35724 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 131 / Monday, July 8, 1996 / Notices

entered value of the merchandise. For

these situations, we have either

calculated an approximate entered value

or an average unit dollar amount of

antidumping duty based on all sales

examined during the POR. (See

Antifriction Bearings (Other Than

Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts

Thereof from the Federal Republic of

Germany; Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review, 56 FR

31694 (July 11, 1991).) The Department

will issue appropriate appraisement

instructions directly to the Customs

Service upon completion of these

reviews.

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entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,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 the final results of

these administrative reviews, as

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

(1) the cash deposit rates for the

reviewed companies will be those rates

established in the final results of these

reviews (except that no deposit will be

required for firms with zero or de

minimis margins, i.e., margins less than

0.5 percent); (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 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) the cash

deposit rate for all other manufacturers

or exporters will continue to be the ‘‘all

others’’ rate made effective by the final

results of the 1991–92 administrative

reviews of these orders (see AFBs III).

As noted in those previous final results,

these rates are the ‘‘all others’’ rates

from the relevant LTFV investigations.

These deposit requirements, when

imposed, shall remain in effect until

publication of the final results of the

next administrative reviews.

This notice also 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.

These administrative reviews 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(c)(5).

Dated: June 27, 1996.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 96–17277 Filed 7–5–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[A–583–810]

Chrome-Plated Lug Nuts From Taiwan;

Preliminary Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review and

Termination in Part

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review and Termination in Part.

SUMMARY: In response to a request by the

petitioner, the Department of Commerce

(the Department) is conducting an

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on

chromeplated lug nuts from Taiwan.

The review covers 19 manufacturers/

exporters of the subject merchandise to

the United States for the period

September 1, 1994, through August 31,

1995. The review indicates the existence

of margins for all firms.

We have preliminarily determined

that sales have been made below normal

value (NV). If these preliminary results

are adopted in our final results of

administrative review, we will instruct

U.S. Customs to assess antidumping

duties equal to the difference between

export price and the NV.

Interested parties are invited to

comment on these preliminary results.

Parties who submit argument are

requested to submit with each argument

(1) and statement of the issue and (2) a

brief summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 8, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Todd Peterson or Thomas Futtner,

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) 482–4195 or 482–3814,

respectively.

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).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On September 20, 1991, the

Department published the antidumping

duty order on chrome-plated lug nuts

from Taiwan (56 FR 47736). The

Department published a notice of

‘‘Opportunity to Request Administrative

Review’’ on September 12, 1995 (60 FR

47349). The petitioner, Consolidated

International Automotive, Inc.

(Consolidated), requested that we

conduct an administrative review for

the period September 1, 1994, through

August 31, 1995. A respondent, Chuen

Chao Enterprise Company LTD (Chuen

Chao) requested an administrative

review of its sales. We published a

notice of ‘‘Initiation of Antidumping

and Countervailing Duty Administrative

Review’’ on October 12, 1995 (60 FR

53164), and sent questionnaires to the

following firms: Anmax Industrial Co.,

Ltd. (Anmax), Buxton International

Corporation (Buxton), Chu Fong

Metallic Electric Co. (Chu Fong),

Everspring Plastic Corp. (Everspring),

Gingen Metal Corp. (Gingen),

Goldwinate Associates, Inc.

(Goldwinate), Gourmet Equipment

Corporation (Gourmet), Hwen Hsin

Enterprises Co., Ltd. (Hwen), Kwan How

Enterprises Co., Ltd. (Kwan How), Kwan

Ta Enterprises Co. Ltd (Kwan Ta),

Kuang Hong Industries, Ltd. (Kuang),

Multigrand Industries Inc. (Multigrand),

San Chien Electric Industrial Works,

Ltd. (San Chien), San Shing Hardware

Works Co., Ltd. (San Shing), Transcend

International Co. (Transcend), Trade

Union International Inc./Top Line (Top

Line), Uniauto, Inc. (Uniauto), Wing

Tang Electrical Manufacturing

Company, Inc (Wing) and Chuen Chao.

On December 11, 1995, Chuen Chao

withdrew its request for administrative

review. Since Chuen Chao was the only

party which requested a review of its

sales, we are terminating the review of

Chuen Chao and its entries will be

liquidated at the rate at which they were

entered. Gourmet responded to the

questionnaire. Buxton and Uniauto are

related parties and so responded to the

questionnaire as one respondent.

Questionnaires that were sent to Chu

Fong, Kwan How, Kwan Ta, Everspring,

Gingen, Goldwinate, Multigrand and

Kuang were returned as undeliverable.

These firms will receive the ‘‘all others’’
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 131 / Monday, July 8, 1996 / Notices 35725

rate established in the less-than-fairvalue (LTFV) investigation, 6.93

percent.

The Department has now conducted

the administrative review in accordance

with section 751 of the Act.

Scope of the Review

On April 19, 1994, the Department

issued its Final Scope Clarifications on

Chrome-Plated lug Nuts from Taiwan

and the PRC. The scope, as clarified, is

described in the subsequent paragraph.

All lug nuts covered by this review

conform to the April 19, 1994 scope

clarification.

Imports covered by this review are

shipments of one-piece and two-piece

chrome-plated lug nuts, finished or

unfinished, more than 11/16 inches

(17.45 millimeters) in height and which

have a hexagonal (hex) size of at lease

3/4 inches (19.05 millimeters) but not

more than on inch (25.4 mm), plus or

minus 1/16 of an inch (1.59 mm). The

term ‘‘unfinished’’ refers to unplated

and/or unassembled chrome-plated lug

nuts. The subject merchandise is used

for securing wheels to cars, vans, trucks,

utility vehicles, and trailers. Zinc-plated

lug nuts, finished or unfinished, and

stainless-steel capped lug nuts are not in

the scope of this review. Chrome-plated

lock nuts are also not in the scope of the

review.

During the period of review (POR),

chrome-plated lug nuts were classifiable

under Harmonized Tariff Schedule

(HTS) subheading 7318.16.00.00.

Although the HTS subheading is

provided for convenience and Customs

purposes, our written description of the

scope of this review is dispositive.

Use of Facts Otherwise Available

We preliminarily determine that in

accordance with section 776(d) of the

Act, the use of facts available is

appropriate for Anmax, Hwen, San

Chien, San Shing, Transcend, Top Line,

and Wing because these firms did not

respond to the Department’s

antidumping questionnaire. The

Department finds that, in not

responding to the questionnaire, these

firms failed to cooperate by not acting

to the best of their ability to comply

with requests for information from the

Department. Because necessary

information is not available on the

record with regard to sales by these

firms as a result of their withholding the

requested information, we must make

our preliminary determination based on

facts otherwise available pursuant to

section 776(a) of the Act.

Where the department must base the

entire dumping margin for a respondent

in an administrative review on the facts

available because that respondent failed

to cooperate, section 776(b) authorizes

the Department to use an inference

adverse to the interests of the

respondent in choosing the facts

available. Section 776(b) also authorizes

the Department to use as adverse facts

available information derived from the

petition, the final determination, a

previous administrative review, or other

information placed on the record. The

statute also provides that the facts

otherwise available may be based on

secondary information. Because

information from prior proceedings

constitutes secondary information,

section 776(c) provides that the

Department shall, to the extend

practicable, corroborate that 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.

To corroborate secondary information,

the Department will, to the extent

practicable, examine the reliability and

relevance of the information to be used.

However, unlike other types of

information, such as input costs or

selling expenses, there are no

independent sources for calculated

dumping margins. The only source for

margins is administrative

determinations. Thus, in an

administrative review, if the Department

chooses as total adverse 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 adverse

facts available, the Department will

disregard the margin and determine an

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

Flowers from Mexico; Preliminary

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review (60 FR 49567),

where the Department disregarded the

highest margin as adverse facts available

because the margin was based on

another company’s uncharacteristic

business expense resulting in an

unusually high margin). No such

circumstances exist in this case which

would cause the Department to

disregard a prior margin. In this case,

we have used the highest rate from any

prior segment of the proceeding. 10.67

percent. This rate was calculated in the

Amendment to the Final Determination

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value (56 FR

47737), covering the period May 1, 1990

through October 31, 1990.

The Department also sent

questionnaires to Gourmet and Buxton/

Uniauto which provided us with

responses to our questionnaires.

However, while planning for

verification of these two firms, the

Department received submissions from

each firm stating that a verification

would produce the same results as in

previous reviews where the Department

was unable to reconcile the data

Gourmet and Buxton/Uniauto submitted

in their responses to our questionnaire

with their audited financial statements

(see Buxton/Uniauto and Gourmet

submissions dated March 28, 1996, and

May 1, 1996, respectively). Reliance on

the accounting system used for the

preparation of the audited financial

statements is a key and vital part of the

Department’s determination that a

company’s sales and constructed value

data are credible. Section 776(a)(2)(D)

states that the Department ‘‘shall,

subject to section 782(d), use the facts

otherwise available in reaching the

applicable determination under this

title’’ if an interested party or any other

person provides information but the

information can not be verified. Because

their submissions were unreconcilable

to their audited financial statements and

thus unverifiable, we have determined

to apply facts available to Gourmet and

Buxton/Uniauto. However, because

these firms cooperated with our request

for information, we are not using an

adverse inference in selecting from

among the facts otherwise available. In

this case, we have used Gourmet’s and

Buxton/Uniauto’s highest rates from a

prior review which are 6.47 percent and

6.93 percent respectively.

Preliminary Results of Review

As a result of this review, we

preliminarily determine that the

following margins exist for the period

September 1, 1994, through August 31,

1995:

Manufacturer/Exporter Percent

margin

Gourmet Equipment (Taiwan) Corporation ....................................... 6.47

Buxton International/Uniauto .......... 6.93

Chu Fong Metallic Electric Co ........ 6.93

Transcend International .................. 10.67

San Chien Industrial Works, Ltd ..... 10.67

Anmax Industrial Co., Ltd ............... 10.67

Everspring Plastic Corp .................. 6.93

Gingen Metal Corp ......................... 6.93

Goldwinate Associates, Inc ............ 6.93

Hwen Hsin Enterprises Co., Ltd ..... 10.67
35726 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 131 / Monday, July 8, 1996 / Notices

Manufacturer/Exporter Percent

margin

Kwan How Enterprises Co., Ltd ..... 6.93

Kwan Ta Enterprises Co., Ltd ........ 6.93

Kuang Hong Industries Ltd ............. 6.93

Multigrand Industries Inc ................ 6.93

San Shing Hardware Works Co.,

Ltd ............................................... 10.67

Trade Union International Inc./Top

Line .............................................. 10.67

Uiauto, Inc ....................................... 6.93

Wing Tang Electrical Manufacturing

Company ..................................... 10.67

Parties to the proceeding may request

disclosure within 5 days of the date of

publication of this notice in accordance

with 19 CFR 353.22(c)(6). Any

interested party may request a hearing

within 10 days of the date of publication

(19 CFR 353.38(b)). Any hearing, if

requested, will be held 44 days after

publication of this notice, or the first

workday thereafter. Interested parties

may submit case briefs within 30 days

after the date of publication of this

notice (19 CFR 353.38(c)). Rebuttal

briefs and rebuttal comments, which

must be 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 the final

results of review, including the results

of its analysis of issues raised in any

such written comments.

The Department shall determine, and

the Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. Individual differences between

export price and NV may vary from the

percentage stated above. Upon

completion of this review, the

Department will issue appraisement

instructions on each manufacturer/

exporter 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 the final results of

this administrative review, as provided

for by section 751(a)(2)(c) of the Act: (1)

The cash deposit rate for the reviewed

firms will be those firms’ rates

established in the final results of this

administrative review; (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 previous review, or 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 6.93 percent, the

‘‘all others’’ rate established in the LTFV

investigation.

These 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 Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1))

and 19 CFR 353.22.

Dated: July 1, 1996.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 96–17278 Filed 7–5–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M

Minority Business Development

Agency

Business Development Center

Applications: West Palm Beach,

Anaheim, Oxnard, and Cincinnati

AGENCY: Minority Business

Development Agency.

ACTION: Amendment.

SUMMARY: The Minority Business

Development Agency is revising the

announcement to solicit competitive

applications under its Minority

Business Development Center (MBDC)

Program to operate the West Palm

Beach, Anaheim, Oxnard, and

Cincinnati MBDCs. The revised closing

date for the West Palm Beach MBDC

application is July 22, 1996. Anaheim,

Oxnard, and Cincinnati closing dates

will be July 29, 1996. These solicitations

were originally published in the Federal

Register, Thursday, June 6, 1996, Vol.

61, No. 110, page 28847 and

Wednesday, June 12, 1996, Vol. 61, No.

114, pages 29733 and 29735.

11.800 Minority Business Development

Center

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance)

July 1, 1996.

Frances B. Douglas

Alternate Federal Register Liaison Officer,

Minority Business Development Agency.

[FR Doc. 96–17224 Filed 7–5–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–21–P

Business Development Center

Applications: Charleston, South

Carolina

AGENCY: Minority Business

Development Agency.

ACTION: Cancellation.

SUMMARY: The Minority Business

Development Agency is cancelling the

announcement to solicit competitive

applications under its Minority

Business Development Center (MBDC)

Program to operate the Charleston,

South Carolina MBDC. This solicitation

was originally published in the Federal

Register, Wednesday, June 12, 1996,

Vol. 61, No. 114, 29737.

11.800 Minority Business Development

Center

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance)

Dated: July 1, 1996.

Frances B. Douglas,

Alternate Federal Register Liaison Officer,

Minority Business Development Agency.

[FR Doc. 96–17223 Filed 7–5–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–21–P

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

[I.D. 070196B]

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management

Council; Meetings

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

SUMMARY: The Mid-Atlantic Fishery

Management Council’s Bluefish

Monitoring Committee will hold a

public meeting.

DATES: The meeting will be held on July

18, 1996 beginning at 10:00 a.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at

the Days Inn, 4101 Island Avenue,

Philadelphia, PA; telephone: (215) 492–

0400.

Council address: Mid-Atlantic Fishery

Management Council, 300 S. New

Street, Dover, DE 19901: telephone:

(302) 674–2331.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David R. Keifer, Executive Director,

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management

Council; telephone: 302–674–2331.