[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 216 (Monday, November 9, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60295-60299]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-29850]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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, 1996, through September 30, 1997.
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 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 9, 1998.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shawn Thompson or Irina Itkin, Office
of AD/CVD Enforcement, Office 5, 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 2, 1997, 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 (62 FR 51628).
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), on October 20, 1997, the
petitioner, North American Rubber Thread, requested an administrative
review of the antidumping order covering the period October 1, 1996,
through September 30, 1997, 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 31, 1997,
Filati, Heveafil, and Rubberflex also requested an administrative
review.
In November 1997, the Department initiated an administrative review
for Filati, Heveafil, Rubberflex, and Rubfil (62 FR 63069 (Nov. 26,
1997)) and issued questionnaires to each of these companies.
In February 1998, 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 1998, we issued supplemental questionnaires to
Filati, Heveafil, and Rubberflex. We received responses to these
questionnaires in July, August, and September 1998.
From September through November 1998, the Department conducted
verifications of the data submitted by Filati, Heveafil, and
Rubberflex, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.307(b)(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. The written description of the scope of this review is
dispositive.
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, 62 FR 27296 (May 19, 1997).
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); (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
November 1997. Because Rubfil did not respond to the Department's
questionnaire, we must use facts otherwise available to determine
Rubfil's dumping margin.
[[Page 60296]]
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 any respondent in any segment of this proceeding.
This rate is 54.31 percent. We find that the rate of 54.31 percent,
which was assigned in the prior administrative review, is sufficiently
high as to effectuate the purpose of the facts available rule.
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 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 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 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 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 constructed export price (CEP) to the NV for Filati,
Heveafil and Rubberflex, as specified in the ``Constructed Export
Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice.
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 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, the U.S.
level of trade 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 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 its 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
[[Page 60297]]
issued for the preliminary results of this review, dated November 2,
1998.
Constructed Export Price
For all U.S. sales by Filati, Heveafil, and Rubberflex, we used
CEP, in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act. For Filati, we have
treated sales shipped directly to the U.S. customer as CEP sales
because we find that the extent of the affiliate's activities performed
in the United States in connection with these sales is significant. See
the Filati USA verification report at 4.
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, and 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, U.S. indirect selling expenses, and 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, 63 FR 12752,12758 (March 16, 1998) (Thread
Fourth Review); 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 of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 62 FR 54043, 54079 (Oct. 17,
1997) (AFBs).
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
In cases where Heveafil shipped merchandise directly from Malaysia
to U.S. customers, we used the bill of lading date as the date of sale
for these shipments, rather than the date of the U.S. invoice as
reported. For these shipments, we find that there is a long lag time
between the date of shipment to the customer and the date of invoice.
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, repacking expenses, U.S. indirect selling expenses, and U.S.
inventory carrying costs, in accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the
Act. Regarding indirect selling expenses, we disallowed an offset
claimed by Heveafil relating to imputed costs associated with financing
antidumping and countervailing duty deposits, in accordance the
Department's practice. See Thread Fourth Review (63 FR 12758) and AFBs
(62 FR 54079).
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 calculated CEP based on the starting price to the first
unaffiliated customer in the United States. 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. 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, U.S. indirect selling expenses, and 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 period of review (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 (COP)s in this review because the Department had disregarded
sales below the COP for these companies in a previous administrative
review. See Thread Fourth 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.
Except as follows, we used the respondents' reported COP amounts to
compute weighted-average COPs during the POR. Regarding the COP data
reported by Filati, we found that, in certain instances, Filati
reported multiple costs for a single control number. In those cases, we
used the higher of the costs for purposes of the preliminary results.
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
[[Page 60298]]
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 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 Sec. 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 above-cost 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 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) of the
Act, we also made deductions for home market credit expenses and bank
charges.
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 and
bank charges, 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 and foreign inland insurance, 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.
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.
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, 1996, through
September 30, 1997:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
Manufacturer/exporter margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Filati Lastex Sdn. Bhd....................................... 8.31
Heveafil Sdn. Bhd............................................ .........
Filmax Sdn. Bhd.............................................. 3.91
Rubberflex Sdn. Bhd.......................................... 1.15
Rubfil Sdn. Bhd.............................................. 54.31
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interested parties may request a hearing within 30 days of the
publication of this notice. Any hearing, if requested, will be held 37
days after the date of publication, or the first workday thereafter.
Interested parties may submit case briefs within 30 days of
publication. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case
briefs, may be filed not later than 35 days after the date of
publication. The Department will publish a notice of the final results
of this administrative review, which
[[Page 60299]]
will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such
case briefs.
The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. We have
calculated an importer-specific assessment rate based on the ratio of
the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined
sales made during the POR to the total entered value of the examined
sales. 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 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 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 2, 1998.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-29850 Filed 11-6-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
