[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 251 (Monday, December 30, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68708-68712]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-33173]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-201-805]
Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe and Tube From Mexico:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In response to requests from two respondents, the Department
of Commerce (``the Department'') is conducting an administrative review
of the antidumping duty order on circular welded non-alloy steel pipe
and tube from Mexico. This review covers two manufacturers and
exporters of the subject merchandise. The period of review (``POR'') is
November 1, 1994, through October 31, 1995.
We preliminarily determine that sales have been made below normal
value (``NV''). If these preliminary results are adopted in our final
results of administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs to
assess antidumping duties equal to the difference between export price
(``EP'') and NV.
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary
results. Parties who submit argument in this proceeding are requested
to submit with the argument: (1) a statement of the issue; and (2) a
brief summary of the argument.
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 30, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Drury, Charles Rast, Robin Gray
or Linda Ludwig, Enforcement Group III--Office 8, Import
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Room 7866,
Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone (202) 482-0414 (Drury), (202) 482-
5811 (Rast), (202) 482-0196 (Gray), or (202) 482-3833 (Ludwig).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Applicable Statute
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are
references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective
date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (``the Act'') by
the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (``URAA''). In addition, unless
otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are
to the current regulations, as amended by the interim regulations
published in the Federal Register on May 11, 1995 (60 FR 25130).
Background
The Department published an antidumping duty order on circular
welded non-alloy steel pipe and tube from Mexico on November 2, 1992
(57 FR 49453). The Department published a notice of ``Opportunity to
Request an Administrative Review'' of the antidumping duty order for
the 1994/95 review period on November 1, 1995 (60 FR 55541). On
November 29, 1995, respondent Hylsa S.A. de C.V. (``Hylsa'') requested
that the Department conduct an administrative review of the antidumping
duty order on circular welded non-alloy steel pipe and tube from
Mexico. On November 30, 1995, respondent Tuberia Nacional S.A. de C.V.
(``TUNA'') requested that the Department conduct an administrative
review of this order. We initiated this review on December 8, 1995. See
60 FR 44414 (September 15, 1995).
Under Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department may extend
the deadline for completion of administrative reviews if it determines
that it is not practicable to complete the review within the statutory
time limit of 365 days. On July 19, 1996, the Department extended the
time limits for preliminary and final results in this case. See
Extension of Time Limit for Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 61
FR 40603 (August 5, 1996).
The Department is conducting this administrative review in
accordance with section 751 of the Act.
Scope of the Review
The review of ``circular welded non-alloy steel pipe and tube''
covers products of circular cross-section, not more than 406.4
millimeters (16 inches) in outside diameter, regardless of wall
thickness, surface finish (black, galvanized, or painted), or end
finish (plain end, bevelled end, threaded, or threaded and coupled).
Those pipes and tubes are generally known as standard pipe, though they
may also be called structural or mechanical tubing in certain
applications. Standard pipes and tubes are intended for the low
pressure conveyance of water, steam, natural gas, air and other liquids
and gases in plumbing and heating systems, air conditioning units,
automatic sprinkler systems, and other related uses. Standard pipe may
also be used for light load-bearing and mechanical applications, such
as for fence tubing, and for protection of electrical wiring, such as
conduit shells.
The scope is not limited to standard pipe and fence tubing, or
those types of mechanical and structural pipe that are used in standard
pipe applications. All carbon steel pipes and tubes within the physical
description outlined above are included within the scope of this
review, except line pipe, oil country tubular goods, boiler tubing,
cold-drawn or cold-rolled mechanical tubing, pipe and tube hollows for
redraws, finished scaffolding, and finished rigid conduit. In
accordance with the Final Negative Determination of Scope Inquiry (56
FR 11608, March 21, 1996), pipe certified to the API 5L line pipe
specification, or pipe certified to both the API 5L line pipe
specifications and the less-stringent ASTM A-53 standard pipe
specifications, which fall within the physical parameters as outlined
above, and entered as line pipe of a kind used for oil and gas
pipelines, are outside of the scope of the antidumping duty order.
Imports of these products are currently classifiable under the
following Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) subheadings: 7306.3010.00,
7306.30.50.25, 7306.30.50.32, 7306.30.50.40, 7306.30.50.55,
7306.30.50.85, and 7306.30.50.90. These HTS item numbers are provided
for convenience and customs purposes. The written descriptions remain
dispositive.
The POR is November 1, 1994 through October 31, 1995. This review
covers
[[Page 68709]]
sales of circular welded non-alloy steel pipe and tube by Hylsa and
TUNA.
Verification
As provided in section 782(i)(3) of the Act, we verified
information provided by the respondents using standard verification
procedures, including on-site inspection of the manufacturer's
facilities, the examination of relevant sales and financial records,
and selection of original documentation containing relevant
information. Our verification results are outlined in the public
versions of the verification reports.
Transactions Reviewed
In accordance with section 751 of the Act, the Department is
required to determine the EP and NV of each entry of subject
merchandise during the relevant review period.
In determining NV, based on our review of the submissions by Hylsa,
the Department determined that Hylsa need not report ``downstream''
sales in the home market, which constituted a small quantity of Hylsa's
home market sales. See Letter to Shearman & Sterling from the
Department (August 9, 1996), a copy of which, as well as copies of
other letters and memoranda referred to in this notice, are available
in Room B-099 of the Department's Central Records Unit. Thus, Hylsa did
not report downstream sales in the home market. Hylsa's downstream home
market sales are properly excluded from our determination of NV because
they were not made in the usual commercial quantities, in the ordinary
course of trade, nor at the same level of trade as the EP sales. See
Section 773 (a)(1) (A) and (B) of the Act. TUNA, on the other hand, has
reported its downstream sales, and in accordance with Section 773 of
the Act these sales have been used in our determination of NV for this
respondent.
Product Comparisons
In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered each
circular welded non-alloy steel pipe and tube product produced by the
respondents, covered by the descriptions in the ``Scope of the Review''
section of this notice, supra, and sold in the home market during the
POR, to be a foreign like product for purposes of determining
appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales of circular welded non-
alloy steel pipe and tube. For each of the products produced by the
respondents within the scope of the A-201-805 order, we examined the
categories of merchandise listed in Section 771 (16) of the Act for
purposes of model matching. Where there were no sales of identical
merchandise in the home market to compare to U.S. sales, we compared
U.S. sales to the next most similar foreign like product on the basis
of the characteristics listed in Appendix VI of the Department's March
22, 1996, antidumping questionnaire. In making the product comparisons,
we matched each foreign like product based on the physical
characteristics reported by the respondent and verified by the
Department. Where sales were made in the home market on a different
weight basis from the U.S. market (e.g. theoretical versus actual
weight), we converted all quantities to the same weight basis, using
the conversion factors supplied by the respondents, before making our
fair-value comparisons.
The Department's practice is to use a methodology which accounts
for distortionary inflation in instances where such inflation existed
during the period of review. See Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, Gray Portland Cement and Clinker from
Mexico 61 FR 51676 (October 3, 1996); Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value, Certain Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico 52 FR 6361
(March 3, 1987). In this case, consistent with our prior practice, we
determined that distortionary inflation existed during the period of
review. See Letter to Shearman & Sterling from the Department (August
9, 1996). In order to take into account the rate of inflation in Mexico
during the POR, we compared each foreign like product to a product
exported to the U.S. and sold in the same month. Where there were no
sales of identical merchandise in the home market to compare to U.S.
sales within the same month, we compared U.S. sales to the next most
similar foreign like product (on the basis of the characteristics
listed in Appendix VI of the Department's March 22, 1996, antidumping
questionnaire) which was sold in the same month.
Fair-Value Comparisons
To determine whether sales of circular welded non-alloy steel pipe
and tube by the respondents to the United States were made at less than
fair value, we compared EP to NV, as described in the ``Export Price''
and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice. In accordance with
section 777A(d)(2), we compared individual U.S. transactions to monthly
weighted average NVs.
Date of Sale
Depending on the channel of trade and on the date after which the
key terms of sale could not be changed, we treated one of the following
dates as the date of the sale: the date of the invoice or the date of
shipment.
Export Price
We calculated the price of United States sales based on EP, in
accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, when the subject merchandise
was sold to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States prior to the
date of importation.
For both respondents, we calculated EP based on packed prices to
unaffiliated customers in the United States. Where appropriate, in
accordance with Section 772 of the Act, we made deductions from the
starting price for foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and
handling, international freight, insurance, U.S. inland freight, U.S.
brokerage and handling, and U.S. Customs duties. For Hylsa, we
disallowed certain rebates which were claimed. (See Analysis Memo to
the File from John Drury and Charlie Rast, dated December 19, 1996.)
Normal Value
Based on a comparison of the aggregate quantity of home-market and
U.S. sales, we determined that the quantity of the foreign like product
sold in the exporting country was sufficient to permit a proper
comparison with the sales of the subject merchandise to the United
States, pursuant to section 773(a) of the Act. Therefore, in accordance
with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based NV on the price at
which the foreign like product was first sold for consumption in the
home market, in the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary
course of trade and, to the extent practicable, at the same level of
trade.
Where appropriate, in accordance with Section 773(a)(6)(A) of the
Act, we deducted rebates, discounts, inland freight, inland insurance,
and packing. Based on our verification of home-market sales responses,
we made adjustments to NV, where appropriate, for differences in credit
expenses (offset where applicable by interest income), and post-sale
warehousing. We also made adjustments, where appropriate, for home-
market indirect selling expenses to offset U.S. commissions in EP
comparisons.
In comparisons to EP sales, we also increased NV by U.S. packing
costs in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A) of the Act. We made
adjustments to NV for differences in cost attributable to differences
in physical characteristics of the merchandise, pursuant to section
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. In accordance with the Department's
practice, we
[[Page 68710]]
based NV on constructed value (``CV'') where, for the most similar
product match, the difference in merchandise adjustment for any product
comparison exceeded 20 percent.
Hylsa
Based on our analysis and verification of home-market sales
responses, we are disallowing adjustments for additional inland freight
and a steel supplier rebate. For additional inland freight, we
attempted, through our analysis and conversations with company
officials, to confirm the accuracy of the claimed adjustment. We
determined at verification that the company may not have used its own
calculation methodology correctly, since the numbers used in the
calculation may not have accurately reflected actual inland freight. In
addition, we do not believe that the allocation methodology is
accurate. At verification, we found that additional inland freight may
have been allocated to certain home market sales to which no freight
charges should apply. See Memorandum Reporting Verification of Sections
A-C Questionnaire Response Submitted by Hylsa.
For the steel supplier rebate, we disallowed the adjustment because
we did not consider the acquisition of the coil from a division of
Hylsa to be a purchase but, rather, considered it to be a cost input.
Hylsa's Tubular Products division obtains coil from the Flat Products
division. These are two divisions within the same corporate entity.
Therefore, we have not treated the transfer of coil as a sale. Rather
than use the claimed rebate in the calculation of EP, which would be
appropiate if we treated the acquisition of the coil as a sale, we used
the cost of the acquisition, which we verified, in the calculation of
Cost of Production, in accordance with Section 773 (b)(3)(A). See
Offshore Jackets and Piles from Japan, 51 FR 11788 (April 7, 1986).
Differences in Levels of Trade
As set forth in section 773(a)(1)(B)(I) of the Act and in the
Statement of Administrative Action which accompanied the passage of the
URAA (H.R. Doc. No. 316, 103rd Cong., 2nd Sess. 829-831 (1994))
(``SAA'), to the extent practicable, the Department will calculate NV
based on sales at the same level of trade as the U.S. sales. When the
Department is unable to find sales in the comparison market at the same
level of trade as the U.S. sale(s), the Department may compare sales in
the U.S. and foreign markets at different levels of trade. See also
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Pasta
from Italy, 61 FR 30326 (June 14, 1996).
In accordance with section 773(a)(7)(A), if sales at different
levels of trade are compared, the Department will adjust the NV to
account for the difference in level of trade if two conditions are met.
First, there must be differences between the actual selling functions
performed by the seller at the level of trade of the U.S. sale and the
level of trade of the normal-value sale. Second, the differences
between the levels of trade must affect price comparability as
evidenced by a pattern of consistent price differences between sales at
the different levels of trade in the market in which NV is determined.
In order to determine that there is a difference in level of trade,
the Department must find that two sales have been made at different
phases of marketing, or the equivalent. Different phases of marketing
necessarily involve differences in selling functions, but differences
in selling functions (even substantial ones) are not alone sufficient
to establish a difference in the level of trade. Similarly, seller and
customer descriptions (such as ``distributor'' and ``wholesaler'') are
useful in identifying different levels of trade, but are insufficient
to establish that there is a difference in the level of trade.
In implementing these principles in this review, we obtained
information about the selling activities of the producers/exporters
associated with each phase or marketing, or the equivalent. We asked
each respondent to establish a claimed LOTs based on these marketing
activities and selling functions. In reviewing the selling functions
reported by the respondents, we considered all types of selling
activities that had been performed on both a qualitative and
quantitative basis. To test the claimed LOTs, we analyzed the selling
activities associated with the marketing phases which respondents
reported. In applying this test, we expect that, if a party claims that
LOTS are different for different groups of sales through different
channels, the functions and activities of the seller should be either
dissimilar or different for each channel. The Department does not only
count activities, but weighs the overall function performed at each
claimed level of trade. In determining whether separate LOTs existed in
the home market, pursuant to section 773 (a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we
considered the selling functions reflected in the starting price of the
home market sales before any adjustment. Below is a summary of our
findings:
A. Hylsa
In its questionnaire responses, Hylsa stated that there were no
differences in its selling activities by customer categories within
each market. In order to confirm independently the absence of separate
levels of trade within or between the U.S. and home markets, we
examined Hylsa's questionnaire responses for indications that Hylsa's
functions as a seller differed qualitatively and quantitatively among
customer categories. Where possible, we further examined whether each
selling function was performed on a substantial portion of sales. See
Proposed Regulations, 61 FR at 7348.
Hylsa sold to end-users in the U.S. market. In the home market,
Hylsa sold to local distributors and end-users. Hylsa performed
essentially the same selling functions at the same stage of
distribution on sales to all its home-market customers, as well as to
U.S. customers. Thus, our analysis of the questionnaire response leads
us to conclude that sales within or between each market are not made at
different levels of trade. Accordingly, we preliminarily find that all
sales in the home market and the U.S. market were made at the same
level of trade. Therefore, all price comparisons are at the same level
of trade and an adjustment pursuant to section 773(a)(7)(A) is
unnecessary.
B. TUNA
TUNA sells subject merchandise directly to the United States. In
the home market, it either sells through Lamina y Placa (an affiliated
company) to end users (Channel 1) or to affiliated distributors/
resellers which are part of the Associates Division (Channel 2) See
Questionnaire Response for Section A (April 19, 1996).
In its questionnaire responses, TUNA stated that its home-market
sales through affiliated distributors (Channel 2) were at a different
level of trade than its other home-market sales directly from Lamina y
Placa (Channel 1) and U.S. sales. The respondent indicated that a
greater number of selling functions are provided to these home market
affiliated resellers than to either U.S. customers or unaffiliated end-
users which purchase directly from Lamina y Placa in the home market.
In order to confirm independently the presence of separate levels
of trade within or between the U.S. and home markets, we examined
TUNA's questionnaire responses for indications of substantive
differences in selling functions, and reviewed this issue during the
sales verification in Mexico.
[[Page 68711]]
Where possible, we further examined whether each selling function was
performed on a substantial portion of sales. See Proposed Regulations,
61 FR at 7348.
At verification, the company TUNA adequately supported its claim
that the home market affiliated distributors perform selling functions
which, on a qualitative and quantitative basis, are different from the
functions performed on either TUNA's other home market sales (i.e.
sales made through Lamina y Placa directly to unaffiliated end-users,
or Channel 1) or respondent's sales to U.S. customers their U.S. sales.
In general, we found that the customers which purchased subject
merchandise through Channel 1 were larger than those who made purchases
through Channel 2. In addition, sales made through Channel 2 involved
added layers of expenses such as distribution (e.g. transportation and
storage) and sales expenses (the cost of added sales personnel and
other related expenses). Finally, Lamina y Placa provided services and
additional selling functions to affiliates that it did not provide to
non-affiliated customers. See Verification Exhibit 48 and Supplemental
Questionnaire Response Exhibit 5 (August 9, 1996).
Thus, our analysis of the questionnaire responses leads us to
conclude that sales within the home market by Lamina y Placa to
unaffiliated end-users, and sales by affiliated resellers to
unaffiliated end-users, were at two different levels of trade. Sales to
the United States were at the same LOT as sales by Lamina y Placa to
unaffiliated end users. To the extent possible, we will compare sales
made in the U.S. to sales made directly by Lamina y Placa to
unaffiliated end users in the home market (Channel 1), which are at the
same level of trade as the U.S. sales. To the extent that it is
necessary to match U.S. sales to home market sales at a different level
of trade (Channel 2), we will first compare home market sales at the
two different levels of trade to determine if there was a pattern of
price differences at the two levels of trade. If we determine that
there is a pattern of price differences, for any U.S. sales that are
matched to home market sales of a different level of trade, we will
make a level of trade adjustment.
Cost-of-Production Analysis
Petitioners alleged, on July 23, 1996 (with respect to Hylsa), and
July 9, 1996 (with respect to TUNA), that Hylsa and TUNA sold circular
welded non-alloy steel pipes and tubes in the home market at prices
below COP. Based on these allegations, in accordance with Section
773(b) of the Act, the Department determined, on August 26, 1996 (for
Hylsa), and on August 9,1996 (for TUNA), that it had reasonable grounds
to believe or suspect that Hylsa and TUNA had sold the subject
merchandise in the home market at prices below the COP. See Letter to
Shearman and Sterling and Decision Memorandum (August 26, 1996) and
Letter to White and Case and Decision Memorandum (August 9, 1996). We
therefore initiated cost investigations with regard to Hylsa and TUNA
in order to determine whether the respondents made home-market sales
during the POR at prices below their COP within the meaning of section
773(b) of the Act.
Before making any fair-value comparisons, we conducted the COP
analysis described below.
A. Calculation of COP
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 home-market selling, general, and administrative expenses
(``SG&A'), and packing costs in accordance with section 773(b)(3) of
the Act.
Based on our verifications of the cost responses submitted by Hylsa
and TUNA, we adjusted each company's reported COP to reflect certain
adjustments to the cost of manufacturing and general and administrative
expenses.
B. Test of Home-Market Prices
We used the respondent's weighted-average COP, as adjusted (see
above), for the period November 1, 1994, through October 31, 1995. We
compared the weighted-average COP figures to home-market sales of the
foreign like product as required under section 773(b) of the Act. In
determining whether to disregard home-market sales made at prices below
the COP, we examined whether (1) within an extended period of time,
such sales were made in substantial quantities, and (2) such sales were
made at prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a
reasonable period of time. On a product-specific basis, we compared the
COP to the home-market prices (not including VAT), less any applicable
movement charges, discounts, and rebates.
C. Results of COP Test
Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C), where less than 20 percent of
respondent's sales of a given product were at prices less than the COP,
we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because we
determined that the below-cost sales were not made in ``substantial
quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a
given product during the POR were at prices less than the COP, we found
that sales of that model were made in ``substantial quantities'' within
an extended period of time, in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B)
and (C) of the Act, and were not at prices which would permit recovery
of all costs within an extended period of time, in accordance with
section 773(b)(2)(B) of the Act. When we found that below-cost sales
had been made in ``substantial quantities'' and were not at prices
which would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of
time, we disregarded the below-cost sales in accordance with section
773(b)(1) of the Act. 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.
D. Calculation of CV
In accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, we calculated CV
based on the sum of respondents' cost of materials, fabrication, SG&A,
U.S. packing costs, interest expenses, and profit. In accordance with
sections 773(e)(2)(A), we based SG&A and profit on the amounts incurred
and realized by the respondent in connection with the production and
sale of the foreign like product in the ordinary course of trade, for
consumption in the foreign country. For selling expenses, we used the
weighted-average home-market selling expenses. Based on our
verification of the cost responses submitted by Hylsa and TUNA, we
adjusted each company's reported CV to reflect adjustments to COM and
G&A. We also made adjustments, where appropriate, for home-market
indirect selling expenses to offset U.S. commissions in EP comparisons.
Reimbursement
In pre-verification comments, Petitioners requested that the
Department examine the issue of reimbursement for both TUNA and Hysla.
For TUNA, we preliminarly determine that there was no reimbursement
based upon the verification of TUNA's U.S. affiliate. For Hylsa, the
issue is moot since the sales in question were found to be without
margins at this time.
Currency Conversion
For purposes of the preliminary results, we made currency
conversions based on the official exchange rates in effect on the dates
of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
Section 773A(a) directs the
[[Page 68712]]
Department to use a daily exchange rate in order to convert foreign
currencies into U.S. dollars, unless the daily rate involves a
``fluctuation.'' In accordance with the Department's practice, we have
determined that a fluctuation exists when the daily exchange rate
differs from a benchmark by 2.25 percent. See, e.g., Certain Stainless
Steel Wire Rods from France: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review (61 FR 8915, 8918--March 6, 1996). The benchmark
is defined as the rolling average of rates for the past 40 business
days. When we determined a fluctuation existed, we substituted the
benchmark for the daily rate. However, for the preliminary results we
have not determined that a fluctuation exists, and we have not
substituted the benchmark for the daily rate.
Preliminary Results of the Review
As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the
following weighted-average dumping margins exist:
Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipes and Tubes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
Average
Producer/Manufacturer/Exporter Margin
(percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hylsa...................................................... 1.36
TUNA....................................................... 1.77
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parties to this proceeding may request disclosure within five days
of publication of this notice and any interested party may request a
hearing within 10 days of publication. Any hearing, if requested, will
be held 44 days after the date of publication, or the first working day
thereafter. Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written
comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication. Rebuttal
briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in
such briefs or comments, may be filed no later than 37 days after the
date of publication of this notice. The Department will publish a
notice of the final results of the administrative review, including its
analysis of issues raised in any written comments or at a hearing, not
later than 180 days after the date of publication of this notice.
Cash Deposit
The following deposit requirements will be effective upon
completion of the final results of this administrative review for all
shipments of circular welded non-alloy steel pipe and tube from Mexico
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) of the Tariff Act: (1) The cash deposit rate
for each respondent will be the rate established in the final results
of this administrative review; (2) exporters not covered in this
review, but covered in the LTFV investigation, the cash deposit rate
will continue to be the company-specific rate published from the LTFV
investigation; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this
review, or the original LTFV, 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 32.62 percent, the
``all others'' rate made effective by the LTFV investigations. 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 Sec. 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. Sec. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR
Sec. 353.22.
Dated: December 20, 1996.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-33173 Filed 12-27-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
