Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 120 / Thursday, June 20, 1996 / Notices 31507

Proceedings and firms Class or kind

NSK Bearings Europe, Ltd./RHP Bearings Ltd. .................................................................................................... Ball and Cylindrical.

If requested within 30 days of the date

of publication of this notice, the

Department will determine whether

antidumping duties have been absorbed

by an exporter or producer subject to

any of these reviews if the subject

merchandise is sold in the United States

through an importer which is affiliated

with such exporter or producer.

Interested parties must submit

applications for disclosure under

administrative protective orders in

accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(b) of the

Department’s regulations. However, due

to the large number of parties to these

proceedings, we strongly recommend

that parties submit their APO

applications as soon as possible, and we

will process them on a first-come, firstserved basis.

These initiations and this notice are

in accordance with section 751(a) of the

Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(a))

and 19 CFR 353.22(c) and 353.25(c).

Roland L. MacDonald,

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for

Compliance.

[FR Doc. 96–15682 Filed 6–19–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS-P

[A–583–009]

Color Television Receivers, Except for

Video Monitors, From Taiwan;

Amended Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of amendment to final

results of antidumping duty

administrative review.

SUMMARY: On October 21, 1994, in the

case of Zenith Electronics Corporation

v. United States, 865 F. Supp. 890

(Zenith), the United States Court of

International Trade (the Court) affirmed

the Department of Commerce’s (the

Department’s) third results of

redetermination on remand and prior

remand determinations of the final

results of the first administrative review

of the antidumping duty order on color

television receivers, except for video

monitors (CTVs), from Taiwan, 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 less than fair value (LTFV) and

the International Trade Commission’s

(ITC’s) final affirmative injury

determination.

Consistent with the decision of the

United States Court of Appeals for the

Federal Circuit (CAFC) in Timken Co. v.

United States, 893 F.2d 337 (CAFC

1990) (Timken), on January 17, 1995,

the Department published a notice in

the Federal Register which suspended

liquidation of the subject merchandise

entered or withdrawn from warehouse

for consumption until there was a ‘‘final

and conclusive’’ decision in this case

(60 FR 3391). On February 12, 1996, the

CAFC upheld the Department’s

methodology for determining direct and

indirect expenses for purposes of

making a circumstance-of-sale (COS)

adjustment in calculating AOC

International, Inc.’s (AOC) final margin

and remanded the case back to the Court

for recalculation of dumping margins in

a manner consistent with the CAFC’s

decision. Although the case is not yet

‘‘final and conclusive’’ for AOC, the

other respondents in this proceeding are

not affected by this outstanding issue.

We have, therefore, prepared these

amended final results for those

respondents.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 20, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Maureen McPhillips or John Kugelman,

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:

Background

On December 29, 1986, the

Department published in the Federal

Register the final results of the first

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on CTVs from

Taiwan (51 FR 46895). In those results,

the Department set forth its finding of

weighted-average margins for nine

companies, AOC, Capetronic (BSR) Ltd.

(Capetronic), Fulet Electronic Industrial

Co., Ltd. (Fulet), Nettek Corp., Ltd.

(Nettek), RCA Taiwan (RCA), Shinlee

Corp. (Shinlee), Shin-Shirasuna Electric

Co. (Shin-Shirasuna), and Tatung Co.

(Tatung), for the period of review (POR)

October 19, 1983 through March 31,

1985, and Sampo Corp. (Sampo) for the

POR April 1, 1984 through March 31,

1985, and announced its intent to

instruct the U.S. Customs Service to

assess antidumping duties on all

appropriate entries.

Subsequent to the Department’s final

results, four of the reviewed companies

and a domestic producer, Zenith, filed

lawsuits with the Court challenging

these results. Thereafter, on September

11, 1989, the Court issued an order and

opinion remanding the Department’s

determination so that the Department

could make reasonable allowances for

‘‘bona fide differences in warranty

expenses between the United States and

the home market’’, and to reconsider an

adjustment for Sampo’s bad debt losses

based on its bad debt experience during

the period or another appropriate

period. See AOC International, Inc. et.

al. v. United States, 721 F. Supp. 314

(CIT 1989). The Department requested a

voluntary remand for the following

reasons: to recalculate constructed value

CV) for Tatung; to recalculate AOC’s

inland freight and explain the

calculation methodology; to adjust

Tatung’s foreign market value (FMV) for

discounts and rebates which Tatung

paid to distributors for trade-ins of used

CTVs by the dealers in the home market;

to allocate advertising and sales

promotion expenses on a product-line,

rather than a model-specific basis; and

to add to the U.S. price (USP) the

amount of commodity taxes forgiven

upon exportation of CTVs. On January

31, 1991, the Department filed its first

remand results with the Court.

On July 29, 1991, the Court ordered a

second remand for the Department to do

the following: Determine the amount of

commodity tax passed through to home

market purchasers and add that amount

to the U.S. price (USP); cease applying

an assessment rate cap in liquidating

entries of the subject merchandise

unless the importer paid a cash deposit

for an estimated antidumping duty;

eliminate the use of sales adjustments in

this case to the extent that they reduce

CV general expenses to less than the

statutory minimum amount; remove all

home market export-related expenses

from exporter’s sale’s price (ESP);

request additional information from
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