[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 213 (Wednesday, November 4, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59540-59544]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-29550]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-791-805]
Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value; Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From South Africa
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of preliminary determination of sales at less than fair
value.
EFFECTIVE DATE: November 4, 1998.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert James at (202) 482-5222 or John
Kugelman at (202) 482-0649, Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Enforcement Group III, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230.
Applicable Statute and Regulations
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (the Tariff Act), are 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 regulations codified at 19 CFR Part 351 (April
1, 1998).
Preliminary Determination
We preliminarily determine that stainless steel plate in coil
(SSPC) from South Africa is being, or is likely to be, sold in the
United States at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided in section
733 of the Tariff Act. The estimated margins of sales at LTFV are shown
in the ``Suspension of Liquidation'' section of this notice.
Case History
On April 20, 1998, the Department initiated antidumping duty
investigations of imports of stainless steel plate in coils from
Belgium, Canada, Italy, the Republic of South Africa (South Africa),
South Korea, and Taiwan. See Initiation of Antidumping Duty
Investigations: Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From Belgium, Canada,
Italy, Republic of South Africa, South Korea and Taiwan, 63 FR 20580,
(April 27, 1998). Since the initiation of this investigation the
following events have occurred:
The Department set aside a period for all interested parties to
raise issues regarding product coverage. On May 8, 1998, Armco Inc., J
& L Specialty Steel, Inc., Lukens, Inc., North American Stainless,
United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO/CLC, Butler Armco Independent
Union, and Zanesville Armco Independent Organization, Inc.
(petitioners) 1 filed comments aimed at clarifying the scope
of these investigations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ On August 28, 1998, petitioners amended the antidumping duty
petitions to include Allegheny Ludlum Corporation as an additional
petitioner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During May 1998, the Department requested information from the U.S.
Embassy in Pretoria to identify producers/exporters of the subject
merchandise. On May 15, 1998, the Department also requested comments
from petitioners, a potential respondent, Columbus Stainless
(Columbus), and the Embassy of South Africa regarding the criteria to
be used for model matching purposes. Petitioners submitted comments on
our proposed model matching criteria on May 21, 1998.
Also on May 21, 1998, the United States International Trade
Commission (the Commission) notified the Department of its affirmative
preliminary injury determination in this case.
The Department subsequently issued its antidumping questionnaire to
Columbus on May 27, 1998. The questionnaire is divided into five parts;
we requested that Columbus respond to section A (general information,
corporate structure, sales practices, and merchandise produced),
section B (home market or third-country sales), and section C (U.S.
sales). Columbus submitted its response to section A of the
questionnaire on June 24, 1998; Columbus's responses to sections B and
C followed on July 20, 1998.
Petitioners filed comments on Columbus's questionnaire responses in
July and August 1998. We issued a supplemental questionnaire for
Sections A, B, and C to Columbus on August 18, 1998, to which Columbus
responded on September 8, 1998.
On July 29, 1998, petitioners made a timely request for a thirty-
day postponement of the preliminary determination pursuant to section
733(c)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act. The Department determined that these
concurrent investigations are extraordinarily complicated and that
additional time would be required beyond the thirty days requested by
petitioners for the Department to make its preliminary determinations.
On August 14, 1998, we postponed the preliminary determination until no
later than October 27, 1998. See Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From
Belgium, Canada, Italy, South Africa, South Korea and Taiwan; Notice of
Postponement of Preliminary Determinations in Antidumping Duty
Investigations, 63 FR 44840 (August 21, 1998).
On August 7, 1998, petitioners timely filed an allegation that
Columbus's sales of the foreign like product were at prices below its
cost of production. After analyzing petitioner's allegation and
soliciting additional clarification from petitioners, on August 24,
1998, we requested that Columbus respond to section D (cost of
production (COP) and constructed value (CV)) of our original
questionnaire. Columbus filed its response on September 30, 1998. We
solicited additional information on Columbus's COP in a supplemental
questionnaire issued October 6, 1998. Columbus timely filed its
response on October 19, 1998.
The Department issued an additional supplemental sales
questionnaire on October 15, 1998; Columbus's response to this
questionnaire is due October 30, 1998.
Scope of the Investigation
For purposes of this investigation, the product covered is certain
stainless steel plate in coils. Stainless steel is an alloy steel
containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 10.5 percent
or more of chromium, with or without other elements. The subject plate
products are flat-rolled products, 254 mm or over in width and 4.75 mm
or more in thickness, in coils, and
[[Page 59541]]
annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise descaled.
The subject plate may also be further processed (e.g., cold-rolled,
polished, etc.) provided that it maintains the specified dimensions of
plate following such processing. Excluded from the scope of this
petition are the following: (1) Plate not in coils, (2) plate that is
not annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise
descaled, (3) sheet and strip, and (4) flat bars.
The merchandise subject to this investigation is currently
classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(HTS) at subheadings: 7219.11.00.30, 7219.11.00.60, 7219.12.00.05,
7219.12.00.20, 7219.12.00.25, 7219.12.00.50, 7219.12.00.55,
7219.12.00.65, 7219.12.00.70, 7219.12.00.80, 7219.31.00.10,
7219.90.00.10, 7219.90.00.20, 7219.90.00.25, 7219.90.00.60,
7219.90.00.80, 7220.11.00.00, 7220.20.10.10, 7220.20.10.15,
7220.20.10.60, 7220.20.10.80, 7220.20.60.05, 7220.20.60.10,
7220.20.60.15, 7220.20.60.60, 7220.20.60.80, 7220.90.00.10,
7220.90.00.15, 7220.90.00.60, and 7220.90.00.80. Although the HTS
subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes, the
written description of the merchandise under investigation is
dispositive.
Period of Investigation
The period of investigation (POI) is January 1, 1997 through
December 31, 1997.
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether sales of SSPC from South Africa to the United
States were made at less than fair value, we compared export price (EP)
to the normal value (NV), as described in the ``Export Price'' and
``Normal Value'' sections of this notice, below. In accordance with
section 777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Tariff Act, we calculated weighted-
average EPs for comparison to weighted-average NVs or CVs.
Transactions Investigated
For its home market and U.S. sales Columbus reported the date of
invoice as the date of sale, in keeping with the Department's stated
preference for using the invoice date as the date of sale. Columbus
further stated that the invoice date represented the date when the
essential terms of sales, i.e., price and quantity, are definitively
set, and that up to the invoice date, these terms were subject to
change. However, petitioners have alleged that the sales documentation
provided by Columbus does not appear to support Columbus's claims that
price and quantity may change at any time between the order acceptance
date and the final invoice date. On August 18, 1998, the Department
requested that Columbus provide additional information concerning the
nature and frequency of price and quantity changes occurring between
the date of order and date of invoice. Based on our analysis of the
information submitted by Columbus, we found that we required additional
information to determine if date of invoice is the appropriate date of
sale. On October 15, 1998, the Department sent an additional
questionnaire to Columbus, requesting that it report sales during the
POI for which Columbus had issued an order acceptance, in addition to
those sales invoiced during the POI. However, Columbus's response to
this supplemental request for information is not due until October 30,
1998; therefore for the preliminary determination, the Department is
using the invoice date as the date of sale for both home market and
U.S. sales. We intend to revisit this issue upon receiving Columbus's
supplemental response, and we will incorporate and verify the revised
data, as appropriate, in our analysis for the final determination.
Product Comparisons
In accordance with section 771(16) of the Tariff Act, we considered
all products produced by the respondent covered by the description in
the ``Scope of the Investigation'' section, above, and sold in the home
market during the POI, 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 and reporting
instructions listed in the Department's questionnaire.
Level of Trade
In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff 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 transaction. The NV
LOT is that of the starting-price sales in the comparison market or,
when NV is based on CV, that of the sales from which we derive selling,
general and administrative (SG&A) expenses and profit. For EP it is the
level of the sale from the exporter to the importer. If the sales being
compared are at different LOTs, and the difference affects price
comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price
differences between the sales on which NV is based and the U.S. sales
being compared, we make a LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of
the Tariff Act.
To determine whether home market sales are at a different LOT than
U.S. sales we apply a two-part test. First, we examine whether the home
market sales are at different stages in the marketing process than the
U.S. sales. The marketing process in both markets begins with goods
being sold by the producer and extends to the sale to the final end
user. The chain of distribution between the producer and the final user
may have many or few links, and each respondent's sales occur at some
point along this chain. For sales to the United States, the
respondent's sales are generally to an importer, whether affiliated or
unaffiliated. We review and compare the distribution chains in the home
market and the United States, including the selling functions, classes
of customers, and the level of selling expenses incurred at each
claimed LOT. Unless sales being compared are at different stages in the
marketing process, the Department will not find a difference in LOT
even if selling functions are different.
Second, we examine the selling functions performed at the different
LOTs. If the LOTs in the two markets are different, the selling
functions performed in selling to each LOT should also be different.
Therefore, unless we find that there are different selling functions
and different stages in the marketing process for the sales to the U.S.
and home markets, we will not determine that there are, in fact,
separate LOTs. Different LOTs necessarily involve different selling
functions; however, differences in selling functions, even substantial
ones, are not alone sufficient to establish that different LOTs exist.
Differences in LOTs are characterized by purchasers at different stages
of marketing and by sellers performing qualitatively different
functions in selling to these purchasers.
If we compare U.S. sales to home market sales made at a different
LOT, we will make an adjustment to NV if the difference in LOTs affects
price comparability. In turn, we determine any effect on price
comparability by examining sales at different LOTs in the comparison
market. Any effect on price comparability must be manifested by a
pattern of consistent price differences between the home market sales
used for comparison and the sales at the LOT of the export transaction.
See, e.g.,
[[Page 59542]]
Polytetraflourethylene Resin From Italy; Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 26285 (May 13, 1997). To
quantify the price differences, we calculate the difference in the
average of the net prices of the same merchandise sold at different
LOTs. We use the average percentage difference between these net prices
to adjust NV when the LOT of the NV sale is different from that of the
export sale. If there is no pattern of price differences, then no LOT
adjustment is necessary. Finally, for CEP sales, if the NV LOT 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 Tariff Act (the CEP offset provision). See, e.g., 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 case Columbus stated that its selling activities differ
very little between home market and export sales, noting that it does
not ``maintain a distribution network of our own, nor do we maintain an
inventory in any market * * *. The only difference between our home
market sales and our exports is the physical delivery distance, and the
fact that we use agents to solicit and administer our customers' orders
in our export markets.'' Columbus's June 24, 1998 Section A response at
12 and 13. In order to confirm independently the absence of separate
LOTs within or between the U.S. and home markets, we examined
Columbus's questionnaire responses for indications that Columbus's
sales functions differed qualitatively or quantitatively among customer
categories. Where possible, we further examined whether each selling
function was performed for a substantial portion of sales.
In the home market Columbus sold to distributors and end users, and
claims a single LOT existed. Based upon our examination of information
supplied by Columbus in its original and supplemental questionnaire
responses, we agree that only one LOT existed for Columbus in the home
market. Columbus provided no strategic or economic planning services,
market research, business development services, personnel training,
procurement, or inventory maintenance services for either end-user or
distributor customers. Both categories of customers received similar
degrees of packing, after-sales services, and freight and delivery
arrangements. Finally, Columbus provided a limited degree of
advertising directed at its customers' customers, primarily in the form
of advertising in industry journals.
For its U.S. sales Columbus reported sales through its agents to
two customer categories, i.e., distributors and end-users. To determine
whether, in fact, a single stage of marketing existed, we examined the
selling functions as reflected in the starting price to the
unaffiliated U.S. customer. Columbus provided delivery services to the
U.S. port designated by the customer for all of its U.S. sales.
Columbus also provided technical assistance, as needed. For certain
sales of grade 3Cr12 stainless steel, Columbus provided a higher degree
of these technical services due to the specialized applications to
which 3Cr12 stainless steel is aimed. We find preliminarily that
Columbus provided the same level of selling functions, with the sole
exception being the additional technical services offered for sales of
3Cr12 steel. This single exception, however, is not sufficient to
warrant a finding that Columbus sells at two distinct LOTs in the
United States. Accordingly, we preliminarily agree with Columbus that
its EP sales constitute a single LOT.
When comparing Columbus's sales at its EP LOT to its home market
LOT, we found that Columbus provided little or no strategic or economic
planning, market research, engineering services, or post-sale
warehousing at either the EP or home market LOT. Columbus provided
limited advertising services in the home market while providing none at
the EP level. All packing expenses at either LOT were borne by
Columbus, and freight arrangements were similar (in the activities
performed) in both markets. Columbus provided similar degrees of after-
sales and technical support at both the EP and home market LOT, with
the exception noted above for sales of 3Cr12 steel. Our analysis of the
selling functions performed by Columbus in both markets leads us to
conclude that sales within or between the markets were made at the same
LOT. We have not, therefore, made a LOT adjustment because all price
comparisons are at the same LOT and an adjustment pursuant to section
773(a)(7)(A) of the Tariff Act is not appropriate.
Export Price
We calculated the price of United States sales based on EP, in
accordance with section 772(a) of the Tariff Act, because the subject
merchandise was sold to the first unaffiliated purchasers in the United
States prior to the date of importation and because record evidence did
not support basing price on CEP. We calculated EP based upon packed
prices to unaffiliated customers in the United States. Where
appropriate, we made deductions from the starting price for foreign
inland freight, ocean freight, foreign handling, marine insurance,
foreign warehousing expenses, and U.S. customs duties. We also made
adjustments for credit and, where appropriate, credit insurance costs.
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
(i.e., the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like
product was equal to or greater than five percent of the aggregate
volume of U.S. sales) we compared the 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
Tariff Act. As Columbus'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 of the subject merchandise, we determined that the
home market was viable. Therefore, we have based NV on home market
sales in the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of
trade.
Cost of Production Analysis
A timely allegation filed by petitioners provided the Department
with reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that Columbus's sales of
the foreign like product were made at prices which represent less than
the cost of production. See section 773(b)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act.
Accordingly, on August 24, 1998, the Department initiated a COP
investigation to determine whether Columbus's sales in South Africa
were made at prices less than the COP. In accordance with section
773(b)(3) of the Tariff Act, we calculated COP based on the sum of
Columbus's cost of materials and fabrication for the foreign like
product, plus an amount for G&A, interest expenses, and packing costs.
We used the information from Columbus's section D supplemental
questionnaire response to calculate COP. However, while the
Department's questionnaire instructed Columbus to submit a single COP
for each product sold (i.e., each CONNUM), weighted by quantity
produced during the POI, Columbus instead provided simple average COPs
based on quarterly costs. In addition, Columbus reported multiple COPs
(i.e., different amounts) for the same CONNUM. To conduct our
[[Page 59543]]
cost test for this preliminary determination we have calculated a
single average COP for each CONNUM, weighted by sales quantity, as this
is the only information currently available on the record. We have
requested additional data from Columbus, including COPs weighted by
production quantity, and will analyze these new data for our final
determination.
We compared the weighted-average COP for Columbus to home market
sales prices of the foreign like product, as required under section
773(b) of the Tariff Act. In determining whether to disregard home
market sales made at prices less than the COP, we examined whether such
sales were made (i) in substantial quantities over an extended period
of time, and (ii) at prices which permitted the recovery of all costs
within a reasonable period of time. On a product-specific basis, we
compared COP to home market prices, less any applicable movement
charges, early payment and other discounts, and direct and indirect
selling expenses.
Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Tariff Act, where less
than twenty 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 twenty percent or more of a
respondent's sales of a given product during the POI were at prices
less than the COP, we determined such sales to have been made in
substantial quantities, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of
the Tariff Act. In addition, we determined that such below-cost sales
were made within an extended period of time, in accordance with section
773(b)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act. In such cases, pursuant to section
773(b)(2)(D) of the Tariff Act, we also determined that such sales were
not made at prices which would permit recovery of all costs within a
reasonable period of time. Therefore, we disregarded the below-cost
sales. Where all sales of a specific product were at prices below the
COP, we disregarded all sales of that product.
Our cost test for Columbus revealed that less than twenty percent
of Columbus's home market sales of certain products were at prices
below Columbus's COP. We retained all such sales in our analysis. For
other products, more than twenty percent of Columbus's sales were at
below-cost prices. In such cases we disregarded the below-cost sales,
while retaining the above-cost sales for our analysis. See Preliminary
Determination Analysis Memorandum, October 27, 1998, a public version
of which is on file in room B-099 of the main Commerce building.
Constructed Value
In accordance with section 773(e)(1) of the Tariff Act, we
calculated CV based on the sum of respondent's cost of materials,
fabrication, SG&A, interest expenses, and profit. In accordance with
section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act, we based SG&A and profit on the
amounts incurred and realized by Columbus 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 used the CV data
Columbus supplied in its section D supplemental questionnaire response.
However, while the Department's questionnaire instructed Columbus to
submit a single CV for each product sold (i.e., each CONNUM), weighted
by quantity produced during the POI, Columbus provided simple average
COPs based on quarterly costs. In addition, Columbus reported multiple
CVs (i.e., different amounts) for the same CONNUM. To calculate CV for
this preliminary determination we have calculated a single average CV
for each CONNUM, weighted by sales quantity, as this is the only
information currently available on the record. We have requested
additional data from Columbus, including CVs weighted by production
quantity, and will analyze these data for our final determination.
Price-to-Price Comparisons
For those sales at prices which were at or above the COP, we based
NV on Columbus's sales to unaffiliated home market customers. We made
adjustments, where appropriate, for physical differences in the
merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Tariff
Act.
Columbus's home market prices were reported net of certain volume
discounts. We made additional deductions for early payment discounts,
inland freight, and inland insurance and packing. Furthermore, we made
circumstance-of-sale (COS) adjustments in accordance with section
773(a)(6) of the Tariff Act. We deducted credit expenses and mandatory
assessments of the South African Stainless Steel Development
Association. Finally, we increased NV by adding U.S. direct selling
expenses and packing costs incurred in the home market for U.S. sales,
in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A) of the Tariff Act.
Price-to-CV Comparisons
In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Tariff Act, we based NV
on CV if we were unable to find a home market match of such or similar
merchandise. We calculated CV based on the costs of materials and
fabrication employed in producing the subject merchandise, SG&A, and
profit. In accordance with section 773(a)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act, we
based SG&A expense and profit on the amounts incurred and realized by
the respondent in connection with the production and sale of the
foreign like product in the ordinary course of trade for consumption in
South Africa. For selling expenses, we used the weighted-average home
market selling expenses. Where appropriate, we made adjustments to CV
in accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Tariff Act. For comparisons
to EP, we made COS adjustments by deducting home market direct selling
expenses and adding U.S. direct selling expenses.
Currency Conversion
We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars based on the
exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales, as certified
by the Federal Reserve Bank, in accordance with section 773A(a) of the
Tariff Act.
Verification
As provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act, we will verify all
information relied upon in making our final determination.
Suspension of Liquidation
In accordance with section 733(d) of the Tariff Act, we are
directing the Customs Service to suspend liquidation of all imports of
subject merchandise that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register. We will instruct the Customs Service to require a
cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average
amount by which the NV exceeds the export price, as indicated below.
These suspension-of-liquidation instructions will remain in effect
until further notice. The weighted-average dumping margins are as
follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
Exporter/Manufacturer average
margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Columbus Stainless......................................... 31.79
All Others................................................. 31.79
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commission Notification
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Tariff Act, we have
notified the Commission of our determination. If our final
determination is affirmative, the Commission will determine before the
[[Page 59544]]
later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or
45 days after our final determination whether imports of stainless
steel plate in coils are materially injuring, or threaten material
injury to, the U.S. industry.
Public Comment
Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration no later than fifty days
after the date of publication of this notice, and rebuttal briefs,
limited to issues raised in case briefs, no later than fifty-five days
after the date of publication of this preliminary determination. A list
of authorities used and an executive summary of issues should accompany
any briefs submitted to the Department. This summary should be limited
to five pages total, including footnotes. In accordance with section
774 of the Tariff Act, 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, any hearing will be held
fifty-seven days after publication of this notice at the U.S.
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20230, at a time and location to be determined.
Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location 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
1870, within 30 days of the date of 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. At the hearing, each party may make an affirmative
presentation only on issues raised in that party's case brief, and may
make rebuttal presentations only on arguments included in that party's
rebuttal brief. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). We intend to issue our final
determination in this investigation no later than January 10, 1999.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with
sections 733(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act.
Dated: October 27, 1998.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-29550 Filed 11-3-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
