[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 216 (Friday, November 7, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60221-60225]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-29400]
[[Page 60221]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-557-805]
Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review: Extruded Rubber Thread From Malaysia
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In response to a request by the petitioner and four producers/
exporters of the subject merchandise, the Department of Commerce is
conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on
extruded rubber thread from Malaysia. The period of review is October
1, 1995, through September 30, 1996.
We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below
the normal value by each of the companies subject to this review. If
these preliminary results are adopted in the final results of this
administrative review, we will instruct the U.S. Customs Service to
assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries.
We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary
results. Parties who wish to submit comments in this proceeding are
requested to submit with each argument (1) a statement of the issue and
(2) a brief summary of the argument.
EFFECTIVE DATE: November 7, 1997.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shawn Thompson or Fabian Rivelis,
Office of AD/CVD Enforcement, Import Administration, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202)
482-1776 or (202) 482-3853, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On January 1, 1996, the Department of Commerce (the Department)
published in the Federal Register a notice of ``Opportunity to Request
an Administrative Review'' of the Antidumping Duty Order on Extruded
Rubber Thread from Malaysia (61 FR 51259).
In accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(a)(1), on October 2, 1996, the
petitioner, North American Rubber Thread, requested an administrative
review of the antidumping order covering the period October 1, 1995,
through September 30, 1996, for the following producers and exporters
of extruded rubber thread: Filati Lastex Sdn. Bhd. (Filati), Heveafil
Sdn. Bhd. (Heveafil), Rubberflex Sdn. Bhd. (Rubberflex), and Rubfil
Sdn. Bhd (Rubfil). On October 31, 1996, each of these four companies
also requested an administrative review.
On November 15, 1996, the Department initiated an administrative
review for Filati, Heveafil, Rubberflex, and Rubfil (61 FR 58513). In
December 1996, the Department issued sales questionnaires to these four
companies. The Department also issued cost questionnaires to Heveafil
and Rubberflex.
On February 13, 1997, Rubfil withdrew its request for
administrative review in accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(a)(5). However,
we have not terminated the review for Rubfil because the petitioner
also requested a review for this company. Because Rubfil did not
respond to the Department's questionnaire, we have assigned a margin to
Rubfil based on the facts available. (See the ``Facts Available''
section below, for further discussion.)
Filati, Heveafil, and Rubberflex submitted questionnaire responses
in February 1997. In March 1997, petitioner alleged that Filati was
selling at prices below the cost of production (COP) in its home
market. Based on information submitted by petitioner, 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,
in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the Act). As a result, the Department initiated an
investigation to determine whether Filati made home market sales during
the period of review (POR) at prices below their respective COPs within
the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act.
Also in March 1997, we issued supplemental questionnaires to
Filati, Heveafil, and Rubberflex. We received responses to these
supplemental questionnaires, as well as Filati's initial cost response
in April 1997.
In June 1997, we issued additional supplemental questionnaires to
these respondents. We received responses to the supplemental
questionnaires in June and July 1997.
In July and August 1997, the Department conducted sales and cost
verifications of the data submitted by the three respondents
participating in this review, in accordance with 19 CFR 353.36(a)(iv).
Scope of the Review
The product covered by this review is extruded rubber thread.
Extruded rubber thread is defined as vulcanized rubber thread obtained
by extrusion of stable or concentrated natural rubber latex of any
cross sectional shape, measuring from 0.18 mm, which is 0.007 inch or
140 gauge, to 1.42 mm, which is 0.056 inch or 18 gauge, in diameter.
Extruded rubber thread is currently classifiable under subheading
4007.00.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(HTSUS). The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs
purposes. Our written description of the scope of this review is
dispositive.
Applicable Statute and Regulations
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Act are references
to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the
amendments made to the 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
353 (April 1, 1997).
Facts Available
In accordance with section 776(a)(2) of the Act, we preliminarily
determine that the use of the facts available is appropriate as the
basis for Heveafil's and Rubfil's weighted-average dumping margins.
Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that if an interested party (1)
withholds information that has been requested by the Department, (2)
fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form or
manner requested, subject to subsections 782(c)(1) and (e), (3)
significantly impedes a determination under the antidumping statute, or
(4) provides such information but the information cannot be verified,
the Department shall, subject to subsection 782(d) of the Act, use
facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination.
A. Heveafil
We have used the facts available with regard to Heveafil under
section 776(a)(2)(D) of the Act because the Department could not verify
the information provided by Heveafil as required under section 782(i)
of the Act, despite the Department's attempts to do so.
Specifically, we were unable to verify the COP and constructed
value (CV) information provided by Heveafil because we discovered at
verification that the company had destroyed the source documents upon
which a large portion of its response was based. The destruction of
these source documents raises particular concern, as Heveafil should
have been well aware of the
[[Page 60222]]
necessity of these documents based upon its participation in prior
segments of this proceeding. Moreover, there were significant delays in
the verification process itself, caused by company difficulties in
locating documents and the inability of company officials to link
information submitted in the questionnaire response to the accounting
system. Our findings at verification are outlined in detail in the
public version of the cost verification report from Shawn Thompson and
Irina Itkin to Louis Apple, dated October 17, 1997.
Because we were unable to verify the information submitted by
Heveafil in this POR and because the company failed to adequately
prepare and provide information during the verification, we
preliminarily determine that Heveafil did not cooperate to the best of
its ability. Thus, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, we are using
adverse facts available. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value; Certain Pasta from Italy, 61 FR 30326, 30327-29
(June 14, 1996).
As adverse facts available for Heveafil, we have used the highest
rate calculated for any respondent in a prior segment of this
proceeding. This rate is 54.31%. We have determined that this rate is
sufficiently high to effectuate the purpose of the facts available rule
by deterring such non-cooperative actions as the destruction of source
documents needed for verification.
B. Rubfil
In accordance with section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, we also
preliminarily determine that the use of the facts available is
appropriate as the basis for Rubfil's weighted-average dumping margin.
Specifically, Rubfil did not respond to the Department's questionnaire,
issued in December 1996. Because Rubfil did not respond to the
Department's questionnaire and because the applicable subsections of
section 782 do not apply with respect to this company, we must use
facts otherwise available to calculate Rubfil's dumping margin.
Section 776(b) of the Act provides that adverse inferences may be
used with respect to a party that has failed to cooperate by not acting
to the best of its ability to comply with requests for information. See
Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the URAA, H.R. Rep.
No., 316, 103rd Cong., 2d. Sess. 870 (SAA). The failure of Rubfil to
reply to the Department's questionnaire demonstrates that it has failed
to act to the best of its ability in this review, and, therefore, an
adverse inference is warranted.
As adverse facts available for Rubfil, we have used the highest
rate calculated for Rubfil in a prior segment of this proceeding (see
Extruded Rubber Thread from Malaysia, Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 62 FR 33588 (June 20, 1997)), which is
considered secondary information within the meaning of section 776(c)
of the Act. See SAA at 870. This rate of 54.31 percent is the cash
deposit rate currently assigned to Rubfil. In certain other proceedings
we have refrained from using a respondent's current cash deposit rate
as FA for that respondent. See, e.g., Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube from
Thailand; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 62 FR
53821 (Oct. 16, 1997). However, based on the facts of this case, we
find that this existing cash deposit rate is sufficiently high as to
effectuate the purpose of the facts available rule.
C. Corroboration of Secondary Information
Section 776(c) of the Act provides that the Department shall, to
the extent practicable, corroborate secondary information from
independent sources reasonably at its disposal. The SAA provides that
``corroborate'' means that the Department will satisfy itself that the
secondary information to be used has probative value (see SAA at 870).
To corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the
extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the
information to be used. However, unlike for other types of information,
such as input costs or selling expenses, there are no independent
sources for calculated dumping margins. Thus, in an administrative
review, if the Department chooses as facts available a calculated
dumping margin from a prior segment of this proceeding, it is not
necessary to question the reliability of that calculated margin. With
respect to relevance, however, the Department will consider information
reasonably at its disposal as to whether there are circumstances that
would render a margin not relevant. Where circumstances indicate that
the selected margin may not be appropriate, the Department will attempt
to find a more appropriate basis for facts available (see, e.g., Fresh
Cut Flowers from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812, 6814 (February 22, 1996) (Fresh Cut
Flowers) (where the Department disregarded the highest margin as
adverse best information available because the margin was based on
another company's uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an
unusually high margin)).
For both Heveafil and Rubfil, we examined the rates applicable to
extruded rubber thread from Malaysia throughout the course of the
proceeding. With regard to their probative value, the rate specified
above is reliable and relevant because it is a calculated rate from the
1994-1995 administrative review. There is no information on the record
that demonstrates that the rate selected is not an appropriate total
adverse facts available rate for Heveafil and Rubfil. Thus, the
Department considers these rates to be appropriate adverse facts
available.
Normal Value Comparisons
To determine whether sales of extruded rubber thread from Malaysia
to the United States were made at less than normal value (NV), we
compared the United States price (USP) to the NV for Filati and
Rubberflex, as specified in the ``United States Price'' and ``Normal
Value'' sections of this notice.
Level of Trade and Constructed Export Price (CEP) Offset
In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent
practicable, we determined NV based on sales in the comparison market
at the same level of trade as export price (EP) or CEP. The NV level of
trade 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 expenses (SG&A) and profit. For EP, it is
also the level of the starting-price sale, which is usually from the
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 level of trade
than EP or CEP sales, we examined 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 level of trade, 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 level of trade of the export transaction, we make a
level of trade 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 by making a CEP offset, in accordance with
[[Page 60223]]
section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. See Certain Welded Carbon Steel
Standard Pipes and Tubes From India: Preliminary Results of New Shipper
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 23760, 23761 (May 1,
1997).
Both Filati and Rubberflex claimed that they made home market sales
at only one level of trade (i.e., sales to original equipment
manufacturers) and that this level was different, and more remote, than
the level of trade at which they made CEP sales.
Because only one level of trade existed in the home market for both
respondents, we conducted an analysis to determine whether a CEP offset
was warranted for either company. In order to determine whether NV was
established at a level of trade which constituted a more advanced state
of distribution than the level of trade of the CEP, we compared the
selling functions performed for home market sales with those performed
with respect to the CEP transaction which excludes economic activities
occurring in the United States. We found that both respondents
performed essentially the same selling functions in their sales offices
in Malaysia for both home market and U.S. sales. Therefore, their sales
in Malaysia were not at a more advanced stage of marketing and
distribution than the constructed U.S. level of trade, which represents
an FOB foreign port price after the deduction of expenses associated
with U.S. selling activities. Because we find that no difference in
level of trade exists between markets, we have not granted a CEP offset
to either Filati or Rubberflex. For a detailed explanation of this
analysis, see the concurrence memorandum issued for the preliminary
results of this review, dated October 31, 1997.
United States Price
For sales by Filati, we based USP on EP, in accordance with section
772(b) of the Act, when the subject merchandise was sold to unrelated
purchasers in the United States prior to importation and when the CEP
methodology of section 772(c) of the Act was not otherwise applicable.
In addition, for both Filati and Rubberflex, where sales to the first
unaffiliated purchaser took place after importation into the United
States, we based USP on CEP, in accordance with section 772(c) of the
Act. For both companies, we revised the reported data based on our
findings at verification.
A. Filati
We based EP on the gross unit price to the first unaffiliated
purchaser in the United States. We made deductions from gross unit
price, where appropriate, for discounts and rebates. In accordance with
section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we added an amount for uncollected
import duties in Malaysia (where we made price-to-price comparisons).
In addition, where appropriate, we made deductions for foreign inland
freight, foreign brokerage and handling expenses, ocean freight, marine
insurance, U.S. customs duty, U.S. brokerage and handling expenses, and
U.S. inland freight, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the
Act.
For sales made from the inventory of the U.S. subsidiary, we based
USP on CEP, in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act. We calculated
CEP based on the gross unit price to the first unaffiliated customer in
the United States. We made deductions from gross unit price, where
appropriate, for discounts and rebates. In accordance with section
772(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we added an amount for uncollected import
duties in Malaysia (where we made price-to-price comparisons). We also
made deductions for foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and
handling expenses, ocean freight, marine insurance, U.S. brokerage and
handling expenses, U.S. customs duty, and U.S. inland freight, in
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. We made additional
deductions, where appropriate, for commissions, credit, U.S. indirect
selling expenses, and U.S. inventory carrying costs, in accordance with
section 772(d)(1) of the Act. We recalculated U.S. indirect selling
expenses to exclude an offset claimed by Filati relating to imputed
costs associated with financing antidumping and countervailing duty
(CVD) deposits, in accordance the Department's practice (see
Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts
Thereof from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Romania, Singapore, Sweden
and the United Kingdom; Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Reviews, 62 FR 54043, (Oct. 17, 1997) (AFBs)).
Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we further reduced gross
unit price by an amount for profit, to arrive at CEP. In accordance
with section 772(f) of the Act, we calculated CEP profit rate using the
expenses incurred by Filati and its affiliate on their sales of the
subject merchandise in the United States and the foreign like product
in the home market and the profit associated with those sales.
B. Rubberflex
We based USP on CEP, in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act.
We calculated CEP based on the gross unit price to the first
unaffiliated customer in the United States. We made deductions from
gross unit price, where appropriate, for discounts and rebates. We also
made deductions for foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and
handling expenses, ocean freight, marine insurance, U.S. customs duty,
and U.S. inland freight, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the
Act. We made additional deductions, where appropriate, for credit, U.S.
indirect selling expenses, and U.S. inventory carrying costs, in
accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act. We recalculated U.S.
indirect selling expenses to exclude an offset claimed by Rubberflex
relating to imputed costs associated with financing antidumping and CVD
duty deposits, in accordance the Department's practice (see AFBs).
Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we further reduced gross
unit price by an amount for profit, to arrive at CEP. In accordance
with section 772(f) of the Act, we calculated the CEP profit rate using
the expenses incurred by Rubberflex and its affiliate on their sales of
the subject merchandise in the United States and the foreign like
product in the home market and the profit associated with those sales.
Normal Value
In order to determine whether there is a sufficient volume of sales
in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we
compared the volume of each of the respondent's home market sales of
the foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of subject
merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. Based
on this comparison, we determined that the aggregate volume of home
market sales of the foreign like product for both Filati and Rubberflex
is greater than five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales for
these companies. Thus, we determined that both Filati and Rubberflex
had viable home markets during the POR. Consequently, we based NV on
home market sales.
Pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act, there were reasonable
grounds to believe or suspect that Rubberflex had made home market
sales at prices below its COP in this review because the Department had
disregarded sales below the COP for Rubberflex in a previous
administrative review (see Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Extruded Rubber Thread from Malaysia, 61 FR
54767 (October 22, 1996)) and the petitioner submitted an adequate
allegation that there were reasonable grounds to believe or suspect
that Filati
[[Page 60224]]
had made home market sales at prices below its COP in this review. As a
result, the Department initiated an investigation to determine whether
the respondents made home market sales during the POR at prices below
their respective COPs.
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 SG&A and packing costs, in accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the
Act.
Where possible, we used the respondents' reported COP amounts,
adjusted as discussed below, to compute weighted-average COPs during
the POR. We compared the 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 made at prices below
the COP. On a product-specific basis, we compared the COP to home
market prices, less any applicable movement charges and discounts.
In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at
prices below the COP, we examined (1) whether, within an extended
period of time, such sales were made in substantial quantities, and (2)
whether such sales were made at prices which permitted the recovery of
all costs within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of
trade.
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 the 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
within an extended period of time in accordance with section
773(b)(1)(A) of the Act. In such cases, we also determined that such
sales were not made at prices which would permit recovery of all costs
within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section
773(b)(1)(B) of the Act. 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, and calculated NV based
on CV, in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act.
In accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, we calculated CV
based on the sum of each respondent's cost of materials, fabrication,
SG&A, profit, and U.S. packing costs. In accordance with section
773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based SG&A expenses 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 deducted from CV weighted-average home market direct selling
expenses incurred on sales made in the ordinary course of trade.
Company-specific calculations are discussed below.
A. Filati
We made the following adjustments to Filati's reported COP and CV
data based on our findings at verification. For the cost of
manufacturing (COM), in order to properly value the second quality
merchandise and apply the appropriate manufacturing variance, we first
valued the second quality merchandise at the standard cost of the first
quality product that was intended to be produced. We then calculated
the variance between the revised total standard cost and the total
actual cost, and applied the variance proportionately to each per-unit
standard cost. We also recalculated Filati's reported G&A expense ratio
by excluding the direct selling, indirect selling, G&A expense, and
financial expenses from the denominator of the ratio. The resulting
ratio was applied to the per-unit COM. Finally, we recalculated
Filati's reported interest expense to include only short-term interest
income as an offset to total financial expense. For further discussion
of these adjustments, see the cost calculation memorandum from Michael
Martin to Christian Marsh, dated October 31, 1997.
Where NV was based on home market sales, we based NV on the gross
unit price to unaffiliated customers. We made adjustments to Filati's
reported sales data based on our findings at verification, and where
appropriate, we made deductions for rebates.
For home market price-to-EP comparisons, we made deductions, where
appropriate, for foreign inland freight, pursuant to section
773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the
Act, we made circumstance of sale adjustments, where appropriate, for
differences in credit expenses and bank charges. Where applicable, in
accordance with 19 CFR 353.56(b)(1), we offset any commission paid on a
U.S. sale by reducing the NV by the amount of home market indirect
selling expenses and inventory carrying costs, up to the amount of the
U.S. commission.
For home market price-to-CEP comparisons, we made deductions for
rebates and foreign inland freight, where appropriate, pursuant to
section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. We also made deductions for credit
expenses and bank charges.
For all price-to-price comparisons, we deducted home market packing
costs and added U.S. packing costs, in accordance with section
773(a)(6) of the Act. In addition, where appropriate, we made
adjustments to NV to account for differences in physical
characteristics of the merchandise, in accordance with section
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 353.57.
For CV-to-EP comparisons, we made circumstance of sale adjustments,
where appropriate, for credit expenses, bank charges, and U.S.
commissions, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) and (a)(8) of
the Act. Where applicable, in accordance with 19 CFR 353.56(b)(1), we
offset any commission paid on a U.S. sale by reducing the NV by the
amount of home market indirect selling expenses and inventory carrying
costs, up to the amount of the U.S. commission.
For CV-to-CEP comparisons, we made deductions, where appropriate,
for credit expenses and bank charges. We also deducted indirect selling
expenses and inventory carrying costs, up to the amount of the U.S.
commission deducted from the CEP.
B. Rubberflex
Where NV was based on home market sales, we based NV on the gross
unit price to unaffiliated customers. We made adjustments to
Rubberflex's reported sales data based on our findings at verification,
and, where appropriate, we made deductions for discounts and rebates.
We also made deductions for foreign inland freight, foreign inland
insurance and credit expenses. In addition, we deducted home market
packing costs and added U.S. packing costs, in accordance with section
773(a)(1) of the Act. Where appropriate, we made adjustments to NV to
account for differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise,
in accordance with 19 CFR 353.57.
For CV-to-CEP comparisons, we made deductions, where appropriate,
for credit expenses.
Currency Conversion
We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars based on the
official exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as
certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.
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
[[Page 60225]]
involves a fluctuation. It is the Department's practice to find that a
fluctuation exists when the daily exchange rate differs from the
benchmark rate by 2.25 percent. The benchmark is defined as the moving
average of rates for the past 40 business days. When we determine a
fluctuation to have existed, we substitute the benchmark rate for the
daily rate, in accordance with established practice. Further, section
773A(b) directs the Department to allow a 60-day adjustment period when
a currency has undergone a sustained movement. A sustained movement has
occurred when the weekly average of actual daily rates exceeds the
weekly average of benchmark rates by more than five percent for eight
consecutive weeks. (For an explanation of this method, see Policy
Bulletin 96-1: Currency Conversions (61 FR 9434, March 8, 1996).) Such
an adjustment period is required only when a foreign currency is
appreciating against the U.S. dollar. The use of an adjustment period
was not warranted in this case because the Malaysian Ringgit did not
undergo a sustained movement.
Verification
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified information
provided by Filati, Heveafil and Rubberflex by using standard
verification procedures, including on-site inspection of the
manufacturer's facilities, examination of relevant sales and financial
records, and selection of original source documentation containing
relevant information.
Preliminary Results of Review
As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the
following margins exist for the period October 1, 1995, through
September 30, 1996:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/exporter Review period (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Filati Sdn. Bhd........................ 10/01/95-9/30/96 36.36
Heveafil Sdn. Bhd./Filmax Sdn. Bhd..... 10/01/95-9/30/96 54.31
Rubberflex Sdn. Bhd.................... 10/01/95-9/30/96 4.47
Rubfil Sdn. Bhd........................ 10/01/95-9/30/96 54.31
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interested parties may request a disclosure within 5 days of
publication of this notice and may request a hearing within 10 days of
the date of publication. Any hearing, if requested, will be held 44
days after the date of publication, or the first workday thereafter.
Interested parties may submit case briefs within 30 days of the date of
publication. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case
briefs, may be filed not later than 37 days after the date of
publication. The Department will publish a notice of the final results
of this administrative review, which will include the results of its
analysis of issues raised in any such case briefs.
The Department shall determine, and the U.S. Customs Service shall
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual
differences between USP and NV may vary from the percentages stated
above. We have calculated an importer-specific duty assessment rate
based on the ratio of the total amount of AD duties calculated for the
examined sales made during the POR to the total value of subject
merchandise entered during the POR. This rate will be assessed
uniformly on all entries of that particular importer made during the
POR. The Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to
the U.S. Customs Service.
Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective
for all shipments of extruded rubber thread from Malaysia entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication
date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by
section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for Filati,
Heveafil, Rubberflex, and Rubfil will be the rates established in the
final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50
percent and, therefore, de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 353.6,
the cash deposit will be zero; (2) for previously reviewed or
investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will
continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent
period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a
prior review, or the original LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer
is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most
recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) if
neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or
any previous review conducted by the Department, the cash deposit rate
will be the ``all others'' rate, as set forth below.
On March 25, 1993, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT), in
Floral Trade Council v. United States, 822 F.Supp. 766 (CIT 1993), and
Federal-Mogul Corporation v. United States, 822 F.Supp. 782 (CIT 1993),
decided that once an ``all others'' rate is established for a company,
it can only be changed through an administrative review. The Department
has determined that in order to implement this decision, it is
appropriate to reinstate the original ``all others'' rate from the LTFV
investigation (or that rate as amended for correction of clerical
errors or as a result of litigation) in proceedings governed by
antidumping duty orders. In proceedings governed by antidumping
findings, unless we are able to ascertain the ``all others'' rate from
the original investigation, the Department has determined that it is
appropriate to adopt the ``new shipper'' rate established in the first
final results of administrative review published by the Department (or
that rate as amended for correction of clerical errors or as a result
of litigation) as the ``all others'' rate for the purposes of
establishing cash deposits in all current and future administrative
reviews. Because this proceeding is governed by an antidumping duty
order, the ``all others'' rate for the purposes of this review will be
15.16 percent, the ``all others'' rate established in the LTFV
investigation.
These cash deposit 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 in accordance with
section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 353.22.
Dated: October 31, 1997.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-29400 Filed 11-6-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
