[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 23 (Tuesday, February 4, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5200-5201]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-2714]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[Docket No. A-427-812]
Calcium Aluminate Flux From France; Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of final results of antidumping duty administrative
review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On August 2, 1996, the Department of Commerce (the Department)
published the preliminary results of its 1994-95 administrative review
of the antidumping duty order on calcium aluminate flux from France (CA
flux) (61 FR 40396). The review covers one manufacturer/exporter,
Lafarge Aluminate Flux, Inc. (Lafarge), for the period June 15, 1994,
through May 31, 1995.
We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on our
preliminary results. On September 3, 1996, we received a case brief
from the sole respondent, Lafarge. Based on our analysis of the
comments received, we have made changes, primarily clerical in nature,
to these final results.
EFFECTIVE DATE: February 4, 1997.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Maureen McPhillips or Linda Ludwig, Office of AD/CVD Enforcement, Group
III, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-3019 or 482-3833,
respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On August 2, 1996, the Department published in the Federal Register
(61 FR 40396) the preliminary results of the antidumping duty order on
calcium aluminate flux from France (59 FR 30337). The Department has
now completed this administrative review in accordance with section 751
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Tariff Act).
We received a case brief from the sole respondent, Lafarge, on
September 3, 1996. The petitioners did not file a case brief.
Applicable Statute and Regulations
Unless otherwise stated, all citations to the Tariff Act are
references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective
date of the amendments made to the Tariff 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).
Scope of the Review
Imports covered by this review are shipments of CA Flux, other than
white, high purity CA flux. This product contains by weight more than
32 percent but less than 65 percent alumina and more than one percent
each of iron and silica.
CA flux is currently classified under the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 2523.10.000. The HTSUS
is provided for convenience and U.S. Customs' purposes only. The
written description of the scope of this order remains dispositive.
This review covers the period June 15, 1994 through May 31, 1995.
Analysis of Comments Received
Comment 1: Lafarge states that the Department in its computer
program failed to convert two home market variables from metric tons to
short tons to ensure accurate comparisons to the U.S. sales amounts in
short tons. In addition, two variables expressed as amounts per short
ton were incorrectly multiplied by the quantity expressed in metric
tons.
Department's Position: As stated in our calculation memorandum,
dated August 16, 1996, we intended to convert all home market sales
variables from metric tons to short tons and have done so for these
final results.
Comment 2: Lafarge contends that we used an incorrect variable when
calculating total movement expenses.
[[Page 5201]]
Department's Position: We agree with Lafarge and have made the
necessary changes in the computer program.
Comment 3: Lafarge maintains that the Department erred in its
calculation of profit in the computer program when it failed to use the
information submitted by Lafarge on the total cost of manufacturing
(COM). In addition, Lafarge points out that the computer program does
not reflect the Department's intent, as stated in its notice of
preliminary results, to deduct the cost of goods sold, along with
selling and movement expenses, from total revenue in its calculation of
profit.
Department's Position: We did use the COM information as submitted
by Lafarge in short tons, not metric tons. To calculate profit for
these final results we converted the total home market costs to total
cost in short tons before adding it to the U.S. total cost which
Lafarge reported in short tons.
We agree with Lafarge that the cost of goods sold, along with
selling and movement expenses, should be deducted from total revenue to
calculate constructed export price profit. We have made this correction
in our final results.
Comment 4: Lafarge states that the Department should continue to
remove two zero quantity U.S. sales from the data base because these
observations represent billing corrections and not actual sales.
Department's Position: We agree with Lafarge and have not used
these two zero quantity U.S. sales in these final results.
Final Results of Review
As a result of our review, we determine that the following
weighted-average margin exists:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Period of Margin
Manufacturer/Exporter review (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lafarge Fondu Inter'l Inc................... 06/15/94-05/
31/95 31.04
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual
differences between export price and normal value may vary from the
percentage stated above. The Department will issue appraisement
instructions directly to the Customs Service.
Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective
upon publication of this notice of final results of review for all
shipments of calcium aluminate flux from France within the scope of the
order entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after
the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff
Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the reviewed company will be the
rate listed above; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated
companies not listed above, the 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-fair-value (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) for all other
producers and/or exporters of this merchandise, the cash deposit rate
of 37.93 percent, the ``all others'' rate established in the LTFV
investigation, 59 FR 5994, (February 9, 1994) shall remain in effect
until publication of the final results of the next administrative
review.
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 subsequent assessment
of double antidumping duties.
Notification of Interested Parties
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 of
return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial
protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the
regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. Timely
written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or
conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested.
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: January 27, 1997.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-2714 Filed 2-3-97; 8:45 am]1q01
BILLING CODE 3510-25-M