[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 215 (Monday, November 8, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60766-60771]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-29198]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-557-805]
Extruded Rubber Thread From Malaysia; Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to a request by the petitioner and three
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. This review covers four
manufacturers/exporters of the subject merchandise to the United States
(Filati Lastex Sdn. Bhd., Heveafil Sdn. Bhd./Filmax Sdn. Bhd,
Rubberflex Sdn. Bhd., and Rubfil Sdn. Bhd.). The period of review is
October 1, 1997, through September 30, 1998.
We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below
the normal value by three of the four companies subject to this review.
If these preliminary results are adopted in the final results of this
administrative review, we will instruct the 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
[[Page 60767]]
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 8, 1999.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shawn Thompson or Irina Itkin, Office
of AD/CVD Enforcement, Office 2, Import Administration, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-1776
or (202) 482-0656, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On October 9, 1998, 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 (63 FR 54440).
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), on October 9, 1998, the
petitioner, North American Rubber Thread, requested an administrative
review of the antidumping order covering the period October 1, 1997,
through September 30, 1998, for the following producers and exporters
of extruded rubber thread: Filati Lastex Sdn. Bhd. (Filati), Heveafil
Sdn. Bhd./Filmax Sdn. Bhd. (Heveafil), Rubberflex Sdn. Bhd.
(Rubberflex), and Rubfil Sdn. Bhd. (Rubfil). On October 27, 1998,
Filati, Heveafil, and Rubfil also requested an administrative review.
On November 30, 1998, the Department initiated an administrative
review for Filati, Heveafil, Rubberflex, and Rubfil (63 FR 65748 (Nov.
30, 1998)) and issued questionnaires to each of these companies on
December 9, 1998.
In February and March 1999, we received responses from Filati,
Heveafil, and Rubberflex. We received no response from Rubfil. Because
Rubfil did not respond to the questionnaire, we have assigned a margin
to Rubfil based on facts available. For further discussion, see the
``Facts Available'' section, below.
In June and July 1999, we issued supplemental questionnaires to
Filati, Heveafil, and Rubberflex. We received responses to these
questionnaires in September 1999.
In October 1999, we issued additional supplemental questionnaires
to the three respondents. We received responses to these questionnaires
in October 1999.
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. The written description of the scope of this review is
dispositive.
Period of Review
The period of review (POR) is October 1, 1997, through September
30, 1998.
Applicable Statute and Regulations
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (the Act), are references to the provisions effective
January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act
by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless
otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are
to the regulations at 19 CFR part 351 (1998).
Facts Available
A. Use of Facts Available for Rubfil
In accordance with section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, we
preliminarily determine that the use of facts available is appropriate
as the basis for Rubfil's dumping margin. 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) of the Act; (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. Specifically,
Rubfil failed to respond to the Department's questionnaire, issued in
December 1998. Because Rubfil did not respond to the Department's
questionnaire, we must use facts otherwise available to determine
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 for any respondent in any segment of this proceeding. This rate is
52.89 percent. We find that the rate of 52.89 percent, which was
assigned in a prior administrative review, is sufficiently high as to
effectuate the purpose of the facts available rule (see Extruded Rubber
Thread from Malaysia; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 63 FR 12752 (Mar. 16, 1998) (Thread Fourth Review)).
B. Corroboration of Secondary Information
As facts available in this case, the Department has used
information derived from a prior administrative review, which
constitutes secondary information within the meaning of the SAA. See
SAA at 870. 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 total adverse facts available a
calculated dumping margin from the same or a prior segment of this
proceeding, it is not necessary to question the reliability of the
margin for that time period. With respect to the relevance aspect of
corroboration, 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
[[Page 60768]]
from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,
61 FR 6812, 6814 (Feb. 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 Rubfil, we examined the rate applicable to extruded rubber
thread from Malaysia throughout the course of the proceeding. With
regard to its probative value, the rate specified above is reliable and
relevant because it is a calculated rate from the 1995-1996
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 Rubfil. Thus, the Department considers this
rate 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 export price (EP) to the NV for Heveafil and Rubberflex,
as specified in the ``Export Price and Constructed Export Price'' and
``Normal Value'' sections of this notice, below. We compared the
constructed export price (CEP) to the NV for Filati, Heveafil, and
Rubberflex, as also specified in those sections.
When making comparisons in accordance with section 771(16) of the
Act, we considered all products sold in the home market as described in
the ``Scope of the Review'' section of this notice, above, that were in
the ordinary course of trade for purposes of determining appropriate
product comparisons to U.S. sales. Where there were no sales of
identical merchandise in the home market made in the ordinary course of
trade to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to sales of the
most similar foreign like product made in the ordinary course of trade,
based on the characteristics listed in sections B and C of our
antidumping questionnaire.
Level of Trade and CEP Offset
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 as 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, the U.S. level of
trade is also the level of the starting-price sale, which is usually
from the exporter to the 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 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 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 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 (Nov. 19, 1997).
Filati, Heveafil, and Rubberflex claimed that they made home market
sales at only one level of trade (i.e., sales to original equipment
manufacturers). Based on the information on the record, no level of
trade adjustment was warranted for any respondent. Although Filati
claimed that the home market level was different, and more remote, than
the level of trade of the CEP, we have found the levels of trade to be
the same.
In order to determine whether NV was established at a level of
trade which constituted a more advanced stage 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 Filati, Heveafil, and Rubberflex performed
essentially the same selling functions in their sales offices in
Malaysia for both home market and U.S. sales. Therefore, the
respondents' 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 F.O.B. 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 any of the respondents. For a detailed
explanation of this analysis, see the concurrence memorandum issued for
the preliminary results of this review, dated November 1, 1999.
Export Price and Constructed Export Price
For Heveafil and Rubberflex, we based the U.S. price on EP, in
accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, when the subject merchandise
was sold directly to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United
States prior to importation and CEP methodology was not otherwise
indicated.
In addition, for all companies, we based the U.S. price on CEP
where sales to the unaffiliated purchaser took place after importation
into the United States, in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act.
We also based U.S. price on CEP for Filati and Heveafil where the
merchandise was shipped directly to certain unaffiliated customers
because we found that the extent of the affiliates' activities
performed in the United States in connection with those sales was
significant.
A. Filati
We calculated CEP based on the starting price to the first
unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. In accordance with section
772(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we added an amount for uncollected import
duties in Malaysia. We made deductions from the starting price, where
appropriate, for rebates. 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, U.S. inland freight, and U.S.
warehousing expenses, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the
Act.
We made additional deductions from CEP, where appropriate, for
commissions, credit expenses and U.S. indirect selling expenses,
including U.S. inventory carrying costs, in accordance with section
772(d)(1) of the Act. We disallowed an offset claimed by Filati
relating to imputed costs associated with financing antidumping and
countervailing duty deposits, in accordance with the Department's
practice. See Extruded Rubber Thread from Malaysia; Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 64 FR 12967, 12968 (Mar. 16,
1999) (Thread Fifth Review); Thread Fourth Review, 63 FR at 12754; and
Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts
Thereof from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Romania, Singapore, Sweden
and the United Kingdom; Final Results
[[Page 60769]]
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 62 FR 54043, 54075 (Oct.
17, 1997).
Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we further reduced the
starting 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 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. Heveafil
We calculated CEP based on the starting price to the first
unaffiliated customer in the United States. In accordance with section
772(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we added an amount for uncollected import
duties in Malaysia. We made deductions from the starting price, where
appropriate, for rebates. We also 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,
U.S. inland freight, and U.S. warehousing expenses, in accordance with
section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.
We made additional deductions to CEP, where appropriate, for credit
expenses and U.S. indirect selling expenses, including U.S. inventory
carrying costs, in accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act.
Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we further reduced the
starting 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 Heveafil 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.
C. Rubberflex
We based EP or CEP, as appropriate, on the starting price to the
first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. We made deductions
from the starting price, where appropriate, for rebates. We also made
deductions, where appropriate, for foreign inland freight, foreign
brokerage and handling expenses, ocean freight, marine insurance, U.S.
customs duty, U.S. inland freight, and U.S. warehousing expenses, in
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.
We made additional deductions to CEP, where appropriate, for credit
expenses and U.S. indirect selling expenses, including U.S. inventory
carrying costs, in accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act.
Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we further reduced the
starting 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 (i.e.,
the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product
is greater than five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales), we
compared the volume of each 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 each respondent had a viable
home market during the POR. Consequently, we based NV on home market
sales.
Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, there were
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that Filati, Heveafil, and
Rubberflex had made home market sales at prices below their costs of
production (COPs) in this review because the Department had disregarded
sales below the COP for these companies in the most recent
administrative review. See Thread Fifth Review, 64 FR at 12969. 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.
We compared the COP figures to home market prices 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, discounts, and rebates.
In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at
prices below the COP, we examined whether such sales were made: (1) in
substantial quantities within an extended period of time; and (2) at
prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable
period of time in the normal course of trade. See section 773(b)(1) of
the Act.
Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(c)(i) of the Act, where less than 20
percent of a respondent's sales of a given product were at prices less
than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product
because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made in
``substantial quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's
sales of a given product were at prices below the COP, we found that
sales of that model were made in ``substantial quantities'' within an
extended period of time (as defined in section 773(b)(2)(B) of the
Act), in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) 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)(2)(D) 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.
We found that, for certain models of extruded rubber thread, more
than 20 percent of each respondent's home market sales within an
extended period of time were at prices less than COP. Further, the
prices did not provide for the recovery of costs within a reasonable
period of time. We therefore disregarded the below-cost sales and used
the remaining sales as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with
section 773(b)(1) of the Act. For those U.S. sales of extruded rubber
thread for which there were no comparable home market sales in the
ordinary course of trade, we compared CEP to 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 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.
Company-specific calculations are discussed below.
A. Filati
In all instances, NV for Filati was based on home market sales.
Accordingly, we based NV on the starting price to unaffiliated
customers. For all price-to-price comparisons, we made deductions from
the starting price
[[Page 60770]]
for rebates, where appropriate. We also 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 also made deductions for home market credit expenses and bank
charges. Where applicable, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e), 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.
In addition, we deducted home market packing costs and added U.S.
packing costs, in accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the Act. 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 351.411.
B. Heveafil
Where NV was based on home market sales, we based NV on the
starting price to unaffiliated customers. We made deductions from the
starting price for discounts. We also made deductions for foreign
inland freight and foreign inland insurance, pursuant to section
773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) if the
Act, we also made deductions for home market credit expenses.
In addition, we deducted home market packing costs and added U.S.
packing costs, in accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the Act. 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 351.411.
For CV-to-CEP comparisons, we made circumstance-of-sale
adjustments, where appropriate, for differences in credit expenses, in
accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) and 773(a)(8) of the Act.
C. Rubberflex
In all instances, NV for Rubberflex was based on home market sales.
Accordingly, we based NV on the starting price to unaffiliated
customers. We made deductions from the starting price for foreign
inland freight, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act.
For home market price-to-EP comparisons, we made circumstance of
sale adjustments for differences in credit expenses, pursuant to
section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) if the Act. For home market price-to-CEP
comparisons, we made deductions for home market credit expenses.
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. 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
351.411.
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.
Section 773A 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. 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 for the daily rate, in accordance with established practice.
Preliminary Results of Review
As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the
following margins exist for the period October 1, 1997, through
September 30, 1998:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
Manufacturer/exporter margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Filati Lastex Sdn. Bhd..................................... 0.47
Heveafil Sdn. Bhd.......................................... ...........
Filmax Sdn. Bhd............................................ 0.17
Rubberflex Sdn Bhd......................................... 6.35
Rubfil Sdn. Bhd............................................ 52.89
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department will disclose to parties the calculations performed
in connection with these preliminary results within five days of the
date of publication of this notice. Interested parties may request a
hearing within 30 days of the publication. Any hearing, if requested,
will be held two days after the date rebuttal briefs are filed.
Interested parties may submit case briefs not later than 30 days after
the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to
issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than 35 days
after the date of publication of this notice. 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, within 120 days of the publication of these
preliminary results.
Upon completion of this administrative review, the Department shall
determine, and the Customs Service shall assess, antidumping duties on
all appropriate entries. We have calculated importer-specific
assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping
duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of
those sales, where available. Where the entered value was not
available, we estimated the entered value by subtracting international
and U.S. movement expenses from the gross sales value. These rates will
be assessed uniformly on all entries of particular importers made
during the POR. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct the
Customs Service to liquidate without regard to antidumping duties all
entries for any importer for whom the assessment rate is de minimis
(i.e., less than 0.50) percent. The Department will issue appraisement
instructions directly to the Customs Service.
Further, 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
for 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
351.106, 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 less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the
manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for
the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4)
the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will
continue to be 15.16 percent, the all others rate established in the
LTFV investigation.
These 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 351.402(f) 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
[[Page 60771]]
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 351.213.
Dated: November 1, 1999.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-29198 Filed 11-5-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
