31922 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 121 / Friday, June 21, 1996 / Notices

respondent Usinor Sacilor and for the

‘‘All Others’’ rate:

Percent

Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel

Products .................................... 80.56

Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel

Products .................................... 78.68

Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Products .................... 39.40

Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon

Steel Plate ................................. 52.76

Following publication of the

Department’s amended final

determinations and antidumping order,

Usinor Sacilor filed lawsuits with the

CIT challenging the Department’s final

determinations. Thereafter, the CIT

issued Slip Opinion 94–197, dated

December 19, 1994, in Usinor Sacilor,

remanding the Department’s amended

final determinations on certain issues.

In that opinion, the CIT found that the

Department had improperly rejected

Usinor Sacilor’s revised and corrected

product concordance and then restored

the ‘‘best information available’’

(‘‘BIA’’). The court directed the

Department to accept the concordance.

The court also found that the

Department had improperly used BIA to

remedy Usinor Sacilor’s having

improperly coded a particular grade of

hot-rolled carbon steel. The court

directed the Department either to use

the relevant sales as coded or to allow

Usinor Sacilor to reclassify them.

In addition, the court rejected the

Department’s selection of the highest

non-aberrant margin as BIA for the

downstream sales of Usinor Sacilor’s

majority-owned steel service centers.

The court instructed the Department to

use, instead, the ‘‘weighted-average

calculated margin.’’ Finally, with regard

to the downstream sales of minorityowned steel service centers, the court

instructed the Department to determine

whether Usinor Sacilor controlled these

service centers. If the Department were

to find that Usinor Sacilor did control

them, we were to select the highest nonaberrant margin as BIA in a manner

consistent with the CIT’s ruling in

National Steel Corp. v. United States,

Slip op. 94–194 (December 13, 1994).

On the other hand, if the Department

were to determine that Usinor Sacilor

did not control the steel service centers

in which it had minority ownership, we

were to apply the ‘‘weighted-average

calculated margin’’ as BIA.

On remand, after finding that Usinor

Sacilor lacked operational control over

the minority-owned service centers, the

Department used the weighted-average

calculated margin as BIA for the

downstream sales of both the majorityand minority-owned service centers.

This weighted-average calculated

margin BIA consisted of individual

price-to-price margins, price-toconstructed value margins and

unchallenged BIA margins. The

Department also accepted Usinor

Sacilor’s revised and corrected

concordance and permitted the

company to correct the coding of the

miscoded grade of steel. On February

17, 1995, the Department filed its

required remand results with the CIT.

On November 9, 1995, the CIT issued

a second remand opinion, in which it

explained that it had intended that the

Department would use a weightedaverage calculated margin consisting

only of price-to-price and price-toconstructed value margins, not

including unchallenged margins based

on BIA. The Department submitted the

following recalculated weighted-average

margins to the CIT on December 12,

1995:

Percent

Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel

Products .................................... 25.80

Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel

Products .................................... 44.52

Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Products .................... 29.41

Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon

Steel Plate ................................. 52.76

On May 28, 1996, the CIT affirmed

these recalculated margins.

Suspension of Liquidation

In its decision in Timken, the CAFC

held that the Department must publish

notice of a decision of the CIT or the

CAFC which is not ‘‘in harmony’’ with

the Department’s final determination.

Publication of this notice fulfills this

obligation. Inasmuch as entries of the

subject merchandise already are being

suspended pursuant to the antidumping

order in effect, the Department need not

order the Customs Service to suspend

liquidation. Consistent with Timken,

the Department will order the Customs

Service to change the relevant cash

deposit rates in the event that the CIT’s

ruling is not appealed or the CAFC

issues a final decision affirming the

CIT’s ruling.

Dated: June 14, 1996.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 96–15805 Filed 6–20–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M

Determination Not to Revoke

Countervailing Duty Order

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Determination Not to

Revoke Countervailing Duty Order.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

(the Department) is notifying the public

of its determination not to revoke the

countervailing duty order listed below.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 21, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Brian Albright or Cameron Cardozo,

Office of Countervailing Compliance,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone:

(202) 482–2786.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On March 28, 1996, the Department

published in the Federal Register (61

FR 13847) its intent to revoke the

countervailing duty order listed below.

Under 19 CFR 355.25(d)(4)(iii), the

Secretary of Commerce will conclude

that an order is no longer of interest to

interested parties and will revoke the

order if no domestic interested party (as

defined in sections 355.2(i)(3), (i)(4),

(i)(5), and (i)(6) of the regulations)

objects to revocation and no interested

party requests an administrative review

by the last day of the 5th anniversary

month.

Within the specified time frame, we

received from a domestic interested

party either an objection to our intent to

revoke, or a request for administrative

review, for this countervailing duty

order. Therefore, because the

requirements of 19 CFR 355.25(d)(4)(iii)

have not been met, we will not revoke

the order.

This determination is in accordance

with 19 CFR 355.25(d)(4).

Countervailing duty order

Peru:

Pompon Chrysanthemums

(C–333–601).

04/23/87

52 FR 13491

Dated: June 12, 1996.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Compliance.

[FR Doc. 96–15804 Filed 6–20–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M