[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 164 (Thursday, August 24, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44009-44014]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-20934]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-412-810]
Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel Products From
the United Kingdom; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
[[Page 44010]]
ACTION: Notice of final results of antidumping duty administrative
review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On February 23, 1995, the Department of Commerce (the
Department) published the preliminary results of its 1992-94
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain hot-
rolled lead and bismuth carbon steel products from the United Kingdom
(60 FR 10061). The review covers one manufacturer/exporter of this
merchandise, United Engineering Steels Limited (UES). The review period
is September 28, 1992, through February 28, 1994. We gave interested
parties the opportunity to comment on the preliminary results. Based on
our analysis of the comments received, we have adjusted UES's margin
for these final results.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 24, 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
G. Leon McNeill or Maureen Flannery, Office of Antidumping Compliance,
Import Administration, 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 February 23, 1995, the Department published in the Federal
Register (60 FR 10061) the preliminary results of its administrative
review of the antidumping duty order on certain hot-rolled lead and
bismuth carbon steel products from the United Kingdom (58 FR 15324,
March 22, 1993). The Department has now completed that administrative
review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the Tariff Act).
Applicable Statutes and Regulations
Unless otherwise stated, all citations to the statute and to the
Department's regulations are references to the provisions as they
existed on December 31, 1994.
Scope of the Review
The products covered by this review are hot-rolled bars and rods of
nonalloy or other alloy steel, whether or not descaled, containing by
weight 0.03 percent or more of lead or 0.05 percent of bismuth, in
coils or cut lengths, and in numerous shapes and sizes. Excluded from
the scope of this review are other alloy steels (as defined by the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) Chapter 72,
note 1 (f)), except steels classified as other alloy steels by reason
of containing by weight 0.4 percent or more of lead, or 0.1 percent or
more of bismuth, tellurium, or selenium. Also excluded are semi-
finished steels and flat-rolled products. Most of the products covered
in this review are provided for under subheadings 7213.20.00 and
7214.30.00.00 of the HTSUS. Small quantities of these products may also
enter the United States under the following HTSUS subheadings:
7213.31.30.00, 60.00; 7213.39.00.30, 00.60, 00.90; 7214.40.00.10,
00.30, 00.50; 7214.50.00.10, 00.30, 00.50; 7214.60.00.10, 00.30, 00.50;
and 7228.30.80.00. HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and
Customs purposes. They are not determinative of the products subject to
the order. The written description remains dispositive.
This review covers sales of the subject merchandise manufactured by
UES and entered into the United States during the period September 28,
1992, through February 28, 1994.
Analysis of Comments Received
We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the
preliminary results as provided by section 353.22(c) of our
regulations. At the request of the petitioner, Inland Steel Bar
Company, and respondent, UES, we held a public hearing on April 10,
1995. We received case and rebuttal briefs from the petitioner and
respondent.
Comment 1: Petitioner claims that the Department failed to adjust
for actual antidumping duties UES paid on lead and bismuth steel. It
argues that, since the actual dumping duties are paid by UES, the
Department should treat the duty as a direct selling expense and make
an adjustment for the amount of the actual dumping duties. Petitioner
notes that the Department, in previous cases, has not considered
estimated dumping duty deposits to be expenses within the meaning of
section 772(d)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act because of the possibility that
the estimated duties may vary from actual duties that may be assessed.
However, it contends that, where UES is paying the actual dumping
duties, the statute requires that the Department treat these duties the
same way as any other direct selling expense.
UES disagrees with petitioner and cites, as support, Antifriction
Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof from
France, et. al. (60 FR 10900, February 28, 1995). UES also notes that,
as part of the debate prior to the passage of the Uruguay Round
Agreements Act, attempts were made to persuade Congress to change the
law to permit the Department to consider dumping duty as a cost, but
these attempts did not succeed. UES argues that to deduct the dumping
duty from the U.S. price (USP) would be double-counting, because actual
duties assessed will offset any price discrimination.
Department's Position: We disagree with petitioner. Antidumping
duties are intended to offset the effect of discriminatory pricing
between two markets. In this context, making an additional deduction
from USP for the same antidumping duties that correct this price
discrimination would result in double-counting. Therefore, we have not
treated cash deposits of estimated antidumping duties as direct selling
expenses. See Color Television Receivers from the Republic of Korea,
Final Results of Administrative Review (58 FR 50333, September 27,
1993) and Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings)
and Parts Thereof from France, et al.; Final Results of Antidumping
Administrative Reviews (60 FR 10900, February 28, 1995).
Comment 2: Petitioner argues that the Department should use the
date of order entry rather than shipment date as the date of sale, as
it did in the original investigation. Petitioner argues that UES has
offered insufficient reason in this review to justify a change in its
date of sale methodology from the original investigation; in fact,
petitioner notes, UES has conceded that the sales terms have not
changed since the period of investigation (POI). Petitioner contests
the analysis of order changes UES provided and the Department attached
as an exhibit to its verification report. Petitioner notes that leaded
bar is typically produced to order, and thus that the basic terms of
sale--including price, quantity, and physical specifications--must
generally be fixed prior to manufacturing and shipment. Petitioner
contends that, due to the decrease in the value of the British pound
during the period of review (POR), UES changed its methodology in order
to use the date of shipment as the date of sale, thus benefitting from
exchange rate changes which result in lower dumping margins.
UES maintains that, during the POR, more than half the orders
placed were amended with respect to their essential terms--price,
quantity, or product specifications. UES agrees that it has not changed
its policy since the POI. According to UES, there were numerous
amendments during the POI, but it lacked the computer capability at
that time to analyze and quantify the order amendment type and
frequency. Therefore, in the investigation of sales at
[[Page 44011]]
less than fair value (LTFV), the Department used the order date as the
date of sale. UES states that, since the POI, UES installed a new
computer system, able to quantify the number of amendments for each
order, and to identify which orders modify essential terms. UES
contends that the Department's verifiers thoroughly examined the
computer code, confirmed that the program identified only amendments to
essential terms, and also examined hard copy orders and amendment
documents.
Department's Position: We disagree with petitioner. During the
course of verification, the verifying team thoroughly examined computer
programs and associated documents, and confirmed that a significant
percentage of U.K. orders and U.S. sales were amended subsequent to the
original purchase order. See Verification Report dated February 22,
1995 at page 4. Therefore, because the essential terms of sale were not
final until the date of shipment, the Department has used, for these
final results, the date of shipment as the appropriate date of sale.
Comment 3: Petitioner disputes the model match methodology used by
the Department. Petitioner claims that in the LTFV investigation, the
Department used the variable ``CONNUM'' as the product identification
number for identifying identical products, and the variable ``CONSIM''
as the product identification number for identifying similar products.
Petitioner argues that, in the preliminary results of review, the
Department deviated from that methodology in that it did not use
similar home market products as the basis for foreign market value
(FMV) when a match with an identical product code could not be found.
As a result, the Department eliminated most of the comparisons to
similar merchandise and instead based FMV on constructed value (CV).
Petitioner argues that similar products should be matched on the basis
of CONSIM, not the product code.
Department's Position: We disagree with petitioner. Products should
be matched by CONNUM, not by CONSIM. In this case, the product code is
an internal company code assigned in the normal course of business. The
CONNUM, on the other hand, reflects the criteria which the Department
has established for purposes of defining identical and similar
merchandise. CONSIM is identical to CONNUM, except that the grade
designation is less specific than that identified by CONNUM. That is,
it ignores ``residuals,'' or trace elements. As we noted in the
preliminary results, product differences due to residuals are
commercially significant and not incidental, as they are designed into
the product. Therefore, CONNUM is the appropriate variable to be used
for model matching. However, in the preliminary results of this review,
we erred by matching the product by CONNUM and product code. For these
final results, we have revised our computer programming language to
match the product by CONNUM only.
Comment 4: Petitioner argues that the Department should use
identical matches when available, even if quantities differ. It
maintains that the Department erroneously matched the U.S. product to a
similar U.K. product in the same quantity grouping, rather than to the
identical product in a different quantity grouping, thereby allowing
the quantity of the sale to take precedence over the similarity of the
sale. Petitioner contends that this conflicts with the Department's
past practice of giving physical similarity precedence over other
matching criteria.
Department's Position: We agree with petitioner, and have revised
the computer programming language to match the U.S. product to the
identical U.K. product regardless of its quantity grouping before
matching it to a similar product.
Comment 5: The petitioner argues that, for the CV calculations, the
Department should compute profit exclusive of UES's non-arm's-length
related party sales. Petitioner asserts that these prices are
essentially transfer prices rather than market prices, and it makes
little sense to use the profit on such sales in calculating CV when the
sales themselves are excluded from the price-to-price comparisons.
UES contends that, since UES's sales to its related customers were
at arm's length, the petitioner's argument is moot. Furthermore, UES
asserts that, contrary to the petitioner's argument, related party
sales that fail the arm's-length test should not necessarily be
excluded from the profit calculation. As support, UES cites
Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts
Thereof from France, et al. (60 FR 10900, February 28, 1995 (AFB Final
Results)). According to UES, the essential factor is whether the prices
used in calculating CV reflect the market under consideration.
Moreover, UES notes that the petitioner relies on a simplistic
analysis showing that UES's related customers, on average, pay a lower
per-unit net price. UES asserts, however, that these related customers
paid a lower price because they purchased large quantities. UES notes
that it provides the same price advantages to high-volume related and
unrelated customers. UES contends that this does not represent non-
market, uneconomic transfer pricing. On the contrary, UES claims that
it accepted lower per-unit profits to achieve higher overall company
profitability. Consequently, UES insists these profits fairly reflect
the amount usually earned on sales in the market.
Department's Position: We disagree, in part, with both petitioner
and UES. As we stated in AFB Final Results, there is no basis for
automatically including, for the purposes of calculating profit for CV,
sales to related parties that fail the arm's-length test. This is
because in doing the arm's-length test we may not adjust for certain
expenses that are reflected in the profit calculation. However,
related-party sales that fail the arm's-length test can give rise to
the possibility that certain elements of value, such as profit, may not
fairly reflect an amount usually reflected in sales of the merchandise.
We considered whether the amount for profit on UES's sales to related
parties was reflective of an amount for profit usually reflected on
sales of the merchandise. To do so, we compared profit on sales to
related parties that failed the arm's-length test to profit on sales to
unrelated parties and arm's-length sales to related parties. Because
the profit on non-arm's-length sales to related parties varied
significantly from the profit on sales to unrelated parties and arm's-
length sales to related parties, we disregarded non-arm's-length
related-party sales for the purposes of calculating profit for CV for
these final results. See proprietary memorandum from case analyst to
file, ``Lead and Bismuth Steel from the United Kingdom--Profit
Analysis,'' dated July 3, 1995. See also AFBs Final Results.
Comment 6: The petitioner argues that UES excluded the cost of
producing identical products sold in third countries from its submitted
cost of production. According to the petitioner, UES did not identify
the one U.S. product affected by this error. Therefore, petitioner
asserts, the Department should make an adverse inference regarding
UES's CV submission. Petitioner urges the Department to increase the
cost of all U.S. products by the largest understatement of reported
costs for the home market models.
UES contends that, contrary to the petitioner's claim, the cost of
production for U.S. products was not materially affected by excluding
production costs for third-country sales. UES asserts that the
petitioner misunderstood the data reported in certain cost verification
exhibits. According to UES, these exhibits reveal
[[Page 44012]]
that there were only four products manufactured in more than one mill
and sold in both the United Kingdom and third countries. Additionally,
UES claims that these documents show that its reported costs of those
four products were slightly higher than the costs UES calculated by
including the third-country production costs.
Furthermore, UES asserts that the single product mentioned by
petitioner would have the same cost with or without including
production costs for third-country sales because the product was only
manufactured at one of UES's mills. Therefore, UES contends the
petitioner's proposed adjustment to UES's costs has no merit.
Department's Position: We agree with UES that petitioner's proposed
adjustment has no merit. During verification, UES presented support
showing the product in question was only produced in one mill; thus,
third-country production costs are irrelevant. Furthermore, the
petitioner apparently misunderstood the results of UES's analysis
regarding the impact of third-country production. During verification,
UES demonstrated that there were only four products manufactured in
multiple mills and sold in both the home market and third countries.
The impact of weight averaging the production costs for these four
products is minimal. Moreover, as respondent noted, its reported costs
for the four products were slightly higher than the weighted-average
costs it calculated by including the production costs for the third-
country sales of these products. Thus, we accepted UES's submission
methodology for calculating the cost of production.
Comment 7: Petitioner notes that, at the beginning of verification,
UES reported a minor clerical error that increased the costs it
reported it had incurred at one of its mills. The petitioner argues
that the Department should increase CV for all U.S. products by the
amount reported because many U.S. products were produced in that
particular mill.
Department's Position: Pursuant to 19 CFR 353.59 (1994), the
Department may disregard insignificant adjustments to FMV. For
individual adjustments, those which have an ad valorem effect of less
than 0.33 percent of the FMV are deemed insignificant. Since UES's
clerical error was less than 0.33 percent, we have disregarded this
adjustment in calculating CV. UES reported its calculation of this
clerical error in Cost Verification Exhibit 1.
Comment 8: According to the petitioner, the Department should
include the company's 1993 reorganization costs for its steel division
in the general and administrative (G&A) expense calculation.
Specifically, the petitioner suggests allocating these restructuring
costs to UES's steel and forging divisions based on cost of sales.
UES asserts that the Department should exclude the 1993
restructuring costs because these costs reflect an estimate of expenses
to be incurred for the company's 1994 reorganization. UES contends the
restructuring costs were incurred after the POR and were less than the
estimated amount. In addition, UES recorded the actual restructuring
expenses by division in its financial accounts as the costs were
incurred in 1994. Thus, UES states, these restructuring expenses would
be appropriately captured in the next administrative review.
Department's Position: At verification, UES demonstrated that the
actual restructuring expenses for each division were incurred after the
POR. Therefore, we have not allocated the company level 1993 estimate
to each of UES's mills for purposes of this review.
Comment 9: The petitioner contends that part of the closure costs
for UES's Templeborough facility should be included in the company's
G&A expense calculation. Specifically, the petitioner argues
Templeborough closure costs should be allocated to the subject
merchandise (leaded bar) using the same methodology the Department
applied to the Woodstone mill closure costs.
According to UES, the Department should exclude Templeborough
closure costs because the facility did not produce leaded bar and did
not have the capability of producing any leaded steel products. UES
asserts that, in contrast, its Woodstone mill produced leaded bar;
therefore, UES maintains that the Department properly allocated the
Woodstone closure costs to the subject merchandise in its preliminary
analysis. Furthermore, UES asserts that the Department normally
excludes non-operating expenses related solely to entities producing
only non-subject merchandise. UES notes it incurred only non-operating
expenses in closing its Templeborough facility.
Department's Position: At verification, UES showed that its
Templeborough facility did not produce any leaded bar products. We
therefore excluded these non-operating costs from our calculation of
G&A because UES demonstrated that these closure costs related
exclusively to an operation that had produced only non-subject
merchandise. See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Furfuryl Alcohol from South Africa, 60 FR 22550, May 8, 1995.
Comment 10: UES maintains that the Department's determination to
exclude home market related-party sales from the price comparison is
inappropriate. UES contends that, even if its sales did not satisfy the
traditional arm's-length test, other evidence on the record indicates
that UES's related-party price are arm's length in nature. UES argues
that it performed the Department's traditional test for determining
when related-party prices are at arm's length, and the test shows that
UES's prices to related customers are on average higher than its prices
to unrelated customers. UES contests the Department's determination,
stated in the preliminary review results, that ``UES's analysis of data
from this review fails to provide an accurate assessment of whether its
related-party sales were made at arm's length because it did not
account for certain rebates and it did not perform its arm's-length
test on a model group-by-model group basis.'' UES argues that it did
perform its analysis on a model-by-model basis, exactly as, it asserts,
the Department customarily performs the analysis. According to UES, it
first calculated the weighted-average price of each product by CONNUM
for each related customer and for all unrelated customers together,
separately by level of trade. It then compared the average price for
each related customer for each product to the average price for that
same product to derive a ratio by which the related-customer price was
over or under the unrelated price for that particular product. UES
explains that it then weight-averaged each customer's ratios to derive
an overall ratio for each related customer. Finally, UES weight-
averaged all related customers' ratios to yield the overall ratio
between related and unrelated customers' prices. To support this
explanation, UES has attached to its brief the model-specific output.
UES argues that the Department improperly deducted ``Rebate 2''
from gross price in performing the arm's-length test, thus skewing the
analysis. See UES's proprietary case brief at pages 4-6. It contends
that this rebate is available on the same terms to both related and
unrelated customers. UES asserts that the varying use of the rebate by
different customers is outside of UES's knowledge and control, and does
not change the fact that UES negotiates all customers' prices on an
arm's-length basis.
UES argues that, even if its sales did not satisfy the traditional
arm's-length test, the Department should still confirm its previous
determination that UES's prices are market-based and non-
discriminatory. UES contends that it
[[Page 44013]]
deals with all home market customers on an arm's-length basis, whether
related or unrelated. However, UES claims the one overriding
determinant of price among customers--which has nothing to do with
relatedness--is that UES negotiates lower prices with high-volume
customers. UES argues that if the Department identifies any price
difference between its large-quantity related customers and its small-
quantity unrelated customers, it would be attributed to the fact that
UES negotiates lower prices with high-volume customers. UES claims that
the same issue arose in the original LTFV investigation, and the
Department determined that UES's related party prices were at arm's
length. According to UES, it has confirmed to the Department that its
policy has not changed since the original LTFV investigation and that
it does not discriminate in favor of related customers.
UES notes that, during the POR, it purchased one of its largest
customers, Lee Bright Bar (LBB). UES maintains that, if there were
price discrimination in favor of related parties, one would expect its
prices to LBB to have decreased after the purchase. On the contrary,
UES argues, its prices to LBB increased after it became a related
party, and even increased at a higher rate than the average for UES's
customers in general.
UES asserts that, as further confirmation of its non-discriminatory
pricing policy, it has demonstrated that its related prices are
equivalent to prices it charged to an unrelated German customer which
is comparable in size and purchase volume to UES's related home market
customers. UES argues that its sales prices to this unrelated German
customer are at or below the weighted-average prices to its related
customers in the United Kingdom for the same products in the same
months. UES counters petitioner's argument that differences in the U.K.
and German markets might account for these price differences by stating
that the European Union (EU) is a single, unified market, UES competes
directly with German mills, and UES's customers can as freely purchase
from European producers as from UES.
Petitioner argues that the Department correctly included Rebate 2
among the items it deducted from gross sales price in performing its
arm's-length analysis, in accordance with its policy of using net sales
price, after all discounts and rebates have been deducted, in that
analysis. Further, petitioner asserts that UES failed to provide any
written documentation in support of its claim that all customers are
entitled to take advantage of Rebate 2. Petitioner contends that UES is
practicing de facto price discrimination against unrelated customers
through its rebate programs. Petitioner maintains that, even if UES
were not intentionally price discriminating against unrelated customers
through its rebate program, the terms of Rebate 2 are too onerous to
unrelated parties for them to regularly take advantage of this program.
Petitioner challenges what UES has offered as alternate evidence
that it does not discriminate in favor of related customers. According
to petitioner, UES's related-party profit margin demonstrates that
sales to related parties are not made at arm's length. Petitioner
argues that sales to a single related customer, LBB, are not
representative of sales to all related parties. Petitioner maintains
that the Department should disregard UES's claims regarding the German
market, since the U.K. market is viable. Furthermore, petitioner
asserts that UES failed to provide for the record detailed information,
by CONNUM, on all German sales in order to show that the product mix
was not responsible for the average price differences. Moreover,
petitioner states that, contrary to UES's claim, the EU is not a single
market, because significant currency variation occurs between EU member
countries. Petitioner argues that UES's claim must be rejected because
Congress has specifically prohibited looking at customs unions, such as
the UE, as a single country in determining the occurrence of dumping.
Petitioner contends that the Department should not make an adjustment
to its arm's-length test to take into account differences in sales
volumes because the analysis of UES's sales data demonstrates that
there were no sales made at different levels of trade and different
quantities during the POR.
Department's Position: We disagree with respondent. The information
UES originally presented did not indicate that UES had performed the
arm's-length test on a model group-by-model group basis. The first time
this was mentioned, and the model-specific output submitted to the
Department, was in UES's case brief of March 27, 1995. In any event,
UES's test was inaccurate since it failed to deduct certain rebates
from the sales prices before comparisons were made. UES's argument that
we should not deduct rebates prior to the arm's length test is
incorrect. Because these rebates are adjustments to price which UES
made, we must deduct them from UES's home market prices in order to
fairly compare the prices ultimately paid by related and unrelated
customers. See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value;
Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts
Thereof From the Federal Republic of Germany (54 FR 19089, 19090, May
3, 1989).
Even if we were to abandon our traditional arm's-length test in
this case, there is not sufficient evidence on the record to
demonstrate that UES meets an acceptable alternate test. In order to
determine whether UES's sales to related home market customers were
arm's-length in nature, we conducted a three-pronged analysis. See the
proprietary memorandum from case analyst to file concerning UES's
related party sales dated July ____, 1995. Based on our analysis, we
concluded that UES's home market sales to related parties were not at
arm's length. Accordingly, we have not used these sales in our
determination of FMV.
Comment 11: UES states that the Department correctly decided that,
where possible, it would match U.S. and U.K. sales within two quantity
groups: one of 25 tons or more, and one of less than 25 tons. However,
UES argues that, in its dumping margin computer program, the Department
assigned all U.S. sales to the less-than-25-tons group by inadvertently
using the wrong quantity variable.
Department's Position: We agree and have revised the computer
programming language accordingly.
Comment 12: UES contends that, instead of using selling and packing
expenses from the sales database in its cost of production
calculations, the Department erroneously used the average selling and
packing expenses from the cost database.
Department's Position: We agree and have revised our calculations
accordingly.
Comment 13: UES maintains that the Department erred in failing to
adjust invoice quantity by the amount shown in the quantity adjustment
field. According to UES, this field shows corrections to invoice
quantity which UES issues to its customers to correct invoice errors.
Department's Position: We agree and have made the appropriate
revision in our calculations.
Final Results of Review
As a result of this review, we determine that the following
weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period September 1,
1992, through February 28, 1994:
[[Page 44014]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/Exporter Period of review (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
United Engineering Steels Ltd. (UES)..... 9/28/92-2/28/94 5.05
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department will instruct the Customs Service to assess
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual differences
between USP and FMV may vary from the percentage stated above. The
Department will issue appraisement instructions concerning all
respondents directly to the Customs Service.
Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective
upon publication of these final results of administrative review for
all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the
Tariff Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the reviewed company will be
the rate shown above; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated
companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be
the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if
the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or
the 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; and (4) the cash deposit rate
for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 25.82
percent, the ``all others'' rate established in the LTFV investigation.
These deposit requirements 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 the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective orders (APOs) of their responsibility
concerning disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO
in accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(d). Timely written notification of the
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: August 17, 1995.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-20934 Filed 8-23-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M
