31508 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 120 / Thursday, June 20, 1996 / Notices

AOC in order to remove from USP the

import duties paid with respect to home

market models, and instead add the

import duties forgiven with respect to

the exported models; investigate

whether Shin-Shirasuna’s sales to

Canada were fictitious so as to

manipulate the foreign market value for

comparison with imports to the United

States and thereby minimize the

antidumping duty liability; recalculate

Capetronic’s dumping margins using

production data related to a specific sale

instead of using the weighted-average

costs of production, remove from USP

the value of certain proprietary selling

expenses for Shirasuna; and correct

certain programming errors. See Zenith

Electronics Corporation v. United

States, 770 F. Supp. 648 (CIT 1991). In

addition, the Department requested a

remand to explain the reasons

underlying its de minimis

determination. On January 31, 1992, the

Department filed its second remand

results with the Court.

On January 28, 1993, the Court

ordered a third remand so that the

Department could reconsider the tax

pass-through in a manner consistent

with the constant costs and imperfect

competition characteristic of the

Taiwanese color television market. In

addition, the Court ordered the

Department to ‘‘cap’’ the upward

adjustment to USP for foreign tax at the

amount of tax found to be passed

through to home market purchasers, to

make an adjustment for the difference in

circumstances of sale included in the

U.S. and home market taxable values, to

insure that the general expenses

component of CV was not reduced at

any time to less than the statutory

minimum amount by reason of

adjustments for selling expenses

associated with disregarded home

market sales, and to correct two clerical

errors. See Zenith Electronic Corp. v.

United States, 812 F. Supp. 228 (CIT

1993). On May 5, 1993, the Department

filed its third remand results with the

Court.

On October 21, 1994, the Court, in

Zenith, affirmed the Department’s third

remand results, and affirmed the prior

remand determinations in this case to

the extent that they were not

subsequently modified by the Court.

The Court also vacated its July 29, 1991

order to the extent that the order held

that ‘‘no assessment rate cap may be

applied in liquidating the subject entries

unless the importer paid a cash duty for

an estimated dumping duty.’’ As a

result, the Court ordered the Department

to apply the assessment rate cap to all

subject imports entered between the

publication dates of the Department’s

preliminary affirmative determination of

sales at LTFV and the ITC’s final

affirmative injury determination, and it

dismissed the case.

Because the Court’s October 21, 1994

order affirmed the Department’s

recalculation of Capetronic’s rate at 1.36

percent, the Department published

amended final results of review for

Capetronic in this administrative

review. See 60 FR 11955 (March 3,

1995). As a result of this new rate, the

Court issued an order in the third

administrative review of CTVs from

Taiwan to rescind its previous

revocation of Capetronic from the

antidumping duty order on CTVs from

Taiwan because, as a result of the

Department’s redetermination of its rate

in the first administrative review,

Capetronic did not have three

consecutive years of sales at not less

than fair value. See Tatung Company v.

United States, Court No. 90–12–00645

(March 8, 1995); see also 60 FR 29822

(June 6, 1995).

On January 17, 1995, the Department,

consistent with the decision of the

CAFC in Timken Co. v. United States,

893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (Timken),

published a notice in the Federal

Register stating that it would not order

the liquidation of the subject

merchandise entered or withdrawn from

warehouse for consumption prior to a

‘‘final and conclusive’’ decision in this

case. Although further action is required

by the Court with regard to the

Department’s calculation of COS

adjustments for AOC, this issue does not

affect the other respondents in this

review and, therefore, the Court’s

October 21, 1994 decision is ‘‘final and

conclusive’’ for those respondents.

As a result of the Department’s

redeterminations on remand, we have

determined the weighted-average

dumping margins for CTVs from Taiwan

for the following periods to be:

Manufacturer/

exporter Time period Marginpercent

Fulet Elect. Industrial, Co ........................................................................................................................................... 10/19/83–03/31/85 0.08

Sampo Corp ............................................................................................................................................................... 04/01/84–03/31/85 6.29

Tatung Co ................................................................................................................................................................... 10/19/83–03/31/85 2.56

The Department will determine, and

the Customs Service will assess,

antidumping duties on the appropriate

entries for the above companies.

Once the Court remands Zenith back

to the Department and the case is ‘‘final

and conclusive’’ with respect to AOC,

we will recalculate AOC’s dumping

margin in accordance with the Court’s

opinion, publish an amended Federal

Register notice, and issue liquidation

instructions for AOC for the first

administrative review of CTVs from

Taiwan.

This amendment of final results of

review and notice are 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: June 4, 1996.

Paul L. Joffe,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 96–15683 Filed 6–19–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M

[A–533–810]

Stainless Steel Bar From India;

Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary

Results of New Shipper Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of extension of time limit

for preliminary results of new shipper

antidumping duty administrative

review.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

(the Department) is extending the time

limit for the preliminary results in the

new shipper administrative review of

the antidumping duty order on stainless

steel bar from India, covering the period

February 1, 1995, through July 31, 1995,

because the Department has concluded

that the case is extraordinarily

complicated.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 20, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Davina Hashmi or Michael Rill, Office

of Antidumping Compliance, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 120 / Thursday, June 20, 1996 / Notices 31509

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

telephone : (202) 482–4733.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Department of Commerce

received requests to conduct a new

shipper administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on stainless

steel bar from India. On November 28,

1995, the Department of published in

the Federal Register a notice of

initiation of a new shipper review of

Akai Asian and Viraj, two exporters of

stainless steel bar to the United States

(60 FR 58598). The review covers the

period February 1, 1995, through July

31, 1995.

Because this review is extraordinarily

complicated, we are unable to complete

the review within the time limits

mandated by section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by

the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (the

Tariff Act). See Memorandum dated

June 4, 1996. Therefore, in accordance

with that section, the Department is

extending the time limit for the

preliminary results to October 15, 1996.

Interested parties must submit

applications for disclosure under

administrative protective order in

accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(b).

This extension is in accordance with

section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Tariff Act

(19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(2)(B)(iv)).

Dated: June 5, 1996.

Roland L. MacDonald,

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for

Compliance.

[FR Doc. 96–15684 Filed 6–19–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M

[A–533–502]

Certain Welded Carbon Steel Standard

Pipes and Tubes From India:

Termination of New Shipper

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of termination of new

shipper antidumping duty

administrative review.

SUMMARY: On January 22, 1996, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) published a notice of

initiation of a new shipper

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on certain

welded carbon steel standard pipes and

tubes from India. The Department is

now terminating this review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 20, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Davina Hashmi or Michael Rill, Office

of Antidumping Compliance, Import

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20230,

telephone (202) 482–4733.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On January 22, 1996 (61 FR 1562), the

Department published in the Federal

Register notice of initiation of a new

shipper administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on certain

welded carbon steel standard pipes and

tubes from India covering the exporter

Rajinder Pipes, Ltd., and the period May

1, 1995 through October 31, 1995.

Based on Rajinder’s questionnaire

response, the Department determined

that Rajinder made no sales to

unaffiliated U.S. purchasers during the

period of review or within a reasonable

time after the period of review.

Therefore, the Department is now

terminating the review (see

memorandum from Joseph A Spetrini to

Paul L. Joffe, May 17, 1996).

This notice is published pursuant to

19 CFR 353.22(h).

Dated: May 30, 1996.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Compliance.

[FR Doc. 96–15685 Filed 6–19–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M

University of Albany, et al.; Notice of

Consolidated Decision on Applications

for Duty-Free Entry of Scientific

Instruments

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.

Comments: None received. Decision:

Approved. No instrument of equivalent

scientific value to the foreign

instruments described below, for such

purposes as each is intended to be used,

is being manufactured in the United

States.

Docket Number: 96–012. Applicant:

University of Albany, Albany, NY

12222. Instrument: Mass Spectrometer,

Model OPTIMA. Manufacturer: Fisons

Instruments, United Kingdom. Intended

Use: See notice at 61 FR 11614, March

21, 1996. Reasons: The foreign

instrument provides: (1) A high

sensitivity ion source yielding low H3

∂

ion production during H/D analysis, (2)

an acid-bath workstation to permit

simultaneous C:N ratio analysis and (3)

a universal triple collector assembly

consisting of three Faraday collector

buckets capable of N2, O2, CO2 and SO2

analysis. Advice received from: The

National Institutes of Health, March 27,

1966.

Docket Number: 96–014. Applicant:

Columbia University, Palisades, NY

10964. Instrument: Mass Spectrometer,

Model OPTIMA. Manufacturer: Fisons

Instruments, United Kingdom. Intended

Use: See notice at 61 FR 11614, March

21, 1996. Reasons: The foreign

instrument provides: (1) A high

sensitivity ion source yielding 1100

molecules CO2 per mass 44 ion, (2) a

universal triple collector assembly

consisting of three Faraday collector

buckets capable of N2, O2, CO2 and SO2

analysis and (3) a dual microinlet with

automatic cold finger. Advice received

from: The National Institutes of Health,

March 28, 1996.

The National Institutes of Health

advises in its memoranda that (1) the

capabilities of each of the foreign

instruments described above are

pertinent to each applicant’s intended

purpose and (2) they know of no

domestic instrument or apparatus of

equivalent scientific value for the

intended use of each instrument.

We know of no other instrument or

apparatus being manufactured in the

United States which is of equivalent

scientific value to either of the foreign

instruments.

Frank W. Creel,

Director, Statutory Import Programs Staff.

[FR Doc. 96–15686 Filed 6–19–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

Notice of Sea Grant Review Panel

Meeting

AGENCY: National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration,

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the

schedule and proposed agenda of a

forthcoming meeting of the Sea Grant

Review Panel. The meeting will have

several purposes. Panel members and

guest speakers will discuss matters

related to the functions of the panel,

visions for the future of the Sea Grant

Program, setting directions and strategic

planning, procedures for allocating Sea

Grant funds to the Sea Grant programs,

status of authorization and