), Pulton Chain Co., Ltd.

(Pulton), Peer Chain Company (Peer),

and R.K. Excel). Additionally, on April

28, 1995, Izumi, Daido, and Enuma also

requested that the Department conduct

an administrative review of their sales

of the subject merchandise during the

POR. In its April 28, 1995 letter, Daido

and Enuma requested partial revocation

of the finding pursuant to § 353.25(b) of

the Department’s regulations. We

initiated the review on May 15, 1995,

(60 FR 25885).

Hitachi, Pulton, and Peer reported,

and the Department verified through

Customs, that they had no shipments/

sales of the subject merchandise during

the POR.

The Department extended the time

limits for the deadlines for the

preliminary and final results of review

because of the additional time required

for the development of a new

questionnaire that accorded with

URAA. See Antidumping Duty