35188 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 130 / Friday, July 5, 1996 / Notices

1Allied Tube & Conduit and Wheatland Tube

Company.

2 Including Borusan Birlesik Boru Fabrikalar A.S.,

Kartal Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S., and Borusan

Ihracat Ithalat ve Dagitim A.S.

Company Period Margin

(percent)

Cheil .......................... 92–93 0

Cheil .......................... 93–94 0.01

Kolon ......................... 92–93 0.11

Kolon ......................... 92–93 0.12

SKC ........................... 92–93 5.89

SKC ........................... 93–94 0.52

STC ........................... 92–93 0.47

STC ........................... 93–94 0.93

Based upon the information

submitted by Cheil during these reviews

and the first administrative review, we

further determine that Cheil has met the

requirements for revocation set forth in

§ 353.25(a)(2) and § 353.25(b) of the

Department’s regulations. Cheil has

demonstrated three consecutive years of

sales at not less than fair value and has

submitted the certifications required

under 19 CFR 353.25(b)(1). The

Department conducted a verification of

Cheil as required under 19 CFR

353.25(c)(2)(ii).

On the basis of no sales at less than

FMV for a period of three consecutive

years, and the lack of any indication

that such sales are likely, the

Department concludes that Cheil is not

likely to sell the merchandise at less

than FMV in the future. Therefore, the

Department is revoking the order with

respect to Cheil.

The Customs Service shall assess

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. Individual differences between

USP and FMV may vary from the

percentages stated above. The

Department will issue appraisement

instructions concerning each

respondent directly to the U.S. Customs

Service.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective for all

shipments of the subject merchandise,

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after the

publication date of these final results of

administrative review, as provided for

by section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act: (1)

the cash deposit rate for the reviewed

firms will be the rates outlined above for

the third review period except for Cheil

and Kolon; because Kolon’s weightedaverage margin is de minimis, its cash

deposit rate will be zero percent;

because we are revoking Cheil, no cash

deposit will be required for Cheil; (2) for

previously reviewed or investigated

companies not listed above, 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 in the original 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

conducted by the Department, the cash

deposit rate will be 4.82 percent, the allothers rate established in the LTFV

investigation.

These deposit requirements shall

remain in effect until publication of the

final results of the next administrative

review.

This notice serves as the 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 these review periods.

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 a reminder

to parties subject to administrative

protective order (APO) of their

responsibility concerning the

disposition of proprietary information

disclosed under APO in accordance

with 19 CFR 353.34(d). Timely written

notification or conversion to judicial

protective order is hereby requested.

Failure to comply with the regulations

and the terms of the APO is a

sanctionable violation.

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 26, 1996.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 96–17159 Filed 7–3–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M

[A–489–501]

Notice of Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review: Certain Welded Carbon Steel

Pipe and Tube From Turkey

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

(the Department) is conducting an

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on certain

welded carbon steel pipe and tube from

Turkey in response to a request by the

petitioners.1 This review covers

shipments of this merchandise to the

United States during the period May 1,

1994, through April 30, 1995.

We have preliminarily determined

that sales have been made below normal

value (NV). If these preliminary results

are adopted in our final results, we will

instruct U.S. Customs to assess

antidumping duties equal to the

differences between the United States

price and NV.

Interested parties are invited to

comment on the preliminary results.

Parties who submit arguments are

requested to submit with each

argument: (1) A statement of the issue;

and (2) a brief summary of the

argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 5, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jennifer Stagner or Magd Zalok, Office

of Antidumping Investigations, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

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

telephone: (202) 482–1673 or (202) 482–

4162, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute and Regulations

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

On May 10, 1995 (60 FR 24831), the

Department published in the Federal

Register a notice of ‘‘Opportunity to

Request an Administrative Review’’ of

the antidumping duty order on Certain

Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube

from Turkey covering the period May 1,

1994, through April 30, 1995 (58 FR

53709). In accordance with 19 CFR

353.22(a)(1), in May 1995, the

petitioners requested a review of the

following producers and exporters of

certain welded carbon steel pipe and

tube: (1) The Borusan Group 2 (Borusan);

(2) Mannesmann-Sumerbank Boru

Industrisi T.A.S. (Mannesmann); (3)

Yucelboru Ihracat, Ithalat ve Pazarlama

A.S./Cayirova Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret

A.S. (Yucelboru); and (4) Erbosan
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 130 / Friday, July 5, 1996 / Notices 35189

Erviyas Boru Sanayii ve Ticaret A.S.

(Erbosan). On June 15, 1995, the

Department published a notice of

initiation of this antidumping duty

administrative review (60 FR 31447).

The Department is conducting this

administrative review in accordance

with section 751 of the Act.

On June 30 and November 13, 1995,

respectively, Yucelboru and

Mannesmann stated that they did not

have any shipments during the period of

review (POR). In November 1995,

Borusan and Erbosan submitted

responses to the Department’s

September 12, 1995, questionnaire. We

issued supplemental questionnaires to

Borusan and Erbosan in May 1996.

Responses to these questionnaires were

received in June 1996.

On January 16, 1996, the petitioners

alleged that Borusan made sales at

below its cost of production (COP). On

May 3, 1996, we initiated an

investigation of sales below cost. In June

1996, Borusan submitted a response to

the Department’s May 23, 1996, cost

questionnaire.

Scope of the Review

The products covered by this review

include circular welded non-alloy steel

pipes and tubes, of circular crosssection, not more than 406.4 millimeters

(16 inches) in outside diameter,

regardless of wall thickness, surface

finish (black, galvanized, or painted), or

end finish (plain end, bevelled end,

threaded and coupled). Those pipes and

tubes are generally known as standard

pipe, though they may also be called

structural or mechanical tubing in

certain applications. Standard pipes and

tubes are intended for the low pressure

conveyance of water, steam, natural gas,

air, and other liquids and gases in

plumbing and heating systems, air

conditioner units, automatic sprinkler

systems, and other related uses.

Standard pipe may also be used for light

load-bearing and mechanical

applications, such as for fence tubing,

and for protection of electrical wiring,

such as conduit shells.

The scope is not limited to standard

pipe and fence tubing, or those types of

mechanical and structural pipe that are

used in standard pipe application. All

carbon steel pipes and tubes within the

physical description outlined above are

included in the scope of this review,

except for line pipe, oil country tubular

goods, boiler tubing, cold-drawn or

cold-rolled mechanical tubing, pipe and

tube hollows for redraws, finished

scaffolding, and finished rigid conduit.

Imports of these products are

currently classifiable under the

following Harmonized Tariff Schedule

of the United States (HTSUS)

subheadings: 7306.30.10.00,

7306.30.50.25, 7306.30.50.32,

7306.30.50.40, 7306.30.50.55,

7306.30.50.85, and 7306.30.50.90.

Although the HTSUS subheadings are

provided for convenience and customs

purposes, our written description of the

scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

Facts Available

In November 1995, we received a

questionnaire response from Erbosan. In

addition, Erbosan responded to a

supplemental questionnaire in June

1996. In its responses, Erbosan did not

provide: (1) The data necessary for the

Department to quantify the cost

attributable to physical differences in its

U.S. and home market merchandise; (2)

U.S. and home market packing

expenses; and (3) duty drawback

amounts.

Section 776(a)(1) states that if

necessary information is not available

on the record, the Department ‘‘shall,

subject to section 782(d), use the facts

otherwise available in reaching the

applicable determination under this

title.’’ Section 782(e) provides that the

Department shall not decline to

consider information that is submitted

by an interested party and is necessary

to the determination but does not meet

all the applicable requirements

established by the Department if: (1)

The information is submitted by the

deadline established for its submission;

(2) the information can be verified; (3)

the information is not so incomplete

that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for

reaching the applicable determination;

(4) the interested party has

demonstrated that it acted to the best of

its ability in providing the information

and meeting the requirements

established by the Department with

respect to the information; and (5) the

information can be used without undue

difficulties. Accordingly, in using the

facts available, the Department may

disregard information submitted by a

respondent if any of the five criteria has

not been met.

Due to the above-referenced

omissions, we have determined that

Erbosan’s response is so incomplete that

it cannot serve as a reliable basis for

calculating dumping margins for these

preliminary results (section 782(e)(3) of

the Act). Therefore, pursuant to section

776(a) of the Act, we are using facts

available to calculate a margin for

Erbosan.

The Department must then determine

whether an adverse inference is

warranted. Section 776(b) of the Act

provides that, where the Department

‘‘finds that an interested party has failed

to cooperate by not acting to the best of

its ability to comply with a request for

information from (the Department)

* * * (the Department) may use an

inference that is adverse to the interests

of that party in selecting from among the

facts otherwise available.’’

Despite there being insufficient

information to calculate a preliminary

margin, we believe that Erbosan has

cooperated to the best of its ability in

supplying the requested information in

this review. Therefore, we are not using

an adverse inference in selecting from

among the facts otherwise available (see

section 776(b) of the Act).

Erbosan is a new respondent that has

not been investigated before. Therefore,

its past entries have been subject to the

‘‘All Others’’ rate from the original

investigation. We have determined that

continued use of the rate is warranted

as a cooperative facts available rate for

purposes of these preliminary results.

Accordingly, we have assigned to

Erbosan a margin of 14.74 percent, the

‘‘All Others’’ rate from the original

investigation.

Section 776(c) of the Act provides that

the Department shall, to the extent

practicable, corroborate secondary

information from independent sources

reasonably at its disposal. The

Statement of Administrative Action

(SAA), provides that ‘‘corroborate’’

means simply that the Department will

satisfy itself that the secondary

information to be used has probative

value (see H. Doc. 316, Vol. 1, 103d

Cong., 2d Sess. 870 (1996).

To corroborate secondary information,

the Department will, to the extent

practicable, examine the reliability and

relevance of the information to be used.

However, unlike for other types of

information, such as input costs or

selling expenses, there are no

independent sources for calculated

dumping margins. Thus, in an

administrative review, if the Department

chooses as 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

facts available, the Department will

disregard the margin and determine an

appropriate margin (see, e.g., Fresh Cut

Flowers from Mexico: Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review (61 FR 6812, 6814, February 22,

1996)) (where the Department
35190 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 130 / Friday, July 5, 1996 / Notices

disregarded the highest margin as

adverse best information available

because the margin was based on

another company’s uncharacteristic

business expense resulting in an

unusually high margin). In this case

there are no circumstances present to

indicate that the selected margin is not

appropriate to use as facts available.

Although we are using facts available

for the preliminary results, we intend to

provide Erbosan an opportunity to

submit the missing information

referenced above as part of a response

to another supplemental questionnaire.

If Erbosan’s reported information is

accurate, complete and verified, we will

use such information in the final results.

Product Comparisons

In accordance with section 777A(d)(2)

of the Act, we calculated for Borusan

transaction-specific Export Prices (EPs)

for comparison to either weightedaverage NVs or constructed values. The

EPs and NVs were calculated and

compared by product characteristics

and levels of trade. For price to price

comparisons, we compared identical

merchandise, where possible. Where

there were no sales of identical

merchandise in the home market to

compare to U.S. sales, we made similar

comparisons based on the

characteristics listed in the

Department’s antidumping

questionnaire. We excluded certain

products in the home market from our

analysis because there were either

missing values or because the

merchandise was not part of the foreign

like product.

Level of Trade

As set forth in section 773(a)(1)(B)(i)

of the Act and in the SAA

accompanying the URAA, at 829–831, to

the extent practicable, the Department

will calculate normal value based on

sales at the same level of trade as the

U.S. sales. When the Department is

unable to find sales in the comparison

market at the same level of trade as the

U.S. sale(s), the Department may

compare sales in the U.S. and foreign

markets at different levels of trade (see

also, Final Determination of Sales at

Less Than Fair Value: Certain Pasta

from Italy (61 FR 30326, June 14, 1996)

(Pasta from Italy)).

In accordance with section

773(a)(7)(A) of the Act, if sales at

different levels of trade are compared,

the Department will adjust the normal

value to account for the difference in

level of trade if two conditions are met.

First, there must be differences between

the actual selling functions performed

by the seller at the level of trade of the

U.S. sale and the level of trade of the

normal value sale. Second, the

differences must affect price

comparability as evidenced by a pattern

of consistent price differences between

sales at the different levels of trade in

the market in which normal value is

determined.

In implementing these principles in

this case, the Department’s first task was

to obtain information about the selling

activities of the producers/exporters.

Information relevant to level of trade

comparisons and adjustments was

requested of Borusan in our May 1996

supplemental questionnaire. We asked

Borusan to establish any claimed levels

of trade based on the selling functions

provided to each proposed customer

group, and to document and explain any

claims for a level of trade adjustment.

Our review of Borusan’s submission

shows that it has identified levels of

trade based on its selling activities by

customer categories and channels of

distribution. In order to confirm

whether separate levels of trade actually

existed within or between the U.S. and

home markets, we reviewed the selling

functions attributable to the levels of

trade claimed by Borusan. Pursuant to

section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, and

the SAA at 827, in identifying levels of

trade for directly observed export price

and normal value sales, we considered

the selling functions reflected in the

starting price, before any adjustments.

In reporting selling functions, whenever

sales within a level of trade were made

by or through an affiliated company or

agent, Borusan ‘‘collapsed’’ the affiliated

parties before considering the functions

performed.

The selling functions and activities

examined for each reported level of

trade were: (1) Inventory maintenance;

(2) technical services; (3) warranty

services; (4) customer advice and

product information; (5) agent

coordination of production and

delivery; (6) general vs. speciality sales

staff; (7) delivery arrangements; (8) sales

from warehouse vs. direct sales; and (9)

direct advertising. We did not consider

trade discounts as a selling function (see

Pasta from Italy).

In reviewing the selling functions

reported by Borusan for each claimed

level of trade, we considered all types

of selling functions, both claimed and

unclaimed, that had been performed.

Where possible, we further examined

whether the selling function was

performed on a substantial portion of

sales within the relevant level of trade.

In analyzing whether separate levels of

trade exist in this review, we found that

no single selling function in the pipe

and tube industry was sufficient to

warrant a separate level of trade (see,

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and

Request for Public Comments (61 FR

7307, 7348, February 27, 1996)).

In determining whether separate

levels of trade existed in or between the

U.S. and home markets, the Department

considered the level of trade claims of

Borusan, but the ultimate decision was

based on the Department’s analysis of

the selling functions associated with the

levels of trade reported by Borusan.

For Borusan, we determined that

there is one U.S. level of trade and three

home market levels of trade, one of

which we determined to be identical in

aggregate selling functions to that found

in the United States. We compared sales

at the sole level of trade in the U.S.

market to sales at the identical home

market level of trade. If no match was

available at the same level of trade, we

compared sales at the sole level of trade

in the U.S. market to sales at the next

most similar home market level of trade.

We then examined whether a level of

trade adjustment was appropriate for

Borusan when comparing sales at its

U.S. level of trade to sales at the two

non-identical home market levels of

trade.

To determine whether a level of trade

adjustment was necessary, we

examined, on a monthly basis, the

prices of comparable product categories,

net of all adjustments, between sales at

the one identical home market level of

trade and sales at each of the two nonidentical home market levels of trade.

We found a consistent pattern of price

differences between sales at these levels

of trade. Therefore, for non-identical

level of trade matches, we made a level

of trade adjustment based on the

weighted-average difference between

the prices of the product at the identical

home market level of trade and each of

the products at the two non-identical

home market levels of trade in the given

month. If no match was found, we

compared EP to constructed value.

Fair Value Comparisons

To determine whether sales of pipe

and tube to the United States were made

at less than fair value, we compared the

EP to the NV, as described in the

‘‘Export Price’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’

sections of this notice.

Turkey experienced an inflation rate

of over 75 percent during the POR, as

measured by the wholesale price index

published in International Financial

Statistics. Accordingly, to avoid the

distortions caused by the effects of this

level of inflation on prices, we limited

our comparisons to sales in the same

month and did not apply the

Department’s 90/60 day rule.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 130 / Friday, July 5, 1996 / Notices 35191

Export Price

For Borusan, we calculated EP in

accordance with section 772(a) of the

Act, because the subject merchandise

was sold directly to the first unaffiliated

purchaser in the United States prior to

importation and Constructed Export

Price (CEP) methodology was not

otherwise warranted based on the facts

of this investigation.

We based EP on prices to unaffiliated

purchasers in the United States. We

made deductions from the starting price

(gross unit price), where appropriate, for

foreign inland freight, foreign inland

insurance, international freight and

charges. We recalculated credit

expenses due to errors in Borusan’s

credit methodology. Additionally, we

added countervailing duties and duty

drawback. We disallowed Borusan’s

claimed value-added tax drawback

because no statutory authority exists for

such an adjustment.

Normal Value

In order to determine whether there

was a sufficient volume of sales in the

home market to serve as a viable basis

for calculating NV, we compared

Borusan’s volume of home market sales

of the foreign like product to the volume

of its U.S. sales of the subject

merchandise, in accordance with

section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. Since

Borusan’s aggregate volume of home

market sales of the foreign like product

was greater than five percent of its

aggregate volume of U.S. sales for the

subject merchandise, we determined

that the home market was viable. We

calculated NV as noted in the ‘‘Price to

Price Comparisons’’ and ‘‘Price to CV

Comparisons’’ sections of this notice.

Cost of Production Analysis

Based on the petitioner’s allegation,

the Department found reasonable

grounds to believe or suspect that

Borusan’s sales in the home market

were made at prices below the cost of

producing the merchandise. As a result,

the Department initiated an

investigation to determine whether

Borusan made home market sales during

the POR at prices below its COP within

the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act.

A. Calculation of COP

We calculated the COP based on the

sum of Borusan’s cost of materials and

fabrication for the foreign like product,

plus amounts for home market selling,

general, and administrative expenses

(SG&A) and packing costs in accordance

with section 773(b)(3) of the Act. As

noted above, we determined that the

Turkish economy experienced

significant inflation during the POR.

Therefore, in order to avoid the

distortive effect of inflation on our

comparison of costs and prices, we

requested that Borusan submit monthly

production costs incurred during each

month of the POR. For a small number

of sales, Borusan did not report

production costs. These sales were not

matched to any U.S. sales. We therefore

excluded these sales from our analysis.

We calculated a simple-average cost for

each product after indexing the reported

monthly costs of manufacturing during

the POR to an equivalent currency level

using the wholesale price index for

Turkey. The simple-average cost of

manufacturing was then restated in the

currency value of each respective month

and used to calculate monthly COP and

CV for each product. We relied on

Borusan’s submitted costs except in the

following specific instances where the

reported costs were improperly valued:

(1) Borusan reduced its reported coil

costs by inventory holding gains. Our

current cost methodology for economies

with significant inflation requires

valuing any materials used to produce

the subject merchandise at the average

purchase price of those materials during

the month of shipment. We therefore

adjusted coil costs by removing these

holding gains.

(2) Borusan reported interest expenses

which reflect a deduction for foreign

exchange gains. We adjusted these

interest expenses by excluding the

foreign exchange gains since Borusan

did not describe the nature of the

transactions giving rise to the gains.

B. Test of Home Market Prices

We used Borusan’s adjusted monthly

COP amounts and the wholesale price

index from the government of Turkey’s

State Institute of Statistics to compute

an annual weighted average COP for the

POR. We compared the weightedaverage COP figures to home market

sales of the foreign like product as

required under section 773(b) of the Act,

in order to determine whether these

sales had been made at prices below the

COP. On a product-specific basis, we

compared the COP to the home market

prices, less any applicable movement

charges, rebates, and direct selling

expenses.

C. Results of COP Test

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of

the Act, where less than 20 percent of

a respondent’s sales of a given product

were at prices less than the COP, we did

not disregard any below-cost sales of

that product because we determined

that the below-cost sales were not made

in ‘‘substantial quantities.’’ Where 20

percent or more of a respondent’s sales

of a given product were at prices less

than the COP, we disregarded the

below-cost sales where such sales were

found to be made at prices which would

not permit the recovery of all costs

within a reasonable period of time (in

accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of

the Act). Where all sales of a specific

product were at prices below the COP,

we disregarded all sales of that product,

and calculated NV based on CV, in

accordance with section 773(a) of the

Act.

We found that, for certain pipe and

tube products, more than 20 percent of

Borusan’s home market sales were sold

at below the COP. Further, we did not

find that the prices for these sales

provided for the recovery of costs

within a reasonable period of time. We

therefore excluded these sales from our

analysis and used the remaining abovecost sales as the basis for determining

NV, in accordance with section

773(b)(1). For those pipe and tube

products for which there were no abovecost sales in the ordinary course of

trade, we compared export prices to CV.

D. Calculation of CV

In accordance with section 773(e)(1)

of the Act, we calculated CV based on

the sum of Borusan’s cost of materials,

fabrication, SG&A and U.S. packing

costs as reported in the U.S. sales

databases. In accordance with section

773(e)(2)(A), we based SG&A and profit

on the actual amounts incurred and

realized by Borusan in connection with

the production and sale of the foreign

like product in the ordinary course of

trade, for consumption in the foreign

country. We calculated CV based on the

methodology described in the

calculation of COP above. For selling

expenses, we used the weighted-average

home market selling expenses.

Price to Price Comparisons

For those comparison products for

which there were sales at prices above

the COP, we based NV on home market

prices. For Borusan, we calculated NV

based on FOB mill/warehouse or

delivered prices to unaffiliated

customers, or prices to affiliated

customers which were determined to be

at arm’s length (see discussion below

regarding these sales). We made

deductions, where appropriate, from the

starting price for inland freight, pre-sale

warehouse expense, discounts, and

rebates. We recalculated credit expenses

to correct for missing payment dates.

Additionally, we added late payment

charges. In accordance with section

773(a)(6) of the Act, we deducted home

market packing costs and added U.S.

packing costs.
35192 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 130 / Friday, July 5, 1996 / Notices

In addition, we adjusted for

differences in the circumstances of sale,

in accordance with section 773

(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. These

circumstances included differences in

imputed credit expenses. We also made

adjustments, where appropriate, for

physical differences in the merchandise

in accordance with section

773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. We calculated

simple average variable and total costs

of manufacturing by product after

indexing the reported monthly costs

using the wholesale price index for

Turkey. We then indexed the average

variable and total costs of

manufacturing to restate them in the

currency value of each respective

month. The adjusted monthly variable

costs of manufacturing for U.S. and

home market products were then

compared to arrive at the difference in

merchandise adjustment. For a single

U.S. product, where no costs were

reported, we assigned the highest

reported U.S. variable cost of

manufacture as facts available. Where

the difference in merchandise

adjustment for any product comparison

exceeded 20 percent, we based normal

value on CV.

To determine whether Borusan’s

affiliated sales were made at arm’s

length, we compared the gross unit

prices of sales to affiliated and

unaffiliated customers net of all

movement charges, direct and indirect

selling expenses, and packing (see the

Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value; Certain Cold-Rolled

Carbon Steel Flat Products from

Argentina (58 FR 37062, 37077, July 9,

1993)). We included those sales that

passed the arm’s length test in our

analysis (see 19 CFR 353.45(a)).

Price to CV Comparisons

Where we compared CV to export

prices, we deducted from CV the

weighted-average home market direct

selling expenses and added the

weighted-average U.S. product-specific

direct selling expenses.

Currency Conversion

The Department’s preferred source for

daily exchange rates is the Federal

Reserve Bank. However, the Federal

Reserve Bank does not track or publish

exchange rates for the Turkish lira.

Therefore, we made currency

conversions based on the daily

exchange rates from the Dow Jones

Service, as published in the Wall Street

Journal.

Section 773A(a) directs the

Department to use a daily exchange rate

in order to convert foreign currencies

into U.S. dollars, unless the daily rate

involves a ‘‘fluctuation.’’ It is the

Department’s practice to find that a

fluctuation exists when the daily

exchange rate differs from a benchmark

rate by 2.25 percent. The benchmark

rate is defined as the rolling average of

the rates for the past 40 business days.

However, we believe that it is

appropriate in this case to use actual

daily exchange rates for currency

conversion purposes, rather than the

benchmark rate. As noted in Policy

Bulletin 96–1: Currency Conversions (61

FR 9434, March 8, 1996), the

Department is continuing to examine

the appropriateness of the currency

conversion policy in situations where

the foreign currency depreciates

substantially against the dollar over the

POI. In those situations, it may be

appropriate to rely on daily exchange

rates. When the rate of domestic price

inflation is significant, as it is in this

case, it is important that we use as a

basis for NV home market prices that are

as contemporaneous as possible with

the date of the U.S. sale. This is to

minimize the extent to which calculated

dumping margins are overstated or

understated due solely to price inflation

that occurred in the intervening time

period between the U.S. and home

market sales. For this reason, we have

used the daily exchange rates for

currency conversion purposes.

Further, section 773A(b) directs the

Department to allow a 60 day

adjustment period when a currency has

undergone a sustained movement. Such

an adjustment period is required only

when the foreign currency is

appreciating against the U.S. dollar. No

adjustment period is warranted in this

review, because the Turkish Lira

generally remained constant or

depreciated against the dollar during the

POR.

Verification

On June 7, 1996, the petitioners

requested that the Department conduct

verification of all factual information

submitted by the respondents upon

which the Department relies in its final

results. Although this request was

untimely and therefore not in

accordance with 19 CFR 351.307(v)(A),

the petitioners stated that this request

should not be rejected due to the fact

that: (1) No verification has been

conducted in a review of the order since

the 1986–87 administrative review; (2) a

sales below cost of production

investigation had only recently been

initiated; and (3) no response had been

received on petitioners’ request for a

verification of the 1993–94

administrative review. The petitioners

stated that the delay in the completion

of the 1993–94 review had impeded

their ability to timely assess the need for

verification in this review.

Although the petitioners’ request was

untimely, we believe that in this case,

good cause for verification exists

pursuant to 19 CFR 353.36(a)(iii) since:

(1) No verification has been conducted

since the 1986–87 administrative

review; (2) we expect that there will be

significant post-preliminary results

submissions of information; and (3) this

review includes a company (Erbosan)

that has never been subject to a

verification. Therefore, pursuant to

section 776(b) of the Act and 19 CFR

353.36, we plan to verify the sales and

cost response of Borusan and the sales

response of Erbosan (provided that

Erbosan responds in full to the next

supplemental questionnaire) in this

administrative review.

Preliminary Results of Review

As a result of our review, we

preliminarily determine that the

following margins exist for the period

May 1, 1994, through April 30, 1995:

Manufacturer/exporter Review period Margin

(percent)

Borusan ....... 5/1/94–4/30/95 2.97

Erbosan ....... 5/1/94–4/30/95 14.74

Mannesmann 5/1/94–4/30/95 3 23.12

Yucelboru .... 5/1/94–4/30/95 4 28.28

3 No shipments subject to the review. Rate

is from the last relevant segment of the proceeding in which the firm had shipments. 4 Ibid.

Parties to the proceeding may request

disclosure within 5 days of publication

of this notice. Any interested party may

request a hearing within 10 days of the

date of publication. Any hearing, if

requested, will be held 44 days after the

date of publication, or the first workday

thereafter. Interested parties may submit

case briefs within 30 days of the date of

publication. Rebuttal briefs, 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 the final results of

this administrative review, which will

include the results of its analysis of

issues raised in any such written

comments.

The Department shall determine, and

the U.S. Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. Individual differences between

EP and NV may vary from the

percentages stated above. Upon

completion of this review, the

Department will issue appraisement

instructions directly to the U.S. Customs

Service.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 130 / Friday, July 5, 1996 / Notices 35193

Furthermore, the following deposit

rates will be effective upon publication

of the final results of this administrative

review for all shipments of pipe and

tube from Turkey entered, or withdrawn

from warehouse, for consumption on or

after the publication date, as provided

by section 752(a)(2)(c) of the Act: (1)

The cash deposit rates for Borusan and

Erbosan will be the rates established in

the final results of this review, except if

the rate is less than 0.5 percent and,

therefore, de minimis within the

meaning of section 733(b)(3) of the Act,

the cash deposit will be zero; (2) for

previously reviewed or investigated

companies not listed above, 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 original less-than-fairvalue (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

conducted by the Department, the cash

deposit rate will be the ‘‘All Others’’

rate, as set forth below.

On March 25, 1993, the U.S. Court of

International Trade (CIT), in Floral

Trade Council v. United States, 822

F.Supp. 766 (CIT 1993), and FederalMogul Corporation v. United States, 822

F.Supp. 782 (CIT 1993), decided that

once an ‘‘All Others’’ rate is established

for a company, it can only be changed

through an administrative review. The

Department has determined that in

order to implement this decision, it is

appropriate to reinstate the original ‘‘All

Others’’ rate from the LTFV

investigation (or that rate as amended

for correction of clerical errors or as a

result of litigation) in proceedings

governed by antidumping duty orders.

In proceedings governed by

antidumping findings, unless we are

able to ascertain the ‘‘All Others’’ rate

from the original investigation, the

Department has determined that it is

appropriate to adopt the ‘‘New Shipper’’

rate established in the first final results

of administrative review published by

the Department (or that rate as amended

for correction of clerical errors or as a

result of litigation) as the ‘‘All Others’’

rate for the purposes of establishing

cash deposits in all current and future

administrative reviews. Because this

proceeding is governed by an

antidumping duty order, the ‘‘All

Others’’ rate for the purposes of this

review will be 14.74 percent, the ‘‘All

Others’’ rate established in the LTFV

investigation.

These cash deposit requirements,

when imposed, shall remain in effect

until publication of the final results of

the next administrative review.

This notice 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.

Date: June 27, 1996.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 96–17160 Filed 7–3–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS-P

Duke University Medical Center; Notice

of Decision on Applications for Dutyfree Entry of Scientific Instruments

This is a decision 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 AM and 5:00 PM

in Room 4211, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th and Constitution

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

DECISION: Denied. Applicants have

failed to establish that domestic

instruments of equivalent scientific

value to the foreign instruments for the

intended purposes are not available.

REASONS: Section 301.5(e)(4) of the

regulations requires the denial of

applications that have been denied

without prejudice to resubmission if

they are not resubmitted within the

specified time period. This is the case

for the following dockets.

Docket Number: 95–104. Applicant:

Duke University Medical Center,

Durham, NC 27110. Instrument:

Stopped-Flow Spectrometer, Model

SX.17MV. Manufacturer: Applied

Photophysics Ltd., United Kingdom.

Date of Denial without Prejudice to

Resubmission: March 4, 1996.

Docket Number: 95–105. Applicant:

University of Washington, Department

of Physiology & Biophysics, Box

357290, Seattle, WA 98195–7290.

Instrument: Stopped-Flow

Spectrometer, Model SX.17MV.

Manufacturer: Applied Photophysics

Ltd., United Kingdom. Date of Denial

without Prejudice to Resubmission:

March 6, 1996.

Frank W. Creel,

Director, Statutory Import Programs Staff.

[FR Doc. 96–17161 Filed 7–3–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS-P

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

Dean John A. Knauss Marine Policy

Fellowship; Open for Applications

SUMMARY: In 1979, the National Sea

Grant College Program Office

(NSGCPO), in fulfilling its broad

educational responsibilities, initiated a

program to provide educational

experience in the policies and processes

of the Legislative and Executive

Branches of the Federal Government to

graduate students in marine related

fields. The Fellowship program accepts

applications once a year during the

month of September. All applicants

must submit an application to one of the

state Sea Grant College Programs in

their area.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

Shirley J. Fiske, Director, National Sea

Grant Federal Fellows Program,

National Sea Grant College Program,

1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring,

Maryland 20910, telephone (301) 713–

2431 extension 148 or call your nearest

Sea Grant program:

University of Alaska—(907) 474–7086

University of California—(619) 534–

4440

University of Connecticut—(860) 445–

3457

University of Delaware—(302) 831–2841

University of Florida—(904) 392–5870

University of Georgia—(706) 542–6009

University of Hawaii—(808) 956–7031

University of Illinois—(317) 494–3593

Louisiana State University—(504) 388–

6710

University of Maine—(207) 581–1436

University of Maryland—(301) 405–

6371

Massachusetts Institute of Technology—

(617) 253–7131

University of Michigan—(313) 763–1437

University of Minnesota—(218) 726–

8106

Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant

Consortium—(601) 875–9341

University of New Hampshire—(603)

862–3505

New Jersey Marine Science

Consortium—(908) 872–1300

State University of New York—(516)

632–6905