[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 13 (Friday, January 19, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1351-1356]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-463]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-489-805]
Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain Pasta From
Turkey
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 19, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Brinkmann or Michelle Frederick,
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) 482-5288 or (202) 482-0186, respectively.
The Applicable Statute
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (the Act) are references to the provisions effective
January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act
by the Uruguay Rounds Agreements Act (URAA).
Preliminary Determination
We determine that there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect
that certain pasta (pasta) from Turkey is being, or is likely to be,
sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided
in section 733(b) of the Act. The estimated margins of sales at LTFV
are shown in the ``Suspension of Liquidation'' section of this notice.
[[Page 1352]]
Case History
Since the initiation of this investigation on June 1, 1995 (60 FR
30268, June 8, 1995), the following events have occurred:
On June 26, 1995, the United States International Trade Commission
(ITC) issued an affirmative preliminary injury determination in this
case (see ITC Investigation No. 731-TA-734).
On July 10, 1995, the Department of Commerce (the Department)
determined that, due to limited resources, we would only be able to
analyze the responses of the two largest exporters of pasta to the
United States. The following two companies were named as mandatory
respondents in this investigation: Filiz Gida Sanayii ve Ticaret A.S.
(Filiz) and Maktas Makarnacilik ve Ticaret A.S. (Maktas). For a further
discussion, see the ``Mandatory and Voluntary Respondent Selection''
section of this notice. In accordance with 19 CFR 353.42(b), we issued
antidumping duty questionnaires concerning Sections A, B, C, and D of
the questionnaire to the two mandatory respondents on July 12, 1995.
Section A of the questionnaire requests general information concerning
the company's corporate structure and business practices, the
merchandise under investigation that it sells, and the sales of that
merchandise in all markets. Sections B and C of the questionnaire
request home market sales listings and U.S. sales listings. Section D
of the questionnaire requests information regarding the cost of
production of the foreign like product and the constructed value of the
merchandise under investigation.
The respondents submitted questionnaire responses in August and
September, 1995. The Department issued supplemental questionnaires in
September and October, 1995. Responses to these questionnaires were
received in October and November, 1995.
On August 25, 1995, the Department determined this investigation to
be extraordinarily complicated due to the complexity of the
transactions and novel issues presented as a result of this
investigation being one of the first cases conducted since the
implementation of the URAA. Consequently, the Department postponed the
preliminary determination until no later than December 8, 1995 (60 FR
45154, August 30, 1995) (extended six additional calendar days to
December 14, 1995 because of the federal government shutdown).
On October 11, 1995, the petitioners submitted a letter requesting
that the Department treat Maktas and certain of its customers as
affiliated parties pursuant to section 771(33) of the Act. The
Department has determined, for the purposes of this preliminary
determination, that there is no information on record to support the
petitioners' claim that Maktas and certain of its customers should be
treated as affiliated parties (see Concurrence Memorandum dated
December 14, 1995).
Mandatory Respondent Selection
Section 777A(c) of the Act states that the Department shall
calculate an individual dumping margin for each known exporter or
producer of the subject merchandise, except where this approach is not
practicable due to the large number of exporters or producers. Under
this exception, the Department may limit its examination to: (1) A
sample of exporters, producers, or types of products that is
statistically valid based on the information available at the time of
selection; or (2) exporters or producers accounting for the largest
volume of the subject merchandise from the exporting country that can
be reasonably examined. Section 353.44(b)(1) of the Department's
regulations states that the Department will normally examine not less
than 60% of the volume or value of sales, while section 353.59(b)(1)
provides for sampling when a significant volume of sales is involved.
The petitions filed against pasta from Italy and Turkey, listed 73
Italian companies and 15 Turkish companies as possible producers or
exporters of pasta to the United States. Other information available to
the Department indicated an equally large number of producers or
exporters. Since, at the time of respondent selection, there was
insufficient information on the record to employ statistically valid
sampling techniques, the Department focused its selection on the
producers and exporters accounting for the largest volume of exports to
the United States (see Sweaters Wholly or in Chief Weight of Man-Made
Fiber from Taiwan (58 FR 34585, (August 23, 1990)) and Fresh Cut Roses
from Colombia and Ecuador. (60 FR 13958, (March 15, 1995)). Based on
the administrative resources available to the Department and the
anticipated inclusion of many complex issues related to new provisions
of the Act, it was determined that the maximum total number of
companies that could be handled in the parallel pasta investigations
was ten. In a subsequent analysis of the volume of exports of
individual companies from Italy and Turkey, it was determined that
investigating ten companies would allow the Department to investigate
45 percent of the volume of exports from each country. In Italy, 45
percent was attained with the eight largest companies, while in Turkey
45 percent was attained with the two largest companies. A complete
analysis of the respondent selection process is contained in a July 7,
1995, decision memorandum from Gary Taverman to Barbara Stafford.
Voluntary Respondents
Section 782(a) of the Act states that individual rates shall be
calculated for firms which voluntarily provide information, except
where the number for all such respondents is so large that the
calculation of individual dumping margins for all such respondents
would be unduly burdensome and would prevent the timely completion of
the investigation. Based on the same reasoning that led the Department
to limit the number of respondents in the investigations to ten
companies (i.e. the large number of companies and administrative
resource constraints), the Department determined that no voluntary
respondents could be accepted unless one of the mandatory respondents
did not participate. (See the July 7, 1995, decision memorandum from
Gary Taverman to Barbara Stafford.) Potential voluntary respondents
were provided with specific written guidance on the Department's
criteria for including a voluntary respondent in the investigation.
Ultimately, no voluntary respondent attempted to fulfill the
Department's criteria for consideration.
Postponement of Final Determination
Pursuant to section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act, on December 11, 1995,
the respondents requested that, in the event of an affirmative
preliminary determination in this investigation, the Department
postpone its final determination until 135 days after the publication
of an affirmative preliminary determination in the Federal Register. In
accordance with 19 CFR 353.20(b), because our preliminary determination
is affirmative, the respondents account for a significant proportion of
exports of the subject merchandise, and no compelling reasons for
denial exist, we are granting respondents' request and postponing the
final determination.
Scope of Investigation
The scope of this investigation consists of certain non-egg dry
pasta in packages of five pounds (or 2.27 kilograms) or less, whether
or not enriched or fortified or containing milk
[[Page 1353]]
or other optional ingredients such as chopped vegetables, vegetable
purees, milk, gluten, diastases, vitamins, coloring and flavorings, and
up to two percent egg white. The pasta covered by this scope is
typically sold in the retail market, in fiberboard or cardboard cartons
or polyethylene or polypropylene bags, of varying dimensions.
Excluded from the scope of this investigation are refrigerated,
frozen, or canned pastas, as well as all forms of egg pasta, with the
exception of non-egg dry pasta containing up to two percent egg white.
The merchandise under investigation is currently classifiable under
item 1902.19.20 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and
customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this
investigation is dispositive.
Scope Issues
(1) On August 24, 1995, the petitioners requested that we expand
the scope to cover all imports of non-egg dry pasta for the retail and
the food service markets. We have determined that the scope should not
be expanded. For a discussion of this decision, see Preliminary
Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Pasta from
Turkey (60 FR 53747, October 17, 1995) and Memorandum to Susan G.
Esserman, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration dated October
10, 1995.
(2) On October 2, 1995, a U.S. importer of Italian pasta requested
that the Department exclude ``organic pasta'' from the scope of the
companion antidumping and countervailing duty investigations of certain
pasta from Italy. If a similar request is made for Turkey, the
Department will address it as stated in the Preliminary Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Pasta from Italy.
Period of Investigation
The period of investigation (POI) is May 1, 1994, through April 30,
1995.
Product Comparisons
In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all
products sold in the home market, fitting the description specified in
the ``Scope of Investigation'' section above, to be foreign like
products for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to
U.S. sales. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the
home market to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the
next most similar foreign like product on the basis of the
characteristics listed in Appendix III of the Department's antidumping
questionnaire.
Targeted Dumping
On October 20, 1995, the petitioners requested that, for all
respondents, the Department compare the transaction specific export
prices in the United States market to weighted-average normal values,
in accordance with the ``targeted dumping'' provisions of section
777A(d)(1)(B) of the Act. The petitioners' allegation rested on an
analysis of average retail prices of selected brands of pasta, rather
than on the export or constructed export prices of the respondents
which were already on the record in the investigation and thus
available to the petitioners. This request was denied by the Department
on November 8, 1995, on the grounds that the allegation did not meet
the requirements of section 777(A)(d)(1)(B) because it was not: (1)
Based on exporter specific prices; (2) exporter specific; and (3) based
on examination of ``comparable'' merchandise. See Memorandum from the
Pasta Team to Barbara R. Stafford dated November 8, 1995.
Level of Trade
As set forth in section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act and in the
Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) accompanying the Uruguay Round
Agreements Act, at 829-831, to the extent practicable, the Department
will calculate normal values 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 a
different level of trade.
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 differences in levels of trade if two
conditions are met. First, there must be differences between the
selling functions performed by the seller at the different levels of
trade. Second, the differences must affect price comparability as
evidenced by a pattern of consistent price differences between sales at
different levels of trade in the market in which normal value is
determined. When constructed export price is applicable, section
773(a)(7)(B) of the Act establishes the procedures for making a
constructed export price offset when: (1) Normal value is at a
different level of trade, and (2) the data available do not provide an
appropriate basis for a level of trade adjustment.
In order to identify levels of trade, the Department must review
information concerning selling functions of the exporter. In addition,
a respondent seeking to establish a level of trade adjustment must
demonstrate the appropriateness of such an adjustment. Therefore, in
addition to the questions related to the level of trade in our July 12,
1995, questionnaire, on October 23, 1995, we sent each respondent
supplemental questions related to level of trade comparisons and
adjustments. We asked each respondent to establish any claimed levels
of trade based on selling functions performed and services offered to
each customer or customer class, and to document and explain any claims
for a level of trade adjustment.
Upon review of each respondent's submissions on level of trade, and
other related information on the record, we identified one or both of
the following difficulties: (1) Not all of the selling functions
performed were identified; (2) although certain selling functions were
assigned to specific groups of customers, not all customers in some
identified groups were provided the service.
In light of these concerns, we reviewed each response to identify
all types of selling functions, both claimed and unclaimed, that had
been provided. We subsequently consolidated the selling functions into
four broad categories related to the sale of pasta: (1) Freight and
delivery services; (2) advertising; (3) maintaining finished goods
inventories to fill customer orders; and (4) other service programs
(primarily handling rebate and warranty claims). We then analyzed each
respondent's submissions to determine which selling function categories
applied to each pasta sale made in the U.S. and Turkish market. We did
this based on both the selling expenses reported for that transaction
and the respondent's narrative descriptions. Finally, we created a
computer program that assessed, on a transaction specific basis,
whether or not services corresponding to the four selling function
categories were provided.
To the extent practicable, we compared normal value at the same
level of trade as the U.S. sale (as indicated by the level of trade
codes established in the computer program). Where comparisons at the
same level of trade were not possible, we attempted a comparison at the
next most comparable level of trade. Any remaining unmatched U.S. sales
were compared to sales in the comparison market without regard to level
of trade.
Both Turkish respondents, Maktas and Filiz claimed a level of trade
[[Page 1354]]
adjustment for comparisons between different levels of trade. However,
these level of trade adjustments were not allowed because none of the
claimed adjustments were based on price differences between the two
levels of trade.
The level of trade methodology employed by the Department in this
preliminary determination is based on the facts particular to this
investigation. As stated above, there is a new emphasis on function of
the seller in determining level of trade, as well as new conditions for
a level of trade comparison or adjustment. The Department intends,
where appropriate, to request additional information prior to
verification for its continuing analysis of this issue. The Department
will continue to examine its policy for making level of trade
comparisons and adjustments.
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether sales of pasta by the two Turkish respondents
to the United States were made at less than fair value, we compared the
Export Price (EP) to the Normal Value (NV), as described in the
``Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice. In
accordance with section 777A(d)(1)(A)(i), we calculated weighted-
average EPs for comparisons to weighted-average NVs.
Turkey experienced an inflation rate of over 75 percent during the
POI, as measured by the wholesale price index published in
International Financial Statistics. In past cases, we have found
economies with annual inflation rates of over 50 percent to be
hyperinflationary. (See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Ferrosilicon From Brazil, 59 FR 732, January 6, 1994.)
We determined, therefore, that Turkey's economy was hyperinflationary
during the POI. Accordingly, to avoid the distortions caused by the
effects of hyperinflation on prices, we calculated EPs and NVs on a
monthly average basis, rather than on a POI average basis.
Export Price
For both Filiz and Maktas 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.
For Maktas, we based EP on packed, FOB Turkish port prices to
unaffiliated customers in the United States. We made deductions from
the starting price (gross unit price), where appropriate, for foreign
brokerage and handling and foreign inland freight. For Filiz we based
EP on packed, FOB Turkish port and C&F prices charged to unaffiliated
customers in the United States. We made deductions, where appropriate,
for foreign brokerage and handling, foreign inland freight, foreign
inland insurance, and ocean freight.
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 each respondent's volume of home market sales of the
foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject
merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. Since
each respondent'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 for each respondent. Maktas reported one sale made
during the POI to an affiliated party. Since this sale accounted for an
insignificant portion of the total POI home market sales, we excluded
this sale from our analysis. 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 allegation contained in the petition, the Department
found reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales in the home
market were made at prices below the cost of producing the merchandise.
As a result, the Department initiated investigations to determine
whether the respondents made home market sales during the POI at prices
below their respective cost of production (COP) within the meaning of
section 773(b) of the Act. (See Initiation of Antidumping Duty
Investigations: Certain Pasta from Italy and Turkey.)
A. Calculation of COP
We calculated the COP based on the sum of each respondent'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 was
hyperinflationary during the POI. Therefore, in order to avoid the
distortive effect of inflation on our comparison of costs and prices,
we requested that respondents submit monthly COP figures based on the
current production costs incurred during each month of the POI. We
relied on the respondents' COP amounts except in the following specific
instances wherein the reported costs were improperly valued:
Maktas. (1) Maktas excluded amounts reported as ``extraordinary''
expenses on its financial statements from its reported COP and
constructed value (CV) figures. These expenses were comprised of annual
plant cleaning costs as well as other amounts, the nature of which the
company did not disclose in its response to our July 12, 1995
questionnaire. We typically consider costs associated with normal plant
and equipment maintenance to be part of the cost of manufacturing (COM)
and have therefore included these expenses in our calculation of COP.
(2) Maktas reduced its reported interest expense by amounts
received in connection with foreign exchange gains. The company did not
respond to our October 13, 1995 request for additional information
regarding the nature of these gains. We therefore excluded Maktas'
reported foreign exchange gains from the company's net interest expense
calculation.
Filiz. (1) Filiz calculated its net interest expense using amounts
from its unconsolidated financial statements. Since the Department's
normal practice is to calculate interest expense on a consolidated
basis, we adjusted the company's reported net interest expense to
include the interest expense incurred by Filiz's parent company.
(2) Filiz reduced its reported interest expense by amounts received
in connection with foreign exchange gains. However, because Filiz
sourced its production inputs domestically during the POI, and since
the company did not disclose the nature of these amounts, we concluded
that the foreign exchange gains related to sales of merchandise by the
company rather than to its purchases of inputs for pasta production. We
therefore excluded Filiz's reported foreign exchange gains from the
company's net interest expense calculation.
B. Test of Home Market Prices
We used the respondents' 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 POI. We
compared the weighted-average 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
[[Page 1355]]
made at prices below COP. On a product specific basis, we compared the
COP to the home market prices, less any applicable movement charges,
rebates, and direct and indirect selling expenses.
C. Results of COP Test
Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(c) 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 only the
below-cost sales where such sales were found to be made within an
extended period of time (in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the
Act) and at prices which would not permit the recovery of all costs
within a reasonable period of time (in accordance with section
773(b)(2)(B) of the Act). For each respondent, 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 pasta products, more than 20 percent of
each respondent's home market sales were sold at below COP within an
extended period of time in substantial quantities. 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 above-cost sales as the basis
of determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1). For those
pasta products for which there were no above-cost 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 each respondent's cost of materials, fabrication,
SG&A and U.S. packing costs as reported in the U.S. sales databases. In
accordance with sections 773(e)(2)(A) we based SG&A and profit on the
amounts incurred and realized by each respondent 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 each
respondent's 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 Maktas, we
calculated NV based on ex-warehouse or delivered prices to unaffiliated
customers and made deductions, where appropriate, from the starting
price for inland freight, inland insurance, discounts, and rebates. For
Filiz, we calculated NV based on CIF prices to unaffiliated customers
and made deductions, where appropriate, from the starting price for
inland freight, inland insurance, discounts, and rebates. In accordance
with section 773(a)(6) of the Act, we deducted home market packing
costs and added U.S. packing costs for both respondents. In addition,
for both respondents, 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 and
advertising expenses. For both Filiz and Maktas, we recalculated credit
expenses by deducting reported discounts from the gross unit price.
Price to CV Comparisons
Where, for Filiz, 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''. For this preliminary
determination, we have determined 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. When we determined that a fluctuation existed,
we substituted the benchmark rate for the daily rate.
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 case, because the Turkish Lira generally remained constant or
depreciated against the dollar during the POI.
Verification
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we will verify all
information determined to be acceptable for use in making our final
determination.
Suspension of Liquidation
In accordance with section 733(d) of the Act, we are directing the
Customs Service to suspend liquidation of all entries of certain pasta
from Turkey, that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for
consumption, on or after the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register. Normally, we would instruct the U.S. Customs Service
to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the
weighted-average amount by which the normal value exceeds the export
price, as indicated in the chart below. However, the product under
investigation is also subject to concurrent countervailing duty
investigation. Article VI.5 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and
Trade (GATT) provides that ``[n]o product * * * shall be subject to
both antidumping and countervailing duties to compensate for the same
situation of dumping or export subsidization.'' This provision is
implemented by section 772(c)(1)(C) of the Act. Since antidumping
duties cannot be assessed on the portion of the margin attributable to
export subsides, there is no reason to require a cash deposit or bond
for that amount. The Department has determined, in its Preliminary
Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Pasta from
Turkey, that the product under investigation benefitted from export
subsidies. To obtain the most accurate estimate of antidumping duties,
and to fulfill our international obligations arising under the GATT, we
are subtracting for deposit purposes the cash deposit rate attributable
to the export subsidies found in the countervailing duty investigation
(14.72 percent and 19.80 percent for Filiz and Maktas, respectively)
from the antidumping bonding rate for Maktas and Filiz. We are also
subtracting from the ``All Others'' rate the cash deposit rate
attributable to the export subsidies included in the countervailing
duty investigation for All Others. In keeping with Article of 17.4 of
the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, the
[[Page 1356]]
Department will terminate the suspension of liquidation in the
companion countervailing duty investigation of Certain Pasta From
Turkey, effective February 14, 1995, which is 120 days after the date
of publication of the preliminary determination. Accordingly, on
February 14, 1996, the antidumping deposit rate will revert to the full
amount calculated in this preliminary determination. These suspension
of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
average Bonding
Exporter/manufacturer margin percentage
percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Filiz......................................... 10.44 0.00
Maktas........................................ 18.80 0.00
All Others.................................... 15.61 0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ITC Notification
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the
ITC of our determination. If our final determination is affirmative,
the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of
this preliminary determination or 45 days after our final determination
whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material
injury to, the U.S. industry.
Public Comment
In accordance with 19 CFR 353.38, case briefs or other written
comments in at least ten copies must be submitted to the Assistant
Secretary for Import Administration no later than April 2, 1996, and
rebuttal briefs, no later than April 5, 1996. A list of authorities
used and an executive summary of issues should accompany any briefs
submitted to the Department. Such summary should be limited to five
pages total, including footnotes. In accordance with 19 CFR 353.38, we
will hold a public hearing, if requested, to afford interested parties
an opportunity to comment on arguments raised in case or rebuttal
briefs. Tentatively, the hearing will be held on April 9, 1996, time
and place to be determined, at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230. Parties
should confirm by telephone the time, date, and place of the hearing 48
hours before the scheduled time.
Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate
if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant
Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room
B-099, within ten days of the publication of this notice. Requests
should contain: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number;
(2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of the issues to be
discussed. In accordance with 19 CFR 353.38(b), oral presentations will
be limited to issues raised in the briefs. If this investigation
proceeds normally, we will make our final determination by 135 days
after the publication of this notice in the Federal Register.
This determination is published pursuant to section 733(f) of the
Act.
Dated: December 14, 1995.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-463 Filed 1-18-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
