[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