Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 126 / Friday, June 28, 1996 / Notices 33711

5180–01–423–6468

NPA: Kandu Industries, Inc., Holland,

Michigan

Stand, Office Machine

7110–01–136–1563

7110–00–601–9835

7110–00–601–9849

(Requirements for GSA Zone 1 only)

NPA: Knox County ARC, Knoxville,

Tennessee

Paper, Bond & Writing

7530–00–160–9165

7530–00–616–7284

7530–00–515–1086

7530–01–364–9488

7530–01–078–5649

7530–01–077–5386

7530–01–071–9792

7530–01–509–8632

7530–01–071–9795

7530–01–077–5387

7530–01–077–5386

NPA: Louisiana Association for the Blind,

Shreveport, Louisiana

SPEAR Insulation Subsystem

8415–01–F01–0191 thru –0225

(Requirements for the U.S. Army Soldier

Systems Command, Natick, MA)

NPA: Peckham Vocational Industries, Inc.,

Lansing, Michigan

Services

Commissary Shelf Stocking and Custodial,

Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio

NPA: Goodwill Industries of the Miami

Valley, Dayton, Ohio

Janitorial/Custodial, Stewart Army Subpost,

New Windsor, New York

NPA: Orange County Rehabilitation Center—

Occupations Incorporated, Middletown,

New York

Janitorial/Custodial, Randolph Air Force

Base, Texas

NPA: Development Resources, Inc., San

Antonio, Texas

Petroleum Support, Fort Sam Houston/Camp

Bullis, Texas

NPA: Goodwill Industries of San Antonio,

San Antonio, Texas

Warehouse Operation, Naval Air Warfare

Center Training Systems Division, 12350

Research Parkway, Orlando, Florida

NPA: Goodwill Industries of Central Florida,

Orlando, Florida

Beverly L. Milkman,

Executive Director.

[FR Doc. 96–16603 Filed 6–27–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6353–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–549–801]

Antifriction Bearings (Other Than

Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts

Thereof from Thailand; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review and Revocation of

Antidumping Duty Order

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review and Revocation of Antidumping

Duty Order.

SUMMARY: On December 7, 1995, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) published the preliminary

results of the administrative review of

the antidumping duty order on

antifriction bearings (other than tapered

roller bearings) and parts thereof from

Thailand. The class or kind of

merchandise covered by this order is

ball bearings. This review covers one

producer and/or exporter of antifriction

bearings to the United States for the

period May 1, 1993, through April 30,

1994.

We gave interested parties an

opportunity to comment on the

preliminary results. Based on our

analysis of the comments received, we

have made certain changes for the final

results. We have determined the

margins for NMB Thai Ltd., Pelmec Thai

Ltd., NMB Hi-Tech Bearings Ltd., and

NMB Corporation (collectively, NMB/

Pelmec) to be de minimis. We have also

determined that NMB/Pelmec has met

the requirements for revocation.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 28, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lyn

Johnson or Rich 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 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 May 15, 1989, the Department

published in the Federal Register (54

FR 20909) the antidumping duty order

on ball bearings and parts thereof from

Thailand. On June 22, 1994, in

accordance with 19 C.F.R. 353.22(c), we

initiated an administrative review of

this order for the period May 1, 1993,

through April 30, 1994 (59 FR 32180).

The Department conducted a

verification of NMB/Pelmec’s response

for this period of review.

On May 31, 1994, NMB/Pelmec

submitted a request, in accordance with

19 C.F.R.353.25(b), to revoke the order

with respect to NMB/Pelmec’s sales of

this merchandise. In accordance with 19

C.F.R. 353.25(a)(2)(iii), this request was

accompanied by certifications from the

firm that it had not sold the relevant

class or kind of merchandise at less than

foreign market value (FMV) for a threeyear period, including this review

period, and would not do so in the

future. NMB/Pelmec also agreed to its

immediate reinstatement in the relevant

antidumping order, as long as any firm

is subject to this order, if the

Department concludes under 19 C.F.R.

353.22(f) that, subsequent to revocation,

it sold the subject merchandise at less

than FMV.

On December 7, 1995, we published

in the Federal Register the preliminary

results of our administrative reviews of

the antidumping duty orders on

antifriction bearings (other than tapered

roller bearings) and parts thereof (AFBs)

from France, Germany, Japan,

Singapore, Sweden, and Thailand (60

FR 62817) wherein we gave notice of

our intent to revoke the order on

Thailand and invited interested parties

to comment. On January 31, 1996, and

February 8, 1996, parties to the

Thailand proceeding submitted their

case and rebuttal briefs, respectively. At

the request of interested parties, we held

a public hearing for the Thailand

proceeding on February 14, 1996.

The Department is conducting this

administrative review in accordance

with section 751 of the Tariff Act of

1930, as amended (the Act).

Scope of Review

The products covered by this order,

antifriction bearings (other than tapered

roller bearings), mounted or

unmounted, and parts thereof (AFBs)

from Thailand, fall within the following

class or kind of merchandise:

Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof:

These products include all AFBs that

employ balls as the roller element.

Imports of these products are classified

under the following categories:

antifriction balls, ball bearings with

integral shafts, ball bearings (including

radial ball bearings) and parts thereof,

and housed or mounted ball bearing

units and parts thereof. Imports of these
33712 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 126 / Friday, June 28, 1996 / Notices

products are classified under the

following Harmonized Tariff Schedule

(HTS) subheadings: 3926.90.45,

4016.93.00, 4016.93.10, 4016.93.50,

6909.19.5010, 8431.20.00, 8431.39.0010,

8482.10.10, 8482.10.50, 8482.80.00,

8482.91.00, 8482.99.05, 8482.99.10,

8482.99.35, 8482.99.6590, 8482.99.70,

8483.20.40, 8483.20.80, 8483.50.8040,

8483.50.90, 8483.90.20, 8483.90.30,

8483.90.70, 8708.50.50, 8708.60.50,

8708.60.80, 8708.70.6060, 8708.70.8050,

8708.93.30, 8708.93.5000, 8708.93.6000,

8708.93.75, 8708.99.06, 8708.99.31,

8708.99.4960, 8708.99.50, 8708.99.58,

8708.99.8080, 8803.10.00, 8803.20.00,

8803.30.00, 8803.90.30, 8803.90.90.

The size or precision grade of a

bearing does not influence whether the

bearing is covered by the order. For a

further discussion of the scope of the

orders being reviewed, including recent

scope determinations, see Antifriction

Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller

Bearings) and Parts Thereof from

France, et al.; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Reviews, Partial Termination of

Administrative Reviews, and Revocation

in Part of Antidumping Duty Orders, 60

FR 10900 (February 28, 1995) (AFBs IV).

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

Based on our analysis of comments

received, we have made the following

changes in the final results:

In our computer calculations of profit

for constructed value (CV) we

inadvertently omitted interest expense.

We have included this expense in our

final calculations. We also changed the

program to perform a test for profit so

that the greater of actual profit or the

statutory minimum of eight-percent

profit is used. Finally, we improperly

classified insurance as a direct selling

expense. Since insurance identified in

the response covers pre-sale

transportation from the factory to the

warehouse, we have reclassified it as an

indirect selling expense for the final

results.

Analysis of Comments Received

We invited interested parties to

comment on our preliminary results and

intent to revoke the order. We received

case and rebuttal briefs from The

Torrington Company (Torrington),

petitioner in this proceeding, and

respondent, NMB/Pelmec Thailand. We

held a public hearing on February 14,

1996.

Company-Specific Issues

Comment 1: Torrington argues that

the Department was incorrect in

applying the statutory minimum for

calculating profit, selling, general and

administrative expense (SG&A). The

petitioner also claims that the

Department did not compute average

home market (HM) profits as a

percentage of costs nor did it check to

determine whether such profits exceed

the statutory minimum. In addition,

Torrington argues that the Department

did not calculate profits based only on

sales to unrelated parties. Torrington

suggests that, in calculating profit for

sales to unrelated parties, below-cost

sales should be excluded since, in

Torrington’s opinion, such sales should

not be considered to have been made in

the ‘‘ordinary course of trade.’’

NMB/Pelmec claims that it calculated

weighted-average profit margins and

determined whether actual profit was

above or below the statutory minimum

before applying it to CV. Thus, it

contends, it performed a proper analysis

of the profit margins prior to entering

the information into the computer

database. NMB/Pelmec also argues that

Torrington’s suggestion to exclude

below-cost sales from the profit

calculation is at odds with the

Department’s past determinations.

Respondent claims that Torrington has

not demonstrated that below-cost sales

were not made in the ‘‘ordinary course

of trade.’’ Therefore, NMB/Pelmec

contends that the Department should

include all HM sales in the profit

calculation.

Department’s Position: We performed

a partial analysis of the profit margins

before applying them to CV. For the

preliminary results, we calculated an

average profit margin as a percentage of

CV; however, we did not test this

percentage to determine whether profit

was above or below the statutory

minimum. Therefore, for the final

calculations, we have tested the profit

information to ensure that we use the

greater of actual profit or the statutory

minimum of eight-percent profit.

In response to Torrington’s argument

that the Department should limit its

calculation of profit to sales to unrelated

parties, such calculations were not

possible in this case. Where the

Department has calculated profit on

sales to unrelated parties, it had HM

cost of production (COP) data on the

record of the segment of the proceeding.

(See AFBs IV.) However, for this review,

since we were not conducting a salesbelow-cost investigation, we did not

have the cost information necessary to

calculate profit rates for related and

unrelated parties. Therefore, we used

the profit information that we requested

and which NMB/Pelmec provided in

calculating CV.

Finally, we reject Torrington’s

suggestion that below-cost sales are per

se outside the ordinary course of trade.

See Torrington v. United States, 881 F.

Supp. 622, 633 (CIT 1995). The

Department considers a variety of

circumstances in determining whether

HM sales are outside the ordinary

course of trade. In this review,

Torrington has failed to provide any

evidence demonstrating that below-cost

sales are outside the ordinary course of

trade.

Comment 2: Torrington contends that

interest expense should be included in

the calculation of COP. According to

petitioners, the formula for calculating

profits in the Department’s calculations

does not include interest expenses, so

that the calculation of profit is

understated.

Department’s Position: We agree that,

for our CV calculations, it is appropriate

to include interest expenses in the cost

figures we use to calculate profit. (See

section above entitled ‘‘Changes Since

the Preliminary Results.’’)

Comment 3: Torrington argues that

the Department has been inconsistent in

its treatment of NMB/Pelmec’s ‘‘Route

B’’ sales to HM customers. Torrington

refers to NMB/Pelmec’s two methods for

routing sales to customers in the home

market: 1) Route A sales in which

subject merchandise is sold directly to

related and unrelated customers in

Thailand, and 2) Route B sales in which

subject merchandise is first shipped to

an affiliated party in Singapore prior to

sale to related and unrelated customers

in Thailand. Torrington contends that

Route B sales should be excluded for

purposes of assessing the viability of

Thailand as a comparison market.

Torrington notes that the Court of

International Trade (CIT) remanded the

1990–91 review of this order to the

Department with two decisions: first,

the CIT instructed the Department to

explain its differing treatment of Route

B sales from the original investigation

and, second, that NMB/Pelmec did not

establish that Route B sales were

correctly classified in the 1990–91

review before including them as HM

sales. Also, Torrington argues that, as in

the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV)

investigation, the fact that subject

merchandise was exported to Singapore

and was exempt from taxes and duties

confirmed, in part, that Route B sales

were export sales.

NMB/Pelmec argues that the

Department is correct in identifying

Route B sales as HM sales. First, NMB/

Pelmec points out that the record

indicates that subject merchandise was

shipped to Singapore with the

knowledge that it would be returned for

sale in Thailand. Second, NMB/Pelmec

contends that the Department’s decision
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 126 / Friday, June 28, 1996 / Notices 33713

in the preliminary results is consistent

with the Department’s prior decisions.

NMB/Pelmec notes that the

Department’s explanation as to why

Route B sales are reclassified as HM

sales in the second and subsequent

reviews is clear in the Final Results of

Redetermination Pursuant to Court

Remand at 12, filed on August 10, 1995,

in Torrington Company v. United

States, 881 F. Supp. 622 (CIT 1995).

Finally, NMB/Pelmec claims that

Torrington’s argument that Route B

sales were export sales because the sales

were exempt from taxes and duties has

already been addressed by the

Department. NMB/Pelmec notes that in

the remand in the second review, the

Department stated, ‘‘Second, we

recognize that HM sales can have

different tax or duty treatments based on

the particular circumstances of the sale.

For example, certain bearings may be

exempted from certain taxes and duties

if they are consumed in the production

of an export product such as a machine.

However, since such bearings are

consumed in the home market, they are

undeniably HM sales of bearings

regardless of the fact that the machine

made from these bearings was

ultimately exported and the tax

treatment of these HM bearings sales is

different from other HM sales of

bearings.’’ See Final Results of

Redetermination Pursuant to Court

Remand in Ct. No. 92–07–00483,

August 14, 1995, at 12.

Department’s Position: We agree with

NMB/Pelmec that Route B sales are

properly classified as HM sales. Route B

merchandise is shipped to NMB/

Pelmec’s Singapore selling affiliate with

the knowledge that it will be returned

to Thailand for delivery to the unrelated

customer. Therefore, the first unrelated

sale in this review for all Route B sales

occurred in Thailand. This differs from

the original LTFV investigation in

which certain sales made through the

affiliate in Singapore, which NMB

Thailand classified as Route B sales,

were sold to an unrelated customer in

Singapore. In the LTFV investigation,

we determined that those particular

Route B sales were third country sales,

not HM sales. This distinction is

significant, since, under section

773(a)(1)(A) of the Act, the ultimate

consideration as to whether the sales in

question are HM sales is whether the

merchandise ‘‘is sold, or in the absence

of sales, offered for sale in the principal

markets of the country from which

exported, in the usual commercial

quantities and in the ordinary course of

trade for home consumption. . . .’’

(emphasis added). We have not been

inconsistent in our treatment of Route B

sales since the fact pattern differs

between the LTFV investigation and this

review. In addition, although HM sales

can have different tax or duty treatments

based on the particular circumstances of

the sale, this does not alter the fact that

the sales were consumed in the home

market, which we have previously

addressed in the remand in the second

review as noted by NMB/Pelmec above.

Therefore, we have included NMB/

Pelmec’s Route B sales as HM sales in

our analysis.

Comment 4: The Torrington Company

argues that NMB/Pelmec’s reported

movement expenses and charges for

Route B sales should not be deducted

from foreign market value (FMV) since

Route B sales should not be considered

HM sales. It contends that such

expenses, i.e., pre-sale freight expenses,

are unrelated to the sale of bearings in

Thailand.

NMB/Pelmec contends that pre-sale

freight expenses for Route B sales are

direct expenses and should be deducted

from FMV through a circumstance-ofsale-adjustment. However, if the

Department concludes that these

expenses are indirect, NMB/Pelmec

claims that it is still entitled to an

adjustment under the exporter’s sales

price (ESP) offset provision of the

regulations.

Department’s Position: We disagree

with Torrington that Route B sales are

not HM sales (see our response to

comment 4). However, the record shows

that charges NMB/Pelmec incurred in

shipping the merchandise to Singapore

are pre-sale freight charges. Since NMB/

Pelmec has not demonstrated that these

freight charges are related directly to

particular sales made in Thailand, we

have treated the charges in these final

results as indirect selling expenses.

Comment 5: Torrington argues that

NMB/Pelmec should not be allowed

adjustments for duty drawback. It

claims that NMB/Pelmec did not

demonstrate any link between the duties

alleged to be paid and rebated and what

was actually paid and rebated.

NMB/Pelmec contends that the

Department verified all aspects of what

it claimed for the adjustment for

uncollected duties, and refers to the

Department’s Verification Report of

March 16, 1995.

Department’s Position: We agree with

NMB/Pelmec that we verified

respondent’s claimed adjustments, as

noted in our Verification Report of

March 16, 1995, and found respondent’s

claim to be appropriate.

General Issues

Comment 6: Torrington argues that

the Department should require

respondents to affirm that responses

conform to any prior Department

determinations in these reviews. As an

example, Torrington comments that, if,

as a result of litigation, the Department

changed its methodology with respect to

price adjustments for a firm, that firm

should indicate that its response for this

review conforms to the latest changes in

methodology.

Department’s Position: Torrington’s

comment is directed at certain changes

which do not apply in the case of NMB/

Pelmec.

Comment 7: Torrington argues that

the Department’s calculation of the

deposit rate is not tax-neutral and is

adversely affected by the Department’s

new value-added tax methodology.

Torrington claims that, since United

States price (USP) is likely to be higher

than entered value, the Department’s

deposit rate calculation based on USP

results in understated deposit rates.

Therefore, Torrington argues that the

Department should recalculate deposit

rates using the relationship between the

total dumping duties due and total

entered value instead of using total

adjusted USP in the denominator.

Department’s Position: Because we

are revoking the order based on the fact

that NMB/Pelmec has had a three-year

period in which we have not calculated

dumping margins greater than de

minimis, we are not establishing a

deposit rate for NMB/Pelmec. Therefore,

this issue is moot for this order.

Comment 8: Torrington argues that

the Department should recalculate profit

for constructed value to exclude belowcost sales. Petitioner contends that, in

such calculations, losses incurred on

below-cost sales will offset profits

companies realize on above-cost sales,

thus decreasing the calculated average

profit. If the Department does not

calculate profit based solely on abovecost sales, petitioner asks that the

Department calculate average profit by

totalling all profits realized on profitable

sales and dividing the result by total

COP on all sales.

Department’s Position: We disagree

with Torrington’s contention, as we

have in prior reviews, that the

calculation of profit should be based

only on sales that are priced above the

COP. (See Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Reviews and

Revocation in Part of an Antidumping

Duty Order: Antifriction Bearings (Other

Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and

Parts Thereof From France, et al., 58 FR

39729, 39752 (July 26, 1993), and AFBs

IV at 10922.) The Department’s

methodology for calculating profit in

determining CV is in compliance with

section 773(e)(1)(B) of the Act. The
33714 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 126 / Friday, June 28, 1996 / Notices

statute does not explicitly instruct us to

disregard below-cost sales in the

calculation of profit. Accordingly, it

would be inappropriate for the

Department to read such a requirement

into the statute. Thus, the Department

does not deem it necessary to change its

methodology as further suggested by

petitioner. (Comment 1 also relates to

this issue.)

Comment 9: Torrington argues that a

sale should be presumed to be an export

sale whenever the circumstances

suggest that the sales are not for home

market consumption. As an example,

Torrington comments that, where the

record for a company shows that either

a HM customer (or related party) has

U.S. manufacturing facilities which use

bearings in a further-manufactured

article or export documents were

prepared by the manufacturer, the

Department should presume that the

manufacturer knew or should have

known that the sales in question were

for export. Petitioner further notes that,

in this case, if the respondent provides

adequate rebuttal evidence, the

presumption is then defeated. Petitioner

argues that this creates incentive for

respondents to find out whether such

sales are for home market consumption

and to report relevant information.

Department’s Position: With the

exception of Route B sales, we find no

evidence on the record that HM sales of

NMB/Pelmec’s merchandise were

exported. With respect to Route B sales,

see our response to Comment 3.

Comment 10: Torrington argues that

the Department should not exclude U.S.

sales of bearings used by a related party

as a minor component in a furthermanufactured article.

Department’s Position: Since NMB/

Pelmec did not have sales of bearings

used by a related party as a minor

component in further manufacturing,

and the Department did not exclude

such sales in this case, this issue does

not apply to the firm.

Comment 11: Torrington argues that

the Department should calculate profit

on the basis of sampled, above-cost HM

sales only. Petitioner contends that

profit for CV should be based on profits

on sampled HM sales, not on sales of

the class or kind of merchandise

generally in the home market. Petitioner

claims that the use of the sampled sales

insures that profit is based on a verified

database of sales of in-scope

merchandise of the same general class

or kind, as opposed to the use of general

profit data, for which the Department

has little assurance that the reported

profits are actually based on sales of inscope merchandise of the same general

class or kind.

Department’s Position: We disagree

with Torrington’s contention that profit

should be calculated on the basis of the

sampled sales. The Department

consistently used profit information

based on the general class or kind of

merchandise. See AFBs IV at 10923. As

far as above-cost sales are concerned,

see our response to Comment 3.

Comment 12: Torrington asks that the

Department reconsider its treatment of

antidumping duties and deduct such

duties from ESP as a selling cost.

Department’s Position: We disagree

with petitioner. As stated in AFBs IV at

10905, it has been our consistent

interpretation of 19 CFR 353.26 that

evidence of reimbursement is necessary

before we can make an adjustment to

USP. In this review, Torrington has not

identified record evidence that there

was reimbursement of antidumping

duties, and we have not adjusted USP

for the duties.

Final Results of Review

We determine that, for the period May

1, 1993, through April 30, 1994, NMB/

Pelmec had a weighted-average

antidumping duty margin of 0.19

percent, which is de minimis. We

further determine that NMB/Pelmec has

not sold ball bearings at less than FMV

for three consecutive review periods,

including this review period. The

certification from the firm (mentioned

above) and the fact that there were no

comments with respect to our intent to

revoke this order in the preliminary

results warrant revocation of the order.

Therefore, the Department is revoking

the order on antifriction bearings (other

than tapered roller bearings) and parts

thereof from Thailand, with regard to

ball bearings, in accordance with

section 751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR

353.25.

This revocation applies to all entries

of the subject merchandise entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after May 1, 1994.

The Department will order the

suspension of liquidation ended for all

such entries and will instruct the

Customs Service to release any cash

deposit or bonds. The Department will

further instruct Customs to refund with

interest any cash deposits on post-May

1, 1994 entries. In addition, the

Department will terminate the review

covering subject merchandise from

Thailand sold during the period May 1,

1994, through April 30, 1995, which

was initiated on June 19, 1995 (60 FR

31952).

Assessment Rates: The Department

shall determine, and the Customs

Service shall assess, antidumping duties

on all appropriate entries. Because

sampling and other simplification

methods prevent entry-by-entry

assessments, we will calculate wherever

possible an exporter/importer specific

assessment rate for each class or kind of

antifriction bearings.

Exporter’s Sales Price Sales: For ESP

sales, which we sampled, we divided

the total dumping margin for the

reviewed sales by the total entered value

of those reviewed sales for the importer.

We will direct Customs to assess the

resulting percentage margin against the

entered Customs values for the subject

merchandise on entries under the

relevant order during the review period.

While the Department is aware that the

entered value of sales during the period

of review (POR) is not necessarily equal

to the entered value of entries during

the POR, use of entered value of sales

as the basis of the assessment rate

permits the Department to collect a

reasonable approximation of the

antidumping duties which would have

been determined if the Department had

reviewed those sales of merchandise

actually entered during the POR.

This notice 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 notice also serves as the only

reminder to parties subject to

administrative protective order (APO) of

their responsibility concerning the

return or destruction of proprietary

information disclosed under APO in

accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(d).

Failure to comply is a violation of the

APO.

This administrative review,

revocation, and notice are in accordance

with sections 751(a)(1) and 751(c) of the

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

353.22 and 353.25 of the Department’s

regulations (19 CFR 353.22 and 19 CFR

353.25).

Dated: June 21, 1996.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 96–16614 Filed 6–27–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P