96-5259. Certain Stainless Steel Wire Rods From France: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review  

  • [Federal Register Volume 61, Number 45 (Wednesday, March 6, 1996)]
    [Notices]
    [Pages 8914-8918]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 96-5259]
    
    
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    [[Page 8915]]
    
    
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
    [A-427-811]
    
    
    Certain Stainless Steel Wire Rods From France: 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 a request by Imphy S.A., and Ugine-Savoie, 
    respondents, the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting 
    an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain 
    stainless steel wire rods from France. This review covers the above 
    manufacturers/exporters of the subject merchandise to the United 
    States. The period of review (POR) is August 5, 1993 through December 
    31, 1994.
        We have preliminarily determined that respondents sold subject 
    merchandise at less than normal value (NV) during the POR. Interested 
    parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. Parties 
    who submit argument in this proceeding should also submit with the 
    argument (1) a statement of the issue, and (2) a brief (no longer than 
    five pages, including footnotes) summary of the argument.
    
    EFFECTIVE DATE: February 28, 1996.
    
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen Jacques or Jean Kemp, Office 
    of Agreements Compliance, Import Administration, International Trade 
    Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
    Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
    3434 or (202) 482-4037, respectively.
    
    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    
    The 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 Rounds 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
    
        On December 29, 1993, the Department published in the Federal 
    Register (58 FR 68865) the final affirmative antidumping duty 
    determination on certain stainless steel wire rods from France, and 
    published an amended final determination and antidumping duty order on 
    January 28, 1994. On January 12, 1995, the Department published the 
    Opportunity to Request an Administrative Review of this order for the 
    period August 5, 1993-December 31, 1994 ( 60 FR 2941). The Department 
    received a request for administrative review from Imphy, S.A., 
    (``Imphy'') and Ugine Savoie (``Ugine''), related producers/exporters 
    of the subject merchandise on January 30, 1995. We initiated the review 
    on February 15, 1995. On November 7, 1995, the Department published in 
    the Federal Register its notice extending the deadline in this review 
    (60 FR 56142).
        The Department is now conducting this review in accordance with 
    section 751 of the Act. The review covers sales of certain stainless 
    steel wire rods by Imphy, Ugine, and their affiliated companies, 
    Metalimphy Alloys Corp. (``MAC''), and Techalloy Company, Inc. 
    (``Techalloy'').
    
    Scope of the Review
    
        The products covered by this administrative review are certain 
    stainless steel wire rods (SSWR), products which are hot-rolled or hot-
    rolled annealed, and/or pickled rounds, squares, octagons, hexagons, or 
    other shapes, in coils. SSWR are made of alloy steels containing, by 
    weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more of 
    chromium, with or without other elements. These products are only 
    manufactured by hot-rolling, are normally sold in coiled form, and are 
    of solid cross section. The majority of SSWR sold in the United States 
    is round in cross-sectional shape, annealed, and pickled. The most 
    common size is 5.5 millimeters in diameter.
        The SSWR subject to this review is currently classifiable under 
    subheadings 7221.00.0005, 7221.00.0015, 7221.00.0020, 7221.00.0030, 
    7221.00.0040, 7221.00.0045, 7221.00.0060, 7221.00.0075, and 
    7221.00.0080 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
    (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience 
    and Customs purposes, our written description of the scope of the order 
    is dispositive.
    
    Verification
    
        As provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act, we verified 
    information provided by the respondent by using standard verification 
    procedures, including onsite 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 normal value and export price (EP) or 
    constructed export price (CEP) of each entry of subject merchandise 
    during the relevant review period. Because there can be a significant 
    lag between entry date and sale date for CEP sales, it has been the 
    Department's practice to examine U.S. CEP sales during the period of 
    review. Gray Portland Cement and Clinker from Japan; Final Results of 
    Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 58 FR 48826 (1993) (Dept. did 
    not consider ESP (now CEP) entries which were sold after the POR). The 
    Court of International Trade has upheld the Department's practice in 
    this regard. See, The Ad Hoc Committee of Southern California Producers 
    of Gray Portland Cement v. United States, CIT Slip Op. 95-195, December 
    1, 1995.1
    
        \1\ Although the CIT, in Ad Hoc, accepted that ``consideration 
    of all sales, rather than entries, made during the period of review 
    may result in the consideration of entries made prior to the 
    suspension of liquidation'', Ad Hoc is not a case in which the 
    respondent linked specific sales during the POR to specific entries 
    prior to the suspension of liquidation. Ad Hoc, Slip Op. at 19 
    (emphasis added).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        The Department has adopted an exception to its practice of 
    examining all U.S. sales during the period of review. That exception 
    applies when a respondent is able to demonstrate, to the satisfaction 
    of the Department, that the merchandise covered by a particular sale 
    entered prior to the suspension of liquidation pursuant to the 
    Department's preliminary determination in the LTFV investigation. See, 
    High-Tenacity Rayon Filament Yarn, Preliminary Results of Antidumping 
    Duty Administrative Review, 59 FR 32181 (1994) (specific sales excluded 
    when linked to pre-suspension entries); compare, Certain Corrosion-
    Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Australia; Preliminary 
    Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 60 FR 42507 (1995) 
    (sales not excluded when respondent unable to link them to specific 
    pre-suspension entries). Merchandise proven to have entered the U.S. 
    prior to the suspension of liquidation (and in the absence of an 
    affirmative critical circumstances finding) is not subject merchandise 
    within the meaning of section 771(25) of the Act.
        In this review, respondent claimed that certain merchandise was not 
    
    
    [[Page 8916]]
    subject to review because it entered prior to the period of review for 
    sale by an affiliated U.S. company during the period of review. The 
    Department verified that respondent was able to link certain sales 
    during the period to entries of merchandise prior to the suspension of 
    liquidation. Because respondent has demonstrated that certain 
    merchandise entered prior to the suspension of liquidation, we excluded 
    sales of that merchandise from our analysis.
    
    Product Comparisons
    
        In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all 
    products produced by the respondent, covered by the description in the 
    Scope of the Review section, above, and sold in the home market during 
    the POR, to be foreign like products for purposes of determining 
    appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. 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 III of 
    the Department's June 20, 1995 antidumping questionnaire and additional 
    specifications listed in our December 1, 1995 supplemental 
    questionnaire. In making the product comparisons, we matched foreign 
    like products based on the physical characteristics reported by the 
    respondents and verified by the Department.
    
    Level of Trade
    
        As set forth in section 773(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Act and in the 
    Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) accompanying the Uruguay Round 
    Agreements Act, at 829-831, to the extent practicable, the Department 
    will calculate normal value based on sales at the same level of trade 
    as the U.S. sale. When the Department is unable to find sale(s) 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 a 
    different level of trade.
        In accordance with section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act, if we compare a 
    U.S. sale at one level of trade to normal value sales at a different 
    level of trade, the Department will adjust the normal value 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 at 
    the level of trade of the NV sale. Second, the differences 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 normal value is determined. When constructed export 
    price is applicable, section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act establishes the 
    procedures for making a constructed export price offset when: (1) 
    normal value is at a different level of trade, and (2) the data 
    available do not provide an appropriate basis for a level of trade 
    adjustment from the U.S. sale. Also, in accordance with section 
    773(a)(7)(B), to qualify for a CEP offset, the level of trade in the 
    home market must also constitute a more advanced stage of distribution 
    than the level or trade of the CEP.
        In order to identify levels of trade, the Department must review 
    information concerning selling functions of the exporter. Therefore, in 
    addition to the questions related to the level of trade in our June 20, 
    1995, questionnaire, on December 13, 1995, we sent respondents 
    supplemental questions related to level of trade comparisons and 
    adjustments. We asked respondents to establish any claimed levels of 
    trade based on selling functions performed and services offered to each 
    customer or customer class, and to document and explain any claims for 
    a level of trade adjustment.
        Respondents' reported one level of trade in the home market (to end 
    users) and two channels of distribution: 1) direct to end users; and 2) 
    through Ugine Service, a joint-venture between Imphy and Ugine which 
    acts as a selling arm. We examined and verified the selling functions 
    performed in each channel and found that the two sales channels 
    provided many of the same or similar selling functions including: 
    strategic planning, order evaluation, warranty claims, technical 
    services, inventory maintenance, packing and freight and delivery. We 
    found some differences between the two channels of trade in 
    advertising, customer contacts, computer systems (order input/invoice 
    system), and administrative functions. Overall, we determine that the 
    selling functions between the two sales channels are sufficiently 
    similar to consider them as one level of trade in the home market.
        For the U.S. market, respondents claimed that they sold to two 
    levels of trade: 1) end users through MAC (EP sales); and 2) 
    distributors, e.g., MAC, Techalloy and US&A (CEP sales). We examined 
    and verified the selling functions performed for U.S. sales to end 
    users through MAC and determined that they are at the same level of 
    trade as home market sales. We then examined and verified that 
    different (fewer) selling functions were performed for U.S. sales to 
    distributors than for home market sales. Specifically, we found the 
    selling functions were sufficiently different in customer sales 
    contacts, technical services, inventory maintenance, computer systems 
    and administrative functions to warrant treating U.S. sales to 
    distributors and the home market sales as different levels of trade.
        To the extent practicable, we compared normal value at the same 
    level of trade as the U.S. sale. Because we compared these CEP sales to 
    home market sales at a different level of trade, we examined whether a 
    level of trade adjustment may be appropriate. In this case, respondent 
    only sold at one level of trade in the home market; therefore, there is 
    no basis upon which respondent can demonstrate a consistent pattern of 
    price differences between levels of trade. Further, we do not have 
    information which would allow us to examine pricing patterns based on 
    respondent's sales of other products and there are no other respondents 
    or other record information on which such an analysis could be based.
        Because the data available do not provide an appropriate basis for 
    making a level of trade adjustment but the level of trade in the HM is 
    a more advanced stage of distribution than the LOT of the CEP sale, a 
    CEP offset is appropriate. Respondents claimed a CEP offset for those 
    U.S. CEP and CEP/FM (CEP/Further Manufactured) sales compared to sales 
    in France through Ugine Service. We included a CEP offset for all sales 
    in France which are compared with CEP and CEP/FM sales in the United 
    States since the comparison of home market sales to CEP sales is at a 
    different level of trade. We applied the CEP offset to normal value or 
    constructed value, as appropriate (See Fair Value Comparisons Section, 
    below). The level of trade methodology employed by the Department in 
    these preliminary results of review is based on the facts particular to 
    this review. The Department will continue to examine its policy for 
    making level of trade comparisons and adjustments for its final results 
    of review.
    
    Fair Value Comparisons
    
        To determine whether sales of SSWR by respondents to the United 
    States were made at less than fair value, we compared the EP or CEP to 
    the normal value (NV), as described in the ``Export Price and 
    Constructed Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this 
    notice. In accordance with section 777A(d)(2), we calculated monthly 
    weighted-average prices for NV and compared these to individual U.S. 
    transactions. Where possible, in calculating a monthly weighted average 
    normal 
    
    [[Page 8917]]
    value, we averaged home market sales across the channel of distribution 
    most comparable to that in which the U.S. transaction was made. Where 
    there were no home market sales through that channel of distribution, 
    we averaged home market sales through the other channel of 
    distribution.
    
    Export Price and Constructed Export Price
    
        We used EP, in accordance with subsections 772(a) and (c) of the 
    Act, where the subject merchandise was sold directly or indirectly to 
    the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to 
    importation and CEP was not otherwise warranted based on the facts of 
    record. In addition, we used CEP in accordance with subsections 772(b), 
    (c) and (d) of the Act, for those sales to the first unaffiliated 
    purchaser that took place after importation into the United States.
        We made adjustments as follows:
        We calculated EP based on packed prices to unaffiliated customers 
    in the United States. Where appropriate, we made deductions from the 
    starting price for discounts, foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage 
    and handling, international freight, U.S. inland freight, U.S. 
    brokerage and handling, and U.S. Customs duties. We also adjusted the 
    starting price for billing adjustments to the invoice price.
        We calculated CEP sales based on packed prices to unaffiliated 
    customers. Where appropriate, we made deductions for early payment 
    discounts, credit expenses, warranty expenses, other direct selling 
    expenses and commissions. We deducted those indirect selling expenses, 
    including inventory carrying costs and product liability premiums, that 
    related to commercial activity in the United States. We also made 
    deductions for foreign brokerage and handling, foreign inland freight, 
    international freight, U.S. inland freight, U.S. brokerage and 
    handling, and U.S. duty and harbor fees. We also adjusted the starting 
    price for billing adjustments to the invoice price and for interest 
    revenue. Finally, we made an adjustment for CEP profit in accordance 
    with section 772(d)(3) of the Act.
    
    Further Manufacturing
    
        For product that was further manufactured after importation, we 
    adjusted for all value added in the United States, including the 
    proportional amount of profit attributable to the value added. We 
    computed profit based on total revenues realized on sales in both the 
    U.S. and home markets, less all expenses associated with those sales. 
    We then allocated profit to expenses incurred with respect to U.S. 
    economic activity (including further manufacturing costs), based on the 
    ratio of total U.S. expenses to total expenses for both the U.S. and 
    home market.
    
    Normal Value
    
        In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of 
    sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, 
    we compared respondents' volume of home market sales of the foreign 
    like product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in 
    accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. Since respondents' 
    aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product was 
    greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales for the 
    subject merchandise, we determined that the home market was viable. 
    Therefore, we have based NV on home market sales.
        Where appropriate, we deducted discounts, credit expenses, warranty 
    expenses, inland freight, inland insurance and packing. We also 
    adjusted the starting price for billing adjustments to the invoice 
    price and interest revenue. We did not adjust the starting price for 
    commissions in the home market (please see the Concurrence Memo for a 
    discussion of this issue).
        To calculate the CEP offset, we took the home market indirect 
    selling expenses and deducted this amount from normal value, on home 
    market sales which were compared to U.S. CEP sales. We limited the home 
    market indirect selling expense deduction by the amount of the indirect 
    selling expenses incurred in the United States.
        We made adjustments, where appropriate, for physical differences in 
    the merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. 
    In accordance with the Department's practice, where the difference in 
    merchandise adjustment for any product comparison exceeded 20 percent, 
    we based normal value on CV. In addition, in accordance with section 
    773(a)(6), we deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing 
    costs.
        Further, because we disallowed all home market commissions, we 
    deducted from normal value the lesser of either (1) the amount of 
    commission paid on a U.S. sale for a particular product, or (2) the 
    amount of indirect selling expenses incurred on the home market sales 
    for a particular product.
    
    Price to CV Comparisons
    
        Where we compared CV to EP, we deducted from CV the weighted-
    average home market direct selling expenses and added the weighted-
    average U.S. product-specific direct selling expenses.
    
    Cost of Production Analysis
    
        Based on the fact that the Department had disregarded sales in the 
    LTFV investigation because they were made below the cost of production 
    (COP), the Department found reasonable grounds in this review, in 
    accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, to believe or 
    suspect that respondents made sales in the home market at prices below 
    the cost of producing the merchandise. As a result, the Department 
    initiated an investigation 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 respondents' 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. We 
    relied on the respondents' reported COP amounts.
    
    B. Test of Home Market Prices
    
        We used the respondents' weighted-average COP for the POR. 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 
    order to determine whether these sales had been made at below-cost 
    prices within an extended period of time in substantial quantities, and 
    whether they were at prices which permit recovery of all costs within a 
    reasonable period of time. On a product-specific basis, we compared the 
    COP to the home market prices, less any applicable movement charges, 
    rebates, and direct and indirect selling expenses.
    
    C. Results of COP Test
    
        Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(c), where less than 20 percent of 
    respondents' 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 less than the COP, we disregarded the 
    
    [[Page 8918]]
    below-cost sales because we determined that the below-cost sales were 
    made within an extended period of time in ``substantial quantities'' in 
    accordance with section 773(b)(2)(B) of the Act, and because we 
    determined that the below-cost sales of the product were at prices 
    which would not permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period 
    of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) 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, 
    in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act.
    
    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 as reported in the 
    U.S. sales databases. 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. We relied on the respondents' reported CV amounts. For 
    selling expenses, we used the weighted-average home market selling 
    expenses.
    
    Arm's-Length Sales
    
        Sales to affiliated customers in the home market not made at arm's 
    length were excluded from our analysis. To test whether these sales 
    were made at arm's length, we compared the starting prices of sales to 
    affiliated and unaffiliated customers net of all movement charges, 
    direct and indirect selling expenses, discounts and packing. Where the 
    price to the related party was 99.5 percent or more of the price to the 
    unrelated party, we determined that the sale made to the related party 
    was at arm's-length. Where no related customer ratio could be 
    constructed because identical merchandise was not sold to unrelated 
    customers, we were unable to determine that these sales were made at 
    arm's length and, therefore, excluded them from our analysis. See Final 
    Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled 
    Carbon Steel Flat Products from Argentina (58 FR 37062, 37077 (July 9, 
    1993)). Where the exclusion of such sales eliminated all sales of the 
    most appropriate comparison product, we made comparison to the next 
    most similar model.
    
    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 Department to use a daily exchange rate in 
    order to convert foreign currencies into U.S. dollars, unless the daily 
    rate involves a ``fluctuation.'' For these preliminary results of 
    review, we have determined that a fluctuation exists when the daily 
    exchange rate differs from a benchmark by 2.25 percent. The benchmark 
    is defined as the rolling average of rates for the past 40 business 
    days. Therefore, when we determined a fluctuation existed, we 
    substituted the benchmark for the daily rate.
    
    Preliminary Results of the Review
    
        As a result of our comparison of USP and NV, we preliminarily 
    determine that the following weighted-average dumping margin exists:
    
                                                                            
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Manufacturer/exporter                    Period       Margin
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Imphy/Ugine-Savoie...........................    8/5/93-12/31/94    5.01
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        Parties to the proceeding may request disclosure within five days 
    of the date of publication of this notice. 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 business day thereafter. Case briefs and/or other written 
    comments from interested parties may be submitted not later than 30 
    days after the date of publication. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to 
    written comments, limited to issues raised in those comments, may be 
    filed not later than 37 days after the date of publication of this 
    notice. The Department will publish the final results of this 
    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.
        Upon completion of this review, the following deposit requirements 
    will be effective upon publication of the final results of this 
    antidumping duty review for all shipments of SSWR from France, entered, 
    or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the 
    publication date, as provided by section 751(a) of the Tariff Act: (1) 
    the cash deposit rate for the reviewed companies will be that 
    established in the final results of review; (2) for exporters not 
    covered in this review, but covered in the LTFV investigation, the cash 
    deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate from the 
    LTFV investigation; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this 
    review, or the original LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer is, 
    the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent 
    period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; (4) the cash deposit 
    rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 24.51 
    percent, the ``All Others'' rate made effective by the LTFV 
    investigation. These requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect 
    until publication of the final results of the next administrative 
    review.
        This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their 
    responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26 to file a certificate regarding the 
    reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the 
    relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this 
    requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
    reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
    assessment of double antidumping duties.
        These preliminary results of review are published pursuant to 
    section 751(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 353.22.
    
        Dated: February 28, 1996.
    Susan G. Esserman,
    Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
    [FR Doc. 96-5259 Filed 3-5-96; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 3510-25-P
    
    

Document Information

Effective Date:
2/28/1996
Published:
03/06/1996
Department:
Commerce Department
Entry Type:
Notice
Action:
Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review.
Document Number:
96-5259
Dates:
February 28, 1996.
Pages:
8914-8918 (5 pages)
Docket Numbers:
A-427-811
PDF File:
96-5259.pdf