Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 112 / Monday, June 10, 1996 / Notices 29345

comments or requests for a hearing.

Based on our analysis, these final results

of review are the same as those

presented in the preliminary results of

review, and we determine that the

following margins for the companies

exist for the period December 1, 1993,

through November 30, 1994:

Manufacturer/Producer/Exporter Percent

Margin

Denki ......................................... 10.00

Mitsui Bussan ........................... 10.00

Tosoh ........................................ 10.00

1 No shipments during the POR. Rate is

from the last administrative review in which

there were shipments.

The U.S. Customs Service shall assess

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. Individual differences between

United States Price (USP) and Foreign

Market Value (FMV) may vary from the

percentages stated above. The

Department will issue appraisement

instructions concerning each

respondent directly to the U.S. 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entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,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 for

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

The cash deposit rate for Denki, Mitsui

Bussan, and Tosoh will be zero 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 in 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; (4) the cash deposit

rate for Denki/Hoei Sangyo, Suzugo, and

Tosoh/Hoei Sangyo will be the rate

determined by the last completed

administrative review on November 26,

1984 (49 FR 46454); and (5) if neither

the exporter nor the manufacturer is a

firm covered in this or any previous

review conducted by the Department,

the cash deposit rate will be the ‘‘all

others’’ rate established in the LTFV

investigation.

These deposit requirements shall

remain in effect until publication of the

final results of the next administrative

review.

This notice serves as the 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 order (APO) of their

responsibility concerning the

disposition of proprietary information

disclosed under APO in accordance

with 19 CFR 353.34(d). Timely written

notification or conversion to judicial

protective order is hereby requested.

Failure to comply with the regulations

and the terms of the 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 31, 1996.

Paul L. Joffe,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 96–14622 Filed 6–7–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[A–570–601]

Final Court Decision and Amended

Final Results: 1989–90 Administrative

Review of Tapered Roller Bearings and

Parts Thereof from the People’s

Republic of China

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 10, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

John Beck, Office of Antidumping

Investigations, Import Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202)

482–3464.

Summary:

On February 27, 1996, in the case of

UCF America Inc. and Universal

Automotive Co. Ltd. v. United States

and the Timken Company, Cons. Ct. No.

92–01–00049, Slip Op. 96–42 (UCF), the

United States Court of International

Trade (the Court) affirmed the

Department of Commerce’s (the

Department’s) results of redetermination

on remand of the Final Results of Sales

at Less Than Fair Value: 1989–1990

Administrative Review of Tapered

Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof from

the People’s Republic of China. As there

is now a final and conclusive court

decision in this action, we are amending

our final results in this matter and will

instruct the U.S. Customs Service to

change the cash deposit and assessment

rates accordingly.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

During 1987, the Department

completed its investigation of tapered

roller bearings from the People’s

Republic of China (Final Determination

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:

Tapered Roller Bearings From the

People’s Republic of China (52 FR

19748, May 27, 1987)). In addition to

setting a rate for Premier Bearing (a

Hong Kong trading company), the

Department issued an ‘‘all others’’ rate

of 0.97 percent.

Subsequently, interested parties

challenged the final determination. The

Court remanded the case and, on

February 26, 1990, the Department

issued an amendment to the final

determination (Amendment to Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value and Antidumping Duty

Order in Accordance With Decision

Upon Remand: Tapered Roller Bearings

From the People’s Republic of China (55

FR 6669, Feb. 26, 1990)). In its

amendment, the Department issued a

new ‘‘all others’’ rate of 2.96 percent.

On July 26, 1990, the Department

initiated the third administrative review

of tapered roller bearings from the

People’s Republic of China, covering the

period June 1, 1989 through May 31,

1990 (Initiation of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Reviews (55 FR 30490,

July 26, 1990)). The Department

initiated on CMEC (a state trading

company) and Premier.

In 1991, the Department established a

new policy concerning non-market

economies. Under this policy, all nonmarket economy exporters are presumed

to be a single enterprise controlled by

the central government, which receives

a single rate (the ‘‘PRC rate’’) (see the

Final Determination of Sales At Less

Than Fair Value: Heavy Forged Hand

Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or

Without Handles, From the People’s

Republic of China (56 FR 241, Jan. 3,

1991); and Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review: Iron Construction Castings from

the People’s Republic of China (56 FR

2742, Jan. 24, 1991)). A company is

entitled to a separate rate only if it

establishes that it is not subject to de

jure or de facto control by the central

government (see the the Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the
29346 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 112 / Monday, June 10, 1996 / Notices

People’s Republic of China (59 FR

22585, May 2, 1994)).

The Department issued its

preliminary results for the third

administrative review of TRB’s from the

PRC on October 4, 1991 (Preliminary

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review: Tapered Roller

Bearings and Parts Thereof From the

People’s Republic of China (56 FR

50309, Oct. 4, 1991)). The Department

preliminarily issued separate rates to all

reviewed companies. Id. at 50310.

On December 31, 1991, the

Department issued its final results

(Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review: Tapered Roller

Bearings and Parts Thereof From the

People’s Republic of China (56 FR

67590, Dec. 31, 1991)). The Department

issued separate rates for all companies

participating in the review. For nonreviewed companies, the Department

issued ‘‘an ‘all others’ rate equal to the

highest rate for any company in this

administrative review.’’ Id. at 67597.

Interested parties challenged the

results of the third administrative

review. On December 5, 1994, the CIT

issued its opinion in UCF America v.

United States, 870 F. Supp. 1120 (CIT

1994), remanding the results to the

Department. The CIT instructed the

Department to: (1) Reinstate the ‘‘all

others’’ cash deposit rate to unreviewed

companies which was applicable prior

to the final results for entries which

have not become subject to assessment

pursuant to a subsequent administrative

review; and (2) eliminate the arithmetic

error with regard to Jilin’s foreign inland

freight costs.

The Department filed its remand

results on March 6, 1995. In the remand

results, the Department: 1) reinstated

the PRC rate for the third review at 2.96

percent and 2) corrected the error in the

foreign inland freight calculation for

Jilin. However, the Department stated

that while it agreed that it incorrectly

established an ‘‘all others’’ rate of 8.83

percent in the final results of the review,

its reasoning differed from that of the

Court.

On February 27, 1996, the Court

sustained the Department’s remand

results (see UCF America Inc. and

Universal Automotive Co., Ltd. v.

United States and the Timken

Company, Cons. Ct. No. 92–01–00049,

Slip Op. 96–42). The Court stated that

it ‘‘sees no basis for a ‘PRC rate’ but

finds that Commerce properly (1)

reinstated the ‘all others’ cash deposit

rate of 2.96% to unreviewed companies

for entries which have not become

subject to assessment pursuant to a

subsequent administrative review; and

(2) corrected the arithmetic error related

to foreign inland freight costs for Jilin

Machinery Import and Export

Corporation.’’ Thus, the Court sustained

the rate applied by the Department but

rejected the ‘‘PRC rate’’ terminology.

On March 29, 1996, the Department

published a notice of court decision

pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1516a(e). Court

Decision and Suspension of Liquidation:

1989–1990 Administrative Review of

Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts

Thereof from the People’s Republic of

China (61 FR 14075). In that notice, we

stated that we would suspend

liquidation until there was a

‘‘conclusive’’ decision in the action.

Since publication of that notice, the

period to appeal has expired and no

appeal was filed. Therefore, as there is

now a final and conclusive court

decision in this action, we are amending

our final results.

Although the Department respectfully

disagrees with the Court’s reasoning on

the issue of the applicability of an ‘‘all

others’’ rate to non-market economy

cases, this issue could not be appealed

in this case. The Department will appeal

this issue in the first action where it

amounts to a case or controversy.

Amendment to Final Determination

Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1516a(e), we are

now amending the final results in the

1989–90 administrative review of

tapered roller bearings and parts thereof

from the People’s Republic of China.

The recalculated margins are as

follows:

Manufacturer/Producer/Exporter

WeightedAverage

Margin Percentage

Jilin ............................................ 7.07

All Others Rate ......................... 2.96

The Department shall instruct the

U.S. Customs Service to change the cash

deposit and assessment rates in

accordance with the above rates.

Dated: June 4, 1996.

Paul L. Joffe,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 96–14604 Filed 6–7–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M

University of California, et al.; Notice of

Consolidated Decision on Applications

for Duty-Free Entry of Electron

Microscopes

This is a decision consolidated

pursuant to Section 6(c) of the

Educational, Scientific, and Cultural

Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub.

L. 89–651, 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part

301). Related records can be viewed

between 8:30 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. in

Room 4211, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th and Constitution

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

Docket Number: 95–124. Applicant:

University of California, Berkeley, CA

94720. Instrument: Electron Microscope,

Model EM 300. Manufacturer: Philips,

The Netherlands. Intended Use: See

notice at 61 FR 6629, February 21, 1996.

Order Date: January 31, 1995.

Docket Number: 95–127. Applicant:

Armstrong Laboratory, Brooks AFB, TX

78235–5118. Instrument: Electron

Microscope, Model CM 120.

Manufacturer: Philips, The Netherlands.

Intended Use: See notice at 61 FR 6630,

February 21, 1996. Order Date: April 28,

1995.

Docket Number: 96–003. Applicant:

Mount Holyoke College, South Hadley,

MA 01075. Instrument: Electron

Microscope, Model CM100.

Manufacturer: Philips, The Netherlands.

Intended Use: See notice at 61 FR 8041,

March 1, 1996. Order Date: July 18,

1995.

Docket Number: 96–005. Applicant:

Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, CA

92037. Instrument: Electron Microscope,

Model CM120. Manufacturer: Philips,

The Netherlands. Intended Use: See

notice at 61 FR 8042, March 1, 1996.

Order Date: August 29, 1995.

Docket Number: 96–006. Applicant:

The Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla,

CA 92037. Instrument: Electron

Microscope, Model CM 200.

Manufacturer: Philips, The Netherlands.

Intended Use: See notice at 61 FR

11613, March 21, 1996. Order Date:

August 29, 1995.

Docket Number: 96–009. Applicant:

New York University Medical Center,

New York, NY 10016. Instrument:

Electron Microscope, Model CM 200.

Manufacturer: Philips, The Netherlands.

Intended Use: See notice at 61 FR

11613, March 21, 1996. Order Date: July

27, 1995.

Comments: None received. Decision:

Approved. No instrument of equivalent

scientific value to the foreign

instrument, for such purposes as these

instruments are intended to be used,

was being manufactured in the United

States at the time the instruments were

ordered. Reasons: Each foreign

instrument is a conventional

transmission electron microscope

(CTEM) and is intended for research or

scientific educational uses requiring a

CTEM. We know of no CTEM, or any

other instrument suited to these

purposes, which was being

manufactured in the United States

either at the time of order of each

instrument or at the time of receipt of