Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 18, 1996 / Notices 30853

cash deposit rate will be 60 percent, the

‘‘All Others’’ rate established in the

LTFV investigation (45 FR 77498,

November 24, 1980).

These deposit requirements will

remain in effect until publication of the

final results of the next administrative

review.

This notice also 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 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: June 11, 1996.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 96–15461 Filed 6–17–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[A–427–098]

Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate From

France; Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of

antidumping duty administrative

review.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

(the Department) is conducting an

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on anhydrous

sodium metasilicate (ASM) from France

in response to a request by the

petitioner, the PQ Corporation. This

review covers Rhone Poulenc Chime de

Base (Rhone Poulenc), a manufacturer/

exporter of ASM, and shipments of this

merchandise to the United States during

the period from January 1, 1995 through

December 31, 1995.

Interested parties are invited to

comment on these preliminary results.

Parties who submit argument are

requested to submit with each argument

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

brief summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 18, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mark Ross or Richard Rimlinger, 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:

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).

Background

The Department published in the

Federal Register on January 26, 1996

(61 FR 2488) a ‘‘Notice of Opportunity

to Request Administrative Review’’ of

the antidumping duty order on ASM

from France (46 FR 1667, January 7,

1981). On January 29, 1996, the

petitioner requested an administrative

review of Rhone Poulenc, a

manufacturer/exporter of ASM. The

Department initiated the review on

February 20, 1996 (61 FR 6347). The

Department is now conducting this

review in accordance with section 751

of the Act.

Scope of the Review

Imports covered by the review are

shipments of ASM, a crystallized

silicate (Na2 SiO3) which is alkaline and

readily soluble in water. Applications

include waste paper de-inking, oreflotation, bleach stabilization, clay

processing, medium or heavy duty

cleaning, and compounding into other

detergent formulations. This

merchandise is classified under

Harmonized Tariff Schedules (HTS)

item numbers 2839.11.00 and

2839.19.00. The HTS item numbers are

provided for convenience and Customs

purposes. The written description

remains dispositive.

Use of Facts Otherwise Available

The Department preliminarily

determines, in accordance with section

776(a) of the Act, that the use of facts

available is appropriate for Rhone

Poulenc because it did not respond to

the antidumping questionnaire. The

Department sent Rhone Poulenc a

questionnaire on February 28, 1996 with

a deadline of April 25, 1996 for

providing information necessary to

conduct a review of any shipments that

the firm may have made to the United

States during the period of review.

Rhone Poulenc failed to provide the

information that has been requested by

the administering authority. Therefore,

pursuant to section 776(a) of the Act,

the Department must base its

determination on the facts available.

Furthermore, because Rhone Poulenc

failed to cooperate by not responding to

the questionnaire, it is appropriate to

use an inference adverse to the interests

of Rhone Poulenc in selecting from the

facts available, in accordance with

section 776(b) of the Act.

Section 776(b) authorizes the

Department to use an inference adverse

to the interests of that respondent in

choosing the facts available. Section

776(b) also authorizes the Department to

use as adverse facts available

information derived from the petition,

the final determination, a previous

administrative review, or other

information placed 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

provides that ‘‘corroborate’’ means

simply that the Department will satisfy

itself that the secondary information to

be used has probative value.

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 Fresh Cut

Flowers from Mexico; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 61 FR 6812 (February 22, 1996),
30854 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 18, 1996 / Notices

where the Department disregarded the

highest margin as adverse BIA because

the margin was based on another

company’s uncharacteristic business

expense resulting in an unusually high

margin).

In this case, the Department has

preliminarily determined to assign to

Rhone Poulenc a margin of 60 percent,

the margin calculated in the original

less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation

using information provided by Rhone

Poulenc (see Anhydrous Sodium

Metasilicate from France; Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value, 45 FR 77498 (November 24,

1980)). There is no evidence of

circumstances indicating that this

margin is not appropriate.

Preliminary Results of the Review

As a result of this review, the

Department preliminarily determines

that a margin of 60 percent exists for

Rhone Poulenc for the January 1, 1995

through December 31, 1995 period.

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 not later than

37 days after the date of publication.

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 will determine, and

the Customs Service will assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. 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 these

administrative reviews for all shipments

of ASM from France 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 Rhone Poulenc will the

rate established in the final results of

this review; (2) for companies not

covered in this review, but covered in

previous reviews or the original 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, a prior review, or the 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) if neither the

exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm

covered in this or any previous review

or the original LTFV investigation, the

cash deposit rate will be 60 percent, the

‘‘All Others’’ rate established in the

LTFV investigation (45 FR 77498,

November 24, 1980).

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 section 751(a)(1)

of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19

CFR 353.22.

Dated: June 11, 1996.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 96–15464 Filed 6–17–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[A–412–602]

Certain Forged Steel Crankshafts From

the United Kingdom; 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 requests from

interested parties, the Department of

Commerce (the Department) is

conducting an administrative review of

the antidumping duty order on certain

forged steel crankshafts from the United

Kingdom. This review covers one

producer/exporter of this merchandise

to the United States for the review

period September 1, 1993 through

August 31, 1994.

We have preliminarily determined

that sales have been made below the

foreign market value (FMV).

We invite interested parties to

comment on these preliminary results.

Parties who submit arguments 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 18, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

J. David Dirstine or Lyn Johnson, 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:

Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute and to the

Department’s regulations are references

to the provisions as they existed on

December 31, 1994.

Background

On September 2, 1994, the

Department published in the Federal

Register a notice of ‘‘Opportunity to

Request Administrative Review’’ (59 FR

45664) of the antidumping duty order

on certain forged steel crankshafts from

the United Kingdom. We received a

request from UES Ltd.-Forgings Division

(UEF) to review its sales to the United

States. On October 13, 1994, in

accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(c)

(1994), we initiated an administrative

review of this order for UES Ltd.-

Forgings Division covering the period

September 1, 1993 through August 31,

1994 (59 FR 51939).

The Department has now conducted

this administrative review in

accordance with section 751 of the

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the

Tariff Act).

Scope of Review

Imports covered by this review are

certain forged steel crankshafts. The

term ‘‘crankshafts,’’ as used in this

review, includes forged carbon or alloy

steel crankshafts with a shipping weight

between 40 and 750 pounds, whether

machined or unmachined. These

products are currently classifiable under

item numbers 8483.10.10.10,

8483.10.10.30, 8483.10.30.10, and

8483.10.30.50 of the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule (HTS). Neither cast

crankshafts nor forged crankshafts with

shipping weights of less than 40 pounds

or more than 750 pounds are subject to

this review. The HTS item numbers are