[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 57 (Thursday, March 24, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-6974]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: March 24, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-582-802]
Sweaters Wholly or in Chief Weight of Man-Made Fiber From Hong
Kong; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: International Trade Administration/Import Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of final results of antidumping duty administrative
review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On December 3, 1993, the Department of Commerce published the
preliminary results of its administrative review of the antidumping
duty order on sweaters wholly or in chief weight of man-made fiber from
Hong Kong. The review covers 29 manufacturers/exporters and the period
April 27, 1990 through August 31, 1991.
We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on our
preliminary results. We have analyzed the comments received, and have
changed the method in which the sample rate is calculated.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 24, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elisabeth Urfer or Maureen Flannery,
Office of Antidumping Compliance, International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4733.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On September 24, 1990, the Department of Commerce (the Department)
published in the Federal Register (55 FR 39036) the antidumping duty
order on sweaters wholly or in chief weight of man-made fiber (MMF
sweaters) from Hong Kong. On September 30, 1991, the petitioner, the
National Knitwear & Sportswear Association (NKSA), requested that we
conduct an administrative review, in accordance with section 751(a) of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Tariff Act) and 19 CFR
353.22(a). We published the notice of initiation of the antidumping
duty administrative review on October 18, 1991 (56 FR 52254), covering
the period April 27, 1990 through August 31, 1991. On December 3, 1993
the Department published the preliminary results in the Federal
Register (58 FR 63913). The initiation notice named 31 companies. Of
these 31 companies, we terminated the review of two companies, which
had requested review of their own shipments, but later withdrew those
requests. (See ``Termination of Review in Part'' section of the
preliminary results notice.) Of the remaining 29 companies the
following four companies were selected to be analyzed, using sampling
techniques: Apace Knitting Factory (Apace), Bond Manufacturing Co.,
Ltd. (Bond), Hayward Knitters (Hayward), and LaMagma, Ltd. (LaMagma).
The other companies covered by this review preliminarily received a
rate which was the simple average of the margins of these four
companies.
Four exporters, Peninsula Knitters Ltd. (Peninsula), Fang Brothers
Knitting Limited (Fang), Sun Hing Knitting Factory Limited (Sun Hing)
and Comitex Knitters Limited (Comitex), and the Hong Kong Woollen &
Synthetic Knitting Manufacturers' Association, (Peninsula et al.)
submitted a joint case brief. Susan Bristol, Inc. (Bristol) an
importer, submitted a case brief. No party submitted a rebuttal brief.
The Department has now completed this administrative review in
accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act.
Scope of the Review
Imports covered by this review are shipments of MMF sweaters from
Hong Kong. MMF sweaters are defined as garments for outerwear that are
knitted or crocheted, in a variety of forms including jacket, vest,
cardigan with button or zipper front, or pullover, usually having
ribbing around the neck, bottom, and cuffs on the sleeves (if any),
encompassing garments of various lengths, wholly or in chief weight of
man-made fiber. The term ``in chief weight of man-made fiber'' includes
sweaters where the man-made fiber material predominates by weight over
each other single textile material. This excludes sweaters 23 percent
or more by weight of wool. It includes men's, women's, boys', or girls'
sweaters, as defined above, but does not include sweaters for infants
24 months of age or younger. It includes all sweaters as defined above,
regardless of the number of stitches per centimeter, provided that,
with regard to sweaters having more than nine stitches per two linear
centimeters horizontally, it includes only those with a knit-on rib at
the bottom.
Garments which extend below mid-thigh or cardigans that contain a
sherpa lining or heavy-weight fiberfill lining, including quilted
linings, used to provide extra warmth to the wearer, are not considered
sweaters and are excluded from the scope of the order. Also
specifically excluded from the scope are sweaters assembled in Guam
that are produced from knit-to-shape component parts knit in and
imported from Hong Kong and entering under Harmonized Tariff Schedule
(HTS) item number 9902.61.
The subject merchandise is currently classifiable under HTS item
numbers 6110.30.30.10, 6110.30.30.15, 6110.30.30.20, 6110.30.30.25,
6103.23.00.70, 6103.29.10.40, 6103.29.20.62, 6104.23.00.40,
6104.29.10.60, 6104.29.20.60, 6110.30.10.10, 6110.30.10.20,
6110.30.20.10, and 6110.30.20.20. This merchandise may also enter under
HTS item numbers 6110.30.30.50 and 6110.30.30.55. The HTS item numbers
are provided for convenience and Customs purposes only. The written
description remains dispositive.
Sampling Methodology
We applied our sampling methodology in the following manner. First,
each of the 18 companies included in the sample pool was assigned
points according to its percentage share of total export sales, by
volume, to the United States. One point was given for each \1/2\
percent of U.S. sales. (Each company received a minimum of one point.)
Each company was represented in the sample pool in proportion to the
number of points it received. For example, a company that comprised 25
percent of exports to the United States would receive 50 points and go
``into the hat'' 50 times. A company that comprised one percent of
total exports would receive two points and go ``into the hat'' twice.
In this way, the company with a greater volume of exports had a greater
chance of being selected than a company with a smaller volume of
exports. There was a total of 203 points in the pool. We then selected
random numbers between one and 203 corresponding to the points until
four separate companies were selected. (In all, we selected seven
points, four of which corresponded to the same company.)
For the preliminary results, the companies in the sample pool that
were not selected to be analyzed received a rate which was the simple
average of the margins of the four selected companies. For the final
results we have determined that it is more appropriate to weight the
sample by the points drawn from the pool. Since each point represents a
percentage of the total sales volume, each time we randomly selected a
point we were, in effect, selecting a segment of the sales volume as
representative of the entire pool. Each volume segment had an equal
chance for selection, and each segment is equally representative of the
pool. Therefore, each segment should be given equal weight in
calculating the sample pool rate. Four points assigned to Hayward were
drawn; therefore, Hayward's rate of 5.86 percent has entered the sample
rate calculation four times. Points assigned to Apace, Bond and LaMagma
were drawn only once; therefore, their rates of 115.15 percent, 5.86
percent, and zero percent have each entered the sample rate once. The
sample rate for these final results is 20.64 percent.
Analysis of the Comments Received
Comment 1
Peninsula et al. contend that the Department does not have legal
authority to utilize sampling to select respondents in administrative
reviews. Peninsula et al. argue that the provision in the Trade
Agreements Act of 1979 dealing with sampling was not intended to permit
the Department to use sampling in selection of respondents, but in the
calculation of foreign market value (FMV). They argue that, while the
Trade and Tariff Act of 1984 expanded the Department's authority with
regard to sampling, it did not give the Department the authority to
sample respondents.
Peninsula et al. argue that the statute and legislative history
indicate that Congress intended to extend the authority for sampling to
the calculation of U.S. price and other variables within the databases
of a particular respondent, rather than to a group of respondents. They
claim that when the Department restricts its review to a sample of the
respondents named by the domestic industry, those respondents not
selected for active participation are ipso facto excluded from the
administrative process, and their fate is entirely in the control of
their competitors. Peninsula et al. further contend that because the
consequences of sampling are so dire, it should not be assumed, in the
absence of an explicit statutory provision, that Congress intended that
the Department investigate anything less than the entire universe of
named parties in an administrative review.
Peninsula et al. further contend that there is no judicial
precedent to support the Department's sampling authority. They argue
that in the one case where the Court of International Trade (CIT)
considered the Department's exercise of sampling for respondent
selection in an administrative review, Floral Trade Council v. United
States, 775 F. Supp. 1492, 15 CIT 497 (1991), the Court assumed that
the Department had the authority to use representative samples, and
that the argument was therefore untested.
Department's Position: We disagree. Section 777A of the Tariff Act
provides the Department with broad authority to apply sampling
techniques in administrative reviews (19 U.S.C. 1677f-1). The
legislative history of the Trade and Tariff Act of 1984 indicates that
this provision grants the Department the discretion to apply sampling
to any aspect of an antidumping review:
Section 109 [of H.R. 4784] authorizes sampling and averaging
techniques utilized by the administering authority in determining
foreign market value under the present antidumping law also to be
used in determining United States price in dumping investigations
and in all aspects of the annual review of outstanding
countervailing and antidumping duty orders. (emphasis added) (H.R.
Rep. No. 98-725, 98th Cong., 2nd. Sess., Reprinted in 1984 U.S.
AAN., 5127, 5135.)
The only criteria for using the sampling provision of section 777A
are that a significant volume of sales be involved or a significant
number of adjustments to prices be required, and that such samples
shall be representative of the transactions under review. (See 19
U.S.C. 1677f-1.) Those criteria were met in this case. (See comment 4.)
We have employed sampling techniques to select respondents to be
analyzed in past administrative reviews. See, e.g., Certain Fresh Cut
Flowers From Colombia; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, Partial Termination of Administrative Review and
Intent To Revoke Order (In Part) (58 FR 65329, December 14, 1993) Fresh
and Chilled Atlantic Salmon from Norway; Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, (58 FR 17380, April 2, 1993),
and Certain Fresh Cut Flowers from Colombia: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review (55 FR 20491, 20495-96, May 17,
1990).
The CIT has reviewed and upheld the Department's sampling
methodology in the context of an antidumping duty review. (See Floral
Trade Council v. United States, 775 F. Supp. 1492 (1991) (Floral Trade
II).) In that case, the Court acknowledged Commerce's authority, which
was unchallenged, to use sampling techniques (which in this case
involved sampling among manufacturers/exporters). The decisions in
Floral Trade II and numerous other cases support the proposition that
the only limitations on Commerce's authority to use sampling techniques
are the criteria in Section 777A, noted above. (See also Asociacion
Colombiana de Exportadores v. United States, 704 F. Supp. 1114 (CIT
1989); Floral Trade Council v. United States, 704 F. Supp. 233 (CIT
1988) (Floral Trade I).)
Comment 2
Peninsula et al. argue that, assuming the Department does have the
authority to sample, the Department should not have done so in this
review, as the statute mandates that the Department must use a
generally accepted statistical method to conduct sampling. Peninsula et
al. assert that, as reflected in the December 16, 1991 letter and
December 13, 1991 sampling memorandum that the Department issued, the
decision to sample was based simply on the total number of respondents
requested by petitioners for the three concurrent MMF Sweater reviews
(Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Korea), without regard to whether the total
number of respondents in each individual country was amenable to
sampling under generally recognized principles of statistical theory.
Peninsula et al. contend that there is no evidence on the record
which demonstrates that the Department made any effort to decide how
large a sample was necessary to reduce the sampling error to an
acceptable level. They argue that statistical theory does not permit
sampling to be undertaken in all instances where there is a multitude
of objects to be studied, and point out that required sample size
should be directly proportional to the population variance. They argue
that there is no analysis on the record which demonstrates that the
Department considered how many firms, from the sample pool of 18,
needed to be investigated in order to bring the sampling error to an
acceptable level, and that Peninsula and Fang noted this in their
December 23, 1991 letter to the Department.
Department's Position: As in similar cases in the past, the
Department's decision to sample was based on the large number of
respondents in the three concurrent MMF sweater reviews, and the
resource constraints that existed at the time these reviews were
initiated. We have employed sampling in the past based on a large sales
volume and the resulting burden that analyzing all sales would place
upon us. In Certain Fresh Cut Flowers From Colombia; Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Partial Termination
of Administrative Review and Intent To Revoke Order (In Part) (58 FR
65329, December 14, 1993), we noted the large number of firms and
transactions under review, and in Antifriction Bearings (Other Than
Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof from the Federal Republic of
Germany; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews
and Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews (56 FR 11200, March
15, 1991) we noted the large number of transactions and the resulting
administrative burden involved in calculating individual margins for
all of these transactions. Furthermore, the CIT has upheld the use of
sampling based on the cumulative burden resulting from simultaneous
cases. (See, e.g., Floral Trade I.) In the present case, we initiated
reviews on 128 firms from Korea, Taiwan, and Hong Kong, and, due to the
significant sales volume, we sampled firms. (We later eliminated from
the sample pools companies which did not respond to our sampling
questionnaire, had no shipments, or could not be located.)
We also disagree with Peninsula et al. regarding the information we
had concerning the firms in the sample, at the time we made the
decision to sample. We received from the Hong Kong government a list of
quota holders and their allocated export quantities on November 11,
1994, more than a month before our decision to sample. Based on that
information, we were able to assess the approximate volume of the Hong
Kong MMF sweater manufacturers/exporters before making our decision to
sample in the three cases. The Hong Kong sample constituted 22 percent
of the firms in the sample pool, and captured approximately 60 percent
of the sales volume. We therefore concluded that the sample was
adequate.
Comment 3
Peninsula et al. argue that sampling was inappropriate because the
sample pool was too small. They cite the December 23, 1991 letter from
NKSA to the Department, in which NKSA pointed out that the Department
had not sampled respondent companies in other administrative reviews
that had involved a greater number of companies. They also cite a 1991
submission from Peninsula and Fang, in which Peninsula and Fang argued
that the 17 companies which had, at that time, responded to the
preliminary questionnaire, accounted for only 204,742 dozen sweaters
worth $19 million, and that, in reviews of other antidumping duty
orders, the Department had reviewed transactions of single respondents
with much greater values and volumes.
Peninsula et al. argue that even the results of the review
demonstrate that the pool was too small, noting that the presence of a
single BIA respondent drove the sample rate from 5.86 to 31.72 percent.
They point out that in Fresh Cut Flowers from Colombia: Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Administrative Review, 58 FR 65329 (December 14,
1993), a BIA margin of 72.35 percent was applied to two firms and was
included in the sample pool margin, but that the effect of the
inclusion of these firms was a margin of 5.71 percent. They also argue
that the Department did not seem to verify that the four companies
which claimed no shipments did not export to the United States during
the period of review.
Department's Position: We disagree with Peninsula et al. that the
size of the sample was too small to be appropriate. As mentioned above,
our sample captured approximately twenty-two percent of firms and sixty
percent of all sales. While we have at times been able to review
companies with greater value and volume, given that we simultaneously
initiated reviews on 128 firms from three countries, and that there
were scarce resources available to us at the time, the decision to
sample was justified. In Hong Kong alone, the sample pool was 18 firms,
a greater number than in most antidumping reviews. Furthermore, given
the differences in selling practices generally found among companies,
and the necessity of conducting a separate analysis of each company
selected, it is less of an administrative burden to analyze a large
number of sales from a few companies, than a smaller number of sales
spread among a greater number of companies.
Regarding the companies which claimed no shipments, we did verify
their claims with the U.S. Customs Department. (See e-mail from the
U.S. Department of Commerce to U.S. Customs, dated July 2, 1992.)
Comment 4
Peninsula et al. argue that the Department's methodology was
erroneous because the sample was not representative. They point out
that Peninsula and Fang, in a December 23, 1991 letter to the
Department, argued that the pool of respondents was not homogeneous,
and displayed clear biases related to company size. Peninsula et al.
state that the Department presumed that it was dealing with a
homogenous universe of potential respondents. They present a chart
which shows quantity, value, and average per unit value for each of the
firms in the pool, which, they argue, shows that there is an inverse
correlation between volume of sales and unit price. They claim that the
selected firms were predominantly large-size, low-unit-value firms, and
the results for these big firms are being applied to the smaller,
higher-unit-value firms. Peninsula et al. cite the Department's January
6, 1992 memorandum, in which we noted that the Korean respondents were
theoretically correct in their argument that the sampling methodology
was biased towards small firms, although the potential bias was
minimal.
Department's Position: Because of the way our sample was
structured, firms with the largest volumes were more likely to be
chosen. We assigned one point for every 0.5 percent of total sales
volume within the sample, then randomly drew numbers, corresponding to
the assigned points. Firms with less than 0.5 percent of total sales
volume were assigned one point. As larger firms had more points
assigned to them, they were more likely to be chosen. However, the
theoretical statistical bias was actually in favor of the selection of
the smallest firms, because there were five firms with less than 0.5
percent of sales volume, all of whom received one point. None of these
low volume firms were selected for the sample, so this theoretical bias
had no practical effect.
We chose our sampling methodology because it was both
representative and efficient. When we issued our proposed sampling
methodology and invited interested parties to comment thereon, we asked
that the parties focus on methodology rather than the decision to
sample. In their submissions, NKSA, as well as Fang and Peninsula,
objected to sampling, but did not suggest an alternative to the
sampling methodology we proposed. Where, as here, the sampling
methodology is legally adequate and the results have not been shown to
be unrepresentative, the CIT has upheld the sampling of representative
firms. In Asociacion Colombiana de Exportadores de Flores v. U.S., the
CIT upheld the Department's sampling of respondent firms in a less than
fair value investigation, noting that ``the sampling methodology was
legally adequate and the results of the sampling have not been shown to
be unrepresentative.'' (704 F. Supp. 1114, 1122 (1989).)
We also disagree that sales price should be used as the basis of
stratification, as Peninsula et al. now suggest. Whether a company's
price to the United States is high or low is not in itself indicative
of the existence or level of dumping. Rather, dumping is measured by a
comparison of U.S. prices to the home market or third country prices,
or to constructed value. A company that sells at higher prices than a
second company could have a higher margin of dumping, depending on the
FMVs of the two companies. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to
group respondents on the basis of price, or a surrogate for price, as
Peninsula et al. suggest.
Comment 5
Peninsula et al. argue that given the technical deficiencies in the
sampling protocol, the Department should have allowed respondents who
were not selected to participate voluntarily, without such firms'
results going into the sample-rate calculation. They argue that
Peninsula and Fang, in their December 23, 1991 letter, suggested that
respondents not selected as questionnaire recipients be able to
participate voluntarily without the rates for such firms being
incorporated in the sample rate.
Department's Position: We disagree. Every MMF sweater manufacturer/
exporter in Hong Kong had ample opportunity to request that it be
reviewed during the anniversary month of the antidumping duty order,
should it have wanted its own rate. Peninsula and Fang, as well as
other companies in the sample pool, chose not to request a review of
their sales.
Comment 6
Peninsula et al. argue that the best information available (BIA)
outlying rate of 115.15 percent should have been excluded from the
sample rate calculation. Rather, the fourteen firms in the sample pool
should be subject to a sample rate of 3.91 percent. Bristol similarly
argues that the companies in the sample pool were unfairly punished by
the inclusion of Apace, the firm which received the 115.15 percent
rate. Bristol contends that the fourteen companies in the sample pool
indicated a willingness to cooperate with the Department by submitting
sampling questionnaire responses. Bristol further argues that had Apace
not responded to the sampling questionnaire, it would have been
assigned the 115.15 percent BIA rate, but would not have been included
in the sample pool, thereby punishing itself, but not the others in the
pool.
Department's Position: We disagree with Peninsula et al. and
Bristol regarding the appropriateness and fairness of including Apace
in the sample pool. Removal of Apace from the sample pool would have
jeopardized the integrity of the sample, as the sample margin would be
skewed towards firms with low margins. We note that the sample rate of
the four firms includes not one, but three firms with BIA rates. It is
as reasonable for us to assume that Apace's rate of 115.15 percent
represents one-seventh of the volume of sampled firms as it is to
assume that LaMagma's zero percent rate represents one-seventh of that
volume.
Bristol is correct in its assertion that had Apace not responded to
the sampling questionnaire, it would have received an uncooperative BIA
rate of 115.15 percent, and would have not been included in the sample
pool. However, once the sample universe is defined, and the sample
selected, we cannot then discard the results of the sample for any
particular selected company. There is no reason to believe that Apace's
failure to respond to the antidumping questionnaire was not
representative of other companies that answered the sampling
questionnaire.
Final Results of Review
As a result of our review, we determine that the following margins
exist:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/exporter Period of review (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apace Knitting Factory............... 04/27/90-08/31/91 115.15
Bond Manufacturing Company, Ltd...... 04/27/90-08/31/91 5.86
Hayward Knitters..................... 04/27/90-08/31/91 5.86
LaMagma.............................. 04/27/90-08/31/91 0.00
Sample pool:
Chung Cheung Knitting Factory.... 04/27/90-08/31/91 \1\20.64
Comitex Knitters, Ltd............ 04/27/90-08/31/91 \1\20.64
Everest Knitwear, Ltd............ 04/27/90-08/31/91 \1\20.64
Fang Brothers Knitting, Ltd...... 04/27/90-08/31/91 \1\20.64
Fortuna Knits.................... 04/27/90-08/31/91 \1\20.64
Gee Cheung Knitting.............. 04/27/90-08/31/91 \1\20.64
Just Fashions International...... 04/27/90-08/31/91 \1\20.64
Ken Shing Knitting Factory....... 04/27/90-08/31/91 \1\20.64
Peninsula Knitters, Ltd.......... 04/27/90-08/31/91 \1\20.64
Sun Hing Knitting Factory, Ltd... 04/27/90-08/31/91 \1\20.64
Union Knitting Factory Co., Ltd.. 04/27/90-08/31/91 \1\20.64
Wai Tai Knitwear................. 04/27/90-08/31/91 \1\20.64
Wing Yick Knitting Factory....... 04/27/90-08/31/91 \1\20.64
Wiseknit Factory................. 04/27/90-08/31/91 \1\20.64
No shipments:
Afasia Knitting Factory, Ltd..... 04/27/90-08/31/91 \2\5.86
Esquel Enterprises, Ltd.......... 04/27/90-08/31/91 \2\5.86
King Ah Knitting Factory......... 04/27/90-08/31/91 \2\5.86
Shui Ling Industries Co., Ltd.... 04/27/90-08/31/91 \2\5.86
Did not respond to Sampling
Questionnaire:
Kent Phone....................... 04/27/90-08/31/91 \3\115.15
Ko Tang Knitting Factory......... 04/27/90-08/31/91 \3\115.15
Simee Knitting Factory, Ltd...... 04/27/90-08/31/91 \3\115.15
Tai Wah Garment & Knitting....... 04/27/90-08/31/91 \3\115.15
Excluded from the sample:........
Great Wind....................... 04/27/90-08/31/91 \4\5.86
Liaoning Knitwear................ 04/27/90-08/31/91 \4\5.86
Maurice Knitters................. 04/27/90-08/31/91 \4\5.86
All Others........................... 04/27/90-08/31/91 5.86
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Not selected from the sample pool; rate is the average of the margins
for the four selected companies, weighted by the number of times each
company was selected from the sample pool.
\2\No shipments during the period; rate is (1) the firm's calculated
margin from the LTFV investigation or, (2) if not covered in the
investigation, the ``all others'' rate, 5.86 percent.
\3\Did not respond to the sampling questionnaire; the uncooperative BIA
rate is 115.15 percent, the highest rate from the LTFV investigation.
\4\No address found; rate is the all others rate from the LTFV
investigation, 5.86 percent.
Parties to the proceeding may request disclosure within 5 days of
the date of publication of this notice.
The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual
differences between U.S. price and FMV may vary from the percentages
stated above. The Department will issue appraisement instructions on
each exporter directly to the Customs Service.
Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective
upon publication of this notice of final results of review for all
shipments of MMF sweaters from Hong Kong entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as
provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act: (1) The cash deposit
rates for the reviewed companies will be those established in the final
results of this administrative review; (2) for previously investigated
companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be
the company-specific rate published for the LTFV investigation; (3) if
the exporter is not a firm covered in this review or the LTFV
investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be
the rate established in the LTFV investigation for the manufacturer of
the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other
manufacturers or exporters will be the ``all other'' rate established
in the final notice of LTFV investigation of this case (see 55 FR
30733), in accordance with the Court of International Trade's decisions
in Floral Trade Council v. United States, Slip Op. 93-79, and Federal-
Mogul Corporation and the Torrington Company v. United States, Slip Op.
93-83. 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 final reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26 to file a certificate regarding the
reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the
relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this
requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and subsequent assessment
of double antidumping duties.
Notification to Interested Parties
This notice also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(d). Timely written notification of
return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial
protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the
regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This administrative review and notice are in accordance with
section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR
353.22.
Dated: March 12, 1994.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 94-6974 Filed 3-23-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
