[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 6 (Friday, January 9, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1430-1434]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-485]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-201-504]
Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware From Mexico: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of antidumping duty
administrative review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In response to a request by the petitioner, General Housewares
Corporation, the Department of Commerce is conducting an administrative
review of the antidumping duty order on porcelain-on-steel cookware
from Mexico. This review covers Cinsa, S.A. de C.V. and Esmaltaciones
de Norte America, S.A. de C.V., manufacturers/exporters of the subject
merchandise to the United States. The period of review is December 1,
1995, through November 30, 1996.
We preliminarily determine that sales have been made below normal
value. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of
administrative review, we will instruct the Customs Service to assess
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries.
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary
results. Parties who submit arguments in this proceeding should also
submit with the argument: (1) a statement of the issue, and (2) a brief
summary of the argument.
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 9, 1998.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kate Johnson/Dorlores Peck or Mary Jenkins, Office 5, AD/CVD
Enforcement Group II, Import Administration--Room B099, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
4929 or 482-1756, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Applicable Statute
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, as amended (the
Act), by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless
otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department of Commerce's (the
Department's) regulations are to the provisions codified at 19 CFR part
353 (April 1997). Where we cite to the Department's new regulations (19
CFR part 351, 62 FR 27926 (May 19, 1997) (New Regulations)) as an
indication of current Department practice, we have so stated.
Background
On October 10, 1986, the Department published in the Federal
Register (51 FR 36435) the final affirmative antidumping duty
determination on certain porcelain-on-steel cookware from Mexico. We
published an antidumping duty order on December 2, 1986 (51 FR 43415).
On December 3, 1996, the Department published in the Federal
Register a notice advising of the opportunity to request an
administrative review of this order for the period December 1, 1995,
through November 30, 1996 (the POR) (61 FR 64050). The Department
received a request for an administrative review of Cinsa, S.A. de C.V.
(Cinsa) and Esmaltaciones de Norte America, S.A. de C.V. (ENASA) from
General Housewares Corporation, the petitioner. We published a notice
of initiation of the review on January 17, 1997 (62 FR 2647). On June
10, 1997, the petitioner made an allegation that Cinsa and ENASA were
reimbursing the affiliated U.S. importer, Cinsa International
Corporation (CIC), for antidumping deposits and assessment liabilities
during the POR.
During the period June 23 through June 27, 1997, we conducted
verifications of Cinsa and ENASA, as well as CIC.
On August 19, 1997, the Department extended the time limit for the
preliminary results in this case until December 31, 1997. See Extension
of Time Limit for Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 44108,
August 17, 1997.
The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section
751(a) of the Act.
Scope of the Review
The products covered by this review are porcelain-on-steel
cookware, including tea kettles, which do not have self-contained
electric heating elements. All of the foregoing are constructed of
steel and are enameled or glazed with vitreous glasses. This
merchandise is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule
of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 7323.94.00. Kitchenware
currently classifiable under HTSUS subheading 7323.94.00.30 is not
subject to the order. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope
of this proceeding is dispositive.
Verification
As provided in Section 782(i) of the Act, we conducted
verifications of Cinsa, ENASA and CIC from June 23 through June 27,
1997. We conducted the verifications using standard verification
procedures including on-site inspection of the manufacturers'
facilities, the examination of relevant accounting, sales, and other
financial records, and selection of original documentation containing
relevant information. Our verification results are outlined in the
public version of the verification report which is on file in the
Central Records Unit (CRU) in room B-099 of the Main Commerce Building.
Based on verification, we made certain changes to data in the sales
listing submitted by Cinsa and ENASA used to calculate the preliminary
margins (See Memorandum to the File dated December 30, 1997).
Affiliated Parties
Cinsa and ENASA are both wholly-owned subsidiaries of ISLO S.A. de
C.V., which in turn is wholly-owned by the Grupo Saltillo, S.A. de C.V.
Because Cinsa and ENASA are controlled by the same parent, they are
affiliated within the meaning of section 771(3)(F) of the Act.
Since Cinsa and ENASA are affiliated producers of subject
merchandise, we analyzed whether the two producers should be treated as
a single entity for the purpose of assigning an antidumping margin
using the Department's standard ``collapsing`` test. See reference to
19 CFR 351.401(f) on page two. During the course of this review, we
verified that the manufacturing facilities of ENASA are separate from
those of Cinsa, and that the machinery Cinsa used to produce ``ranch
style'' cookware cannot be used to make the ENASA ``euro-style''
cookware, and vice versa, without fundamental and expensive retooling.
Accordingly, because we have determined that the production facilities
of Cinsa and ENASA would require substantial retooling in order to
produce similar or identical products, as in prior reviews, we are not
treating these firms
[[Page 1431]]
as a single entity for the purposes of assigning and antidumping
margin.
Product Comparisons
In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all
products produced by Cinsa and ENASA covered by the description in the
``Scope of the Review'' section, above, and sold in the home market
during the POR 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 most similar foreign like product.
In making the product comparisons, we matched foreign like products
based on the physical characteristics reported by the respondents in
the following order: quality, gauge, cookware category, model, shape,
wall shape, diameter, width, capacity, weight, interior coating,
exterior coating, grade of frit (a material component of enamel),
color, decoration, and cover, if any. With regard to sets, where there
were no sales of identical merchandise in the home market to compare to
U.S. sales of subject merchandise sold in sets, we compared U.S. sales
of sets to the constructed value (CV) of the set.
Cinsa did not report all of the required physical characteristic
data for one U.S. product. Accordingly, we were unable to identify the
most similar home market sales to that product. As facts available, we
compare U.S. sales of this product to CV.
In addition, Cinsa and ENASA did not report cost information for
all sales made during the POR. Accordingly, we must apply facts
available to these sales. However, given the level of cooperation of
the two respondents, we have no basis to apply adverse facts available
in this instance. Therefore, we have used the average of all positive
margins for those sales without reported costs.
As in our final results of review for the period December 1, 1994,
through November 30, 1995, (Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware from Mexico:
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 42496,
August 7, 1997 (POS9 Final)), we have rejected Cinsa's argument that
heavy gauge (HG) and medium gauge (MG) euro-style cookware manufactured
by ENASA and light gauge (LG) ranch-style cookware manufactured by
Cinsa constitute distinct ``classes or kinds'' of merchandise and,
therefore, require the Department to calculate one margin for HG and MG
cookware and a separate margin for LG cookware. The scope of the order
constitutes a single class or kind of merchandise, i.e. the ``subject
merchandise.''
Consistent with our practice (see, e.g., Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Cold-rolled Carbon Steel Flat
Products from the Netherlands, 61 FR 48465, (September 13, 1996)), we
compared prime quality models sold in the United States to identical
prime quality models sold in the home market. Where no home market
sales of identical prime quality models existed, we compared the U.S.
sales of prime quality models to the most similar home market prime
quality model. There were no U.S. sales of second quality models.
Allegation of Reimbursement
The Department examined at verification the issue of whether, as
the petitioner alleged, CIC was reimbursed for antidumping duties. With
respect to capital contributions made by GISSA Holding USA to CIC
during the POR, we found that since its inception in early January of
1995, the affiliated importer, CIC, has received two cash transfers in
the form of capital contributions. The first transfer constituted
start-up funds and was not tied to antidumping duty deposits or
assessments. In a public submission on the record of the tenth review
(1995-1996), the respondents Cinsa and ENASA specifically stated that a
second capital contribution made in April 1997 by CIC's affiliate,
GISSA Holding USA, was provided to ensure that CIC would have enough
funds to cover anticipated antidumping duties and assessment liability
subsequent to the liquidation of fifth (1990-1991) and seventh (1992-
1993) POR entries during the tenth (1995-1996) POR. Because GISSA
Holding, USA is not a producer or exporter of the subject merchandise,
we cannot, ipso facto, conclude that a producer or exporter paid for,
or reimbursed to, the importer antidumping duties. Thus, we preliminary
do not find reimbursement within the meaning of 19 CFR 353.26(a).
However, we will continue to examine this issue in light of comments by
the parties and may, if warranted, seek additional information.
Comparisons
To determine whether sales of porcelain-on-steel cookware by Cinsa
and ENASA to the United States were made at less than normal value
(NV), we compared export price (EP) or constructed export price (CEP)
to the NV, as described in the ``Export Price and Constructed Export
Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice.
Mexico experienced significant inflation during the POR, as
measured by the producer price index issued by the Bank of Mexico.
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 rule, whereby
the Department may use as NV comparison market prices from the three
months prior to and the two months after the month in which the U.S.
sale was made. See e.g., Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware from Mexico: Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 42496 (August
7, 1997).
Export Price and Constructed Export Price
For certain sales made by Cinsa and ENASA, 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 because CEP methodology was
not otherwise indicated. We based EP on packed prices to unaffiliated
purchasers in the United States. We made deductions from the starting
price, where appropriate, for U.S. and foreign inland freight, U.S. and
Mexican brokerage and handling expenses, U.S. duty and rebates.
For the remaining sales made by Cinsa and ENASA during the POR, we
calculated CEP in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, because
the subject merchandise was sold by CIC after having been imported into
the United States. We based CEP on packed prices to unaffiliated
purchasers in the United States. We made deductions from the starting
price, where appropriate, for U.S. and foreign inland freight, U.S. and
Mexican brokerage and handling expenses, U.S. duty and rebates.
We made further deductions, where appropriate, for credit,
commissions, and indirect selling expenses that were associated with
economic activities occurring in the United States. Finally, we made an
adjustment for profit in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act.
Normal Value
Based on a comparison of the aggregate quantity of home market and
U.S. sales, we determined that the quantity of the foreign like product
sold in the exporting country was sufficient to permit a proper
comparison with the sales of the subject merchandise to the United
States, pursuant to section 773(a) of the Act. Therefore, we based NV
on either (1) the price (exclusive of value-added tax) at which the
foreign like
[[Page 1432]]
product was first sold for consumption in the home market, in
accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act or (2) CV, in
accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, as noted in the ``Price
to Price Comparisons'' and ``Price to CV Comparisons'' sections of this
notice.
Level of Trade
In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent
practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at
the same level of trade (``LOT'') as the EP or CEP transaction. The NV
LOT is that of the starting-price sales in the comparison market or,
when NV is based on constructed value (``CV''), that of the sales from
which we derive selling, general and administrative (``SG&A'') expenses
and profit. For EP, the U.S. LOT is also the level of the starting-
price sale, which is usually from exporter to importer. For CEP, it is
the level of the constructed sale from the exporter to the importer. To
determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP or CEP, we
examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the
chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated
customer. If the comparison-market sales are at a different LOT, and
the difference affects price comparability, as manifested in a pattern
of consistent price differences between the sales on which NV is based
and comparison-market sales at the LOT of the export transaction, we
make an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally,
for CEP sales, if the NV level is more remote from the factory than the
CEP level and there is no basis for determining whether the difference
in the levels between NV and CEP affects price comparability, we adjust
NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEP offset provision).
See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa, 62 FR 61731
(November 19, 1997).
In this review, Cinsa and ENASA reported three channels of
distribution in the home market: (1) direct sales to customers from the
Saltillo plant, (2) sales shipped from their Mexico city warehouse, and
(3) sales shipped from their Guadalajara warehouse. In analyzing the
data in the home market sales listing by distribution channel and sales
function, we found that the three home market channels did not differ
significantly with respect to selling activities. Similar services,
such as freight and delivery services and inventory maintenance, were
offered to all or some portion of customers in each channel. Based on
this analysis, we find that the three home market channels of
distribution comprise a single level of trade.
Cinsa and ENASA reported both EP and CEP sales in the U.S. market.
The EP sales were made by the exporter to the unaffiliated customer,
who received the merchandise at the border between Mexico and the
United States (FOB Laredo, Texas). We noted that EP sales involved
basically the same selling functions associated with the home market
level of trade described above. Therefore, based upon this information,
we have determined that the level of trade for all EP sales is the same
as that in the home market.
The CEP sales were based on sales made by the exporter to CIC, the
U.S. affiliated reseller, who then sold the merchandise directly to
unaffiliated purchasers in the United States from its San Antonio
warehouse. Based on our analysis, after the section 772(d) deductions,
there are two selling activities associated with Cinsa's and ENASA's
sales to CIC reflected in the CEP: (1) freight and other movement
expenses from the plant to the affiliated reseller's San Antonio
warehouse, and (2) freight and delivery services (excluding actual
freight charges), and inventory maintenance, and other support services
(such as sales personnel, order processing personnel, and billing
personnel), which are the same functions found in the home market.
Therefore, we determine that Cinsa's and ENASA's CEP sales and their
home market sales are made at the same level of trade. Accordingly,
because we find the U.S. sales and home market sales to be at the same
level of trade, no level of trade adjustments under section
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act are warranted.
CEP Offset
Section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act provides for an adjustment to NV
when NV is based on a level of trade different from that of the CEP if
the NV level is more remote from the factory than the CEP and if we are
unable to determine whether the difference in levels of trade between
CEP and NV affects the comparability of their prices. This latter
situation can occur where there is no home market level of trade
equivalent to the U.S. sales level or where there is a different home
market level of trade but the data are insufficient to support a
conclusion on price effect. This adjustment, the CEP offset, is
identified in section 773(a)(7)(B) and is the lesser of the following:
The indirect selling expenses on the home market sale, or
The indirect selling expenses from the starting price in
calculating CEP.
The CEP offset is not automatic each time we use CEP.
In their questionnaire responses, Cinsa and ENASA claimed that the
sales support activities (such as freight and delivery services,
excluding actual freight charges, and inventory maintenance), and other
support services (such as sales personnel, order processing personnel,
and billing personnel) provided to home market and to U.S. customers
are generally the same. The respondents nevertheless requested an
adjustment to NV when NV is compared to U.S. CEP sales because they
claim that home market sales are made at a more advanced level of trade
than CEP sales because the NV sales price includes indirect selling
expenses attributable to sales support activities and other support
services noted above, while the CEP sales price is exclusive of all
indirect selling expenses and the selling functions attributable
thereto.
However, as discussed above, we find that the selling functions
performed at the CEP level are essentially the same as those performed
in the home market. Accordingly, we consider the home market and CEP
levels of trade comparable. We disagree with respondents' assertion
that differences in indirect selling expenses reflect a difference in
level of trade. Because we find the CEP and home market levels of trade
are the same, an adjustment to NV is not warranted.
Cost of Production Analysis
The Department disregarded certain sales made by Cinsa for the
period December 1, 1994, through November 30, 1995, (the most recently
completed review of Cinsa) pursuant to a finding in that review that
sales were made below cost. Thus, in accordance with section
773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, there are reasonable grounds to believe or
suspect that the respondent Cinsa made sales in the home market at
prices below the cost of producing the merchandise in the current
review period. As a result, the Department initiated an investigation
to determine whether the respondent made home market sales during the
POR at prices below its cost of production (COP) within the meaning of
section 773(b) of the Act.
The petitioner alleged that there are reasonable grounds to believe
or suspect that ENASA made home market sales during the POR at prices
that were less than its COP. On May 15, 1997, the Department initiated
a sales below cost investigation to determine whether ENASA made home
market sales during
[[Page 1433]]
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 Cinsa's and ENASA's cost
of materials and fabrication costs for the foreign like product, plus
amounts for home market SG&A and packing costs in accordance with
section 773(b)(3) of the Act.
As noted above in the ``Product Comparisons'' section, the Mexican
economy experienced significant inflation during the POR. Therefore, in
order to avoid the distortive effect of inflation on our comparisons of
costs and prices, we requested that the respondents submit monthly,
model-specific production costs for each month of the POR. We
calculated a model-specific total and variable cost of manufacturing
(COM) during the POR. Using the producer price index for Mexico
maintained by the Bank of Mexico, we indexed the total and variable POR
model-specific costs to a common point, i.e., November 1996, the month
of the POR. We then divided the sum of the total POR model-specific
costs by the total model-specific production quantity to obtain a
model-specific POR weighted-average cost corresponding to the November
1996 reference point. The weighted-average COM was then restated based
on the currency value in each respective month and used to calculate a
month COP for each product.
We relied on COP information submitted by Cinsa and ENASA, except
in the following instances where it was not appropriately quantified or
valued: (1) frit prices from an affiliated supplier did not approximate
fair market value prices; therefore, we increased direct materials by
the percentage required to adjust the reported cost of frit to reflect
fair market prices; (2) we added profit sharing expenses to the
variable cost of manufacture because they relate to the compensation of
direct labor; and (3) we revised Cinsa's submitted interest costs to
exclude the calculation of negative interest expense.
B. Test of Home Market Prices
We compared the monthly weight-averaged per unit COP figures,
indexed to account for the effects of inflation as noted above, 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 were made
at prices below the COP. In determining whether to disregard home
market sales made at prices below the COP, we examined whether: (1)
within an extended period of time, such sales were made in substantial
quantities; and (2) such sales were made a prices which permitted the
recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. On a product-
specific basis, we compared the COP to the home market prices, less any
applicable movement charges, rebates, discounts, and direct and
indirect selling expenses.
C. Results of COP Test
Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C), where less than 20 percent of the
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 during the POR were at prices less than the COP, we
disregarded the below-cost sales were 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 comparison sales of a specific product were
disregarded based on the COP test, we calculated NV based on CV, in
accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the act.
D. Calculation of CV
In accordance with section 773(e)(1) of the Act, we calculated a CV
based on the sum of the respondents' cost of materials, fabrication,
SG&A, and U.S. Packing costs as reported in the U.S. sales listing. We
calculated CV based on the methodology described in the calculation of
COP above.
In accordance with section 773(e)(2)A), we based SG&A and profit on
the actual amounts incurred and realized by Cinsa and ENASA in
connection with the production and sale of the foreign like product in
the ordinary course of trade, for consumption in the foreign country.
For selling expenses, we used the weighted-average home market selling
expense. Where we compared EP to CV, we deducted from CV the weighted-
average home market direct selling expenses and added the U.S. direct
selling expenses, in accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act and
section 353.56(a)(2) of the Department's regulations.
E. Price to Price Comparisons
For those comparison products for which there were sales at prices
above the COP, we based the respondents' NV on home market prices. For
both of the respondents, we calculated NV based on the VA-exclusive
gross unit price and deducted, where appropriate, inland freight,
rebates, and early payment discounts.
For comparisons in Cinsa and ENASA's EP sales, we made a
circumstance-of-sale adjustment, where appropriate, for differences in
credit expenses. For comparisons to Cinsa's and ENASA's CEP sales, we
also deducted credit expenses and commissions from NV (no commissions
were incurred on EP sales). We made adjustments for differences in
packing expenses for both Cinsa and ENASA. We also made adjustments to
NV, where appropriate, for differences in costs attributable to
differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise, pursuant to
section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act.
In order to make appropriate adjustment for physical differences
between the products compared, and to account for the effects of
inflation, all costs were expressed in currency values corresponding to
November 1996, the last month of the POR. Using these November-based
costs, we then calculated a per-unit model-specific weighted-average
variable and total COM. These weighted-average costs were then indexed
to the currency value of the month of the comparison U.S. sale. 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.
F. Price to CV
Where we compared EP or CEP to CV, we made circumstance-of-sale
adjustments by deducting from CV the weighted-average home market
direct selling expenses and adding the United States direct selling
expenses.
Currency Conversion
We made currency conversions based on the official exchange rates
in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal
Reserve Bank of New York. Section 773A(a) of the Act 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.'' In accordance with the Department's practice, we have
determined as a general matter that a fluctuation exists when the daily
exchange rate differs from a benchmark by 2.25 percent. The benchmark
is defined as the rolling average of rates for the past 40 business
days. When we determine a fluctuation existed, we substitute the
benchmark for the daily rate.
[[Page 1434]]
Preliminary Results of the Review
As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the
following weighted-average dumping margins exist:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer/ exporter Period Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cinsa........................................ 12/1/95-11/30/96 15.94
ENASA........................................ 12/1/95-11/30/96 63.76
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parties to the proceeding may request disclosure within five days
of the date of publication of this notice. Any interested party may
request a hearing within 10 days of publication. Any hearing, if
requested, will be held 44 days after the date of publication or the
first business day thereafter.
Issues raised in hearings will be limited to those raised in the
respective case briefs and rebuttal briefs. Case briefs from interested
parties and rebuttal briefs, limited to the issues raised in the
respective case briefs, may be submitted not later than 30 days and 37
days, respectively, from the date of publication of these preliminary
results. Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this
proceeding are requested to submit with each argument (1) a statement
of the issue and (2) a brief summary of the argument.
The Department will subsequently issue the final results of this
administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues
raised in any such written briefs or at the hearing, if held, not later
than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice.
The Department shall determine and the Customs Service shall assess
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department will
issue appropriate appraisement instructions directly to the Customs
Service upon completion of this review.
Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective
upon publication of the final results of this antidumping duty review
for all shipments of porcelain-on-steel cookware from Mexico, entered,
or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the
publication date, as provided by section 751(a) of the Tariff Act: (1)
the cash deposit rates for the reviewed companies will be those
established in the final results of review; (2) for exporters not
covered in this review, but covered in the LTFV investigation or prior
reviews, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific
rate from the LTFV investigation or the prior review; (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; (4) the cash deposit rate for all
other manufactures or exporters will continue to be 29.52 percent, the
``All Others'' rate made effective by the LTFV investigation. These
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 published in accordance
with section 751(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 353.22.
Dated: December 31, 1997.
Richard W. Moreland,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-485 Filed 1-8-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M
