[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 164 (Thursday, August 25, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-20846]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: August 25, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-401-603]
Stainless Steel Hollow Products From Sweden; Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Reviews.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On December 30, 1993, the Department of Commerce (the
Department) published the preliminary results of two administrative
reviews of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel hollow
products (SSHP) from Sweden. We have completed these reviews and
determined the margins for Sandvik AB, AB Sandvik Steel, and Sandvik
Steel Company (collectively, Sandvik) to be 3.65 percent for the period
May 22, 1987 through November 30, 1988, and 1.33 percent for the period
December 1, 1988 through November 30, 1989.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 25, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Mason Jr. or Richard Herring,
Office of Countervailing Duty Compliance, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202) 482-3389.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On December 3, 1987, the Department published in the Federal
Register an antidumping duty order on SSHP from Sweden (52 FR 45985, as
amended, 57 FR 52761). On December 5, 1988, pursuant to the
Department's notice of ``Opportunity to Request Administrative Review''
(53 FR 48004) of the order for the period May 22, 1987 through November
30, 1988, Sandvik requested that the Department conduct an
administrative review. On December 19, 1989, pursuant to the
Department's notice of ``Opportunity to Request Administrative Review''
(54 FR 52436) of the order for the period December 1, 1988 through
November 30, 1989, Sandvik again requested that the Department conduct
an administrative review.
On December 30, 1993, the Department published the preliminary
results of these administrative reviews (58 FR 69332). We gave
interested parties an opportunity to comment on the preliminary
results. On March 16, 1994, we received comments from Sandvik. The
Department has completed these administrative reviews in accordance
with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).
Scope of Reviews
The merchandise covered by these reviews is stainless steel hollow
products, including pipes, tubes, hollow bars and blanks of circular
cross section, containing over 11.5 percent chromium by weight. This
merchandise is currently classified under subheadings 7304.41.00 and
7304.49.00 of the Harmonized Tariff System (HTS). Prior to January 1,
1989, this merchandise was classified under subheadings 610.5130,
610.5202, 610.5229 and 610.5230 of the Tariff Schedules of the United
States Annotated (TSUSA). Although the HTS and TSUSA subheadings are
provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description
of the scope of these reviews remains dispositive.
Analysis of the Comments Received
Based upon our analysis of the comments received, we have changed
the results from those presented in the preliminary results of these
reviews as discussed below in the comments section of this notice. In
addition, where we found clerical errors, we made appropriate
corrections.
Comment 1: Sandvik contends that the Department should grant a
level of trade adjustment in those situations in which sales to
distributors are compared with sales to end-users. In support of its
argument, Sandvik states that 19 CFR 353.58 (1994) provides that, when
comparisons at the same level of trade are not possible, the Department
will ``make appropriate adjustments for differences affecting price
comparability.'' Sandvik notes that the Department has correctly made
comparisons of merchandise at the same level of trade, where possible,
and that it should make a level of trade adjustment where sales to
distributors are matched with sales to end-users.
Sandvik also asserts that, contrary to the Department's contention
that the company failed to ``demonstrate that it incurred different
indirect selling expenses on sales to different levels of trade in the
German market,'' the company demonstrated, in significant detail, that
discounts were granted exclusively to German distributors to compensate
these distributors for their cost of holding a stock of Sandvik
products. Sandvik claims that the fact that these distributor discounts
were granted is undisputed in the case record.
Finally, contrary to the Department's traditional reliance on cost
differences as the basis for the adjustment, Sandvik contends that
other methods of valuing the adjustment may also be used since the
Department's regulations do not expressly limit the grant of the
adjustment to those instances in which cost differences are present.
Rather, Sandvik argues that the regulation simply ``requires a level of
trade adjustment whenever prices are not comparable.'' According to
Sandvik, the distributor discount in this case is exactly the amount by
which the sale price at the distributor level of trade varies from the
price of an identical sale at the end-user level of trade. Sandvik
concludes that the distributor discount is the best basis, if not the
only basis, for valuing the level of trade adjustment. Accordingly,
since the company has shown that ``the discount is uniformly provided
in all German distributor sales'', the Department must make the level
of trade adjustment whenever sales at different levels of trade are
compared.
Department's Position
To determine whether a level of trade adjustment is warranted when
sales to distributors are matched with sales to end-users, we compared
the reported unit sale prices to distributors with reported unit prices
to end-users for the same product, month of sale, and quantity bracket.
Based upon our examination of these prices in both reviews, we found
wide price fluctuations without any discernible pattern. Moreover, in
some instances, we found that prices to distributors exceeded prices to
end-users. Based upon these facts, Sandvik has not demonstrated that
there are differences affecting price comparability relating solely to
the fact that sales are made at different levels of trade. Thus, the
Department maintains that there is insufficient justification to make a
level of trade adjustment in those situations where distributor and
end-user sales are compared.
Comment 2: Sandvik contends that two separate and distinct
exporters are under review in the first administrative review, and
therefore, the Department should calculate separate rates for these
companies. According to Sandvik, it sold to an unrelated Canadian
distributor a small volume of hollow bar, most, if not all, of which
has never been sold into the United States. Sandvik contends that the
Department incorrectly assumes these sales have entered the United
States since the dumping calculation is based on Sandvik's sales to the
Canadian company, not on the Canadian company's subsequent sales into
the United States.
Second, Sandvik maintains that the Department has an established
practice of calculating a separate margin for each manufacturer/
exporter investigated in an antidumping duty action provided the firms
operate as separate and distinct entities. In discussing its position,
Sandvik addresses Certain Granite Products from Italy (53 FR 27187,
July 19, 1988), where the Department collapsed firms with common
ownership and boards of directors and similar production facilities
such that the firms would not have to retool in order to produce
jointly; Certain Granite Products from Spain (53 FR 24337, June 28,
1988), where the firms shared sales opportunities, manufacturing
decisions, and were billed jointly; and Certain Granite Products from
Italy (53 FR 27189, June 28, 1988) where the firms acted in concert in
the marketplace. Sandvik claims, in contrast to these cases, that it
and the Canadian company are independently owned, possess no corporate
or other close relationship, and never operated closely or in concert
for the production or sales of hollow bar.
Finally, citing Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Plate and Hot-Rolled Carbon
Steel Sheet from Brazil (49 FR 3104, January 25, 1984), Sandvik
contends that the only other situation in which the Department may
consider calculating a single margin for two companies involves
entities with cooperative sales operations or firms that do not
separately negotiate prices with U.S. customers. Once again, Sandvik
maintains that the facts in this case do not warrant such treatment.
Sandvik argues that it maintained separate sales operations at all
times. Moreover, Sandvik asserts that in those instances in which the
Canadian company made sales to the United States, it directly competed
with Sandvik. Sandvik further maintains that each firm separately
negotiated prices with potential U.S. customers.
As a final point, Sandvik contends that the Department has
consistently published separate rates for sales made through unrelated
third-country trading companies or resellers. According to Sandvik,
that practice should apply in this case as the Canadian company is an
unrelated third-country reseller.
Department's Position
We normally treat sales by a respondent to an unrelated purchaser
as sales to the United States where the seller knows that the
merchandise is being sold for export to the United States. This is true
of sales to trading companies in the country of origin or those in
third country locations. (Sandvik AB v. United States, 721 F.Supp 1322,
1341 (CIT 1989); Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value;
Stainless Steel Hollow Products from Sweden, (52 FR 37819, 37813,
October 9, 1987); see also Urea from USSR; Final Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value (52 FR 19560, May 26, 1987) and Fuel Ethanol
from Brazil; Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value (51
FR 5573, February 14, 1986).
The antidumping duty rate calculated for Sandvik in the first
administrative review pertains to Sandvik's sales of the subject
merchandise (1) made directly to the United States and (2) destined for
consumption in the United States. In its response, Sandvik stated that
the Canadian company ``was authorized to sell the merchandise in the
U.S.'' and that the merchandise was intended for ultimate importation
into the United States (Sandvik's April 5, 1989 response at 10).
Accordingly, we have continued to treat Sandvik's sales to the Canadian
company as sales to the United States because they were made with the
knowledge that the merchandise was destined for consumption in the
United States. Therefore, we believe that such sales properly belong in
the calculation of Sandvik's antidumping duty rate.
Comment 3: Sandvik contends that it was inappropriate for the
Department to apply, as best information available (BIA), the
antidumping duty rate from the less than fair value (LTFV)
investigation for those instances in which constructed value was not
available for comparison to U.S. sales. Instead, according to Sandvik,
in several recent administrative reviews the Department has found that,
where a gap existed in the record for certain U.S. sales, and the
Department had to use ``other information,'' not ``BIA,'' it could use
a neutral and reasonable surrogate to bridge the gap. Sandvik argues
that the Department derives its authority to use reasonable, ``other
information'' from its own inherent authority to administer the U.S.
antidumping law in a fair and equitable manner.
Sandvik further points out that in this case the Department has
already calculated margins on the overwhelming majority of Sandvik's
U.S. sales transactions. Therefore, Sandvik maintains that, rather than
apply the rate from the LTFV investigation as BIA, the Department
should apply the weighted-average margin derived from the pool of sales
with calculated margins as the more appropriate rate for unmatched
sales in this review.
Department's Position
Section 776(c) of the Act requires the Department to apply BIA
``whenever a party or any other person refuses or is unable to produce
information requested in a timely manner or in the form required, or
otherwise significantly impedes an investigation.'' When a company
substantially cooperates with our requests for information, but fails
to provide the information requested in a timely manner or in the form
required, we use as BIA the higher of (1) The highest rate (including
the ``all others'' rate) ever applicable to the firm for the same class
or kind of merchandise from either the LTFV investigation or a prior
administrative review; or (2) the highest calculated rate in this
review for any firm for the class or kind of merchandise from the same
country of origin (Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Reviews and Revocation in Part of An Antidumping Duty Order (referring
to Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) And Parts
Thereof from France; et al.) (58 FR 39729, 39739, July 26, 1993); and
Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) And Parts
Thereof from France; et al.; Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, (57 FR 28360, 28379. June 24, 1992)).
In cases where a firm failed to supply certain FMV information
(e.g., corresponding home market sales within the contemporaneous
window or constructed value data for a few U.S. sales), we apply the
BIA rate as outlined above, and limit its application to the particular
transactions involved.
In this case, Sandvik substantially cooperated with the Department
in furnishing the requested information. Therefore, for those few sales
in which we found it necessary to use partial BIA, we applied the rate
of 20.47 percent from the LTFV investigation, which is the highest rate
ever applicable to Sandvik for the same class or kind of merchandise
from either the LTFV investigation or a prior administrative review.
Comment 4: Sandvik contends that the Department's use of mean
average shipment, entry, and payment dates to represent missing
shipment, entry, and payment dates imposes an unjustified penalty on
the company. According to Sandvik, there were a number of sales for
which this particular information could not be furnished because, at
the time the response was prepared, payment, shipment and entry had not
yet occurred.
Sandvik claims that the use of mean shipment and entry dates
greatly and arbitrarily increases the size of any adjustments based on
such dates. In particular, Sandvik notes that the time the merchandise
is in inventory and the days for which credit is extended are both
greatly overstated through the application of these mean dates.
Accordingly, Sandvik urges the Department to adopt the company's
earlier proposal of using the substituted date of June 1, 1989, the
date on which the first review tape was prepared, as the shipment date.
According to Sandvik, this proposal is reasonable even though it still
overstates these adjustments.
Department's Position
We note that since the June 1, 1989, date of preparation of the
computer tape, Sandvik received subsequent opportunities to submit
these missing data when replacement tapes were requested by the
Department. Sandvik, however, provided no additional data for these
missing values. Accordingly, we have continued to apply mean values as
BIA for these missing data.
Comment 5: With respect to warranty expenses, Sandvik maintains
that the Department based its calculation of U.S. warranty expenses on
the mistaken belief that Sandvik failed to report U.S. warranty
expenses in its response. Contrary to the Department's belief, Sandvik
maintains that all warranty-related costs, consisting of the cost of
reworking defective merchandise and the transportation costs associated
with returning the merchandise to the factory and reshipping the
reworked merchandise, were included in the cost and expense data
submitted in its responses.
According to Sandvik, reworking costs are indistinguishable from
normal production costs and are accumulated in cost centers with other
costs associated with further manufacturing. Thus, Sandvik maintains
that reworking costs are fully accounted for in the direct labor and
factory burden components of Sandvik's conversion costs. Accordingly,
Sandvik argues there is no need to create a separate adjustment for
costs incurred in reworking defective merchandise. With respect to the
freight expenses for returned merchandise and reshipment of reworked
merchandise, Sandvik claims that these expenses were included in its
total freight calculation. Thus, to the extent the Department deducted
total freight expense from the U.S. price (USP), it must not deduct
separate freight expenses pertaining to return of defective and
reshipment of reworked merchandise.
In addition, Sandvik characterizes the Department's calculation of
warranty expense as inappropriate since it is based on the total value
of returned defective merchandise and the cost of reworking defective
merchandise. Sandvik maintains that the value of returned merchandise
does not constitute an expense incurred by the company because
defective merchandise is not discarded or scrapped at the company's
expense, but rather is reworked and either returned to the customer or
placed in inventory for sale to another customer. Thus, Sandvik claims
that the company only incurs the cost of reworking the merchandise and
the cost of return freight, which therefore constitute the entire
amount of U.S. warranty expenses. Sandvik claims that these warranty-
related expenses were fully reported and have been deducted elsewhere
in the cost and expense data. Thus, any additional deduction would be
unfair and impermissible double-counting of warranty expenses for U.S.
sales.
Department's Position
To the extent that freight expenses, pertaining to the return of
defective merchandise and reshipment of reworked merchandise, were part
of Sandvik's total freight expense, we agree that such expenses should
not be included in U.S. warranty expenses since they have already been
deducted from USP. Thus, we have adjusted the warranty expense
accordingly.
We disagree with Sandvik, however, that USP need not be adjusted
for the cost of reworking the defective merchandise based upon
Sandvik's contention that these costs are already part of the total
cost of production. Inclusion of reworking costs in the cost of
production by itself has no impact on the calculation of dumping
margins. Rather, dumping margins are primarily price-based
calculations, and therefore prices net of warranty expenses are
essential for apples-to-apples comparisons. Hence, the Department has
adjusted USP for warranty expenses. In addition, since Sandvik did not
separately report the cost of reworking defective merchandise, we
continued to use, as BIA, the value of the returned merchandise to
represent Sandvik's warranty expenses.
Comment 6: Sandvik claims that the Department incorrectly treated
expenses pertaining to transportation of merchandise from the U.S. port
to Sandvik's U.S. factory as an element of further manufacturing
contributing to U.S. value added, rather than as a cost of the imported
input. Sandvik claims that, by attributing these movement expenses to
U.S. further manufacturing costs rather than to the cost of the
imported redraw hollow, the Department artificially increased the
amount of U.S. value added, and thus allocated too large a share of
profit to U.S. further manufacturing.
Second, Sandvik maintains that this method of allocation is
inconsistent with the antidumping statute and the Department's
regulations. Citing both section 772(e)(3) of the Act and 19 CFR
353.41(e), Sandvik contends that both authorities direct the Department
to reduce exporter's sales price (ESP) by any increased value
``resulting from a process of manufacture or assembly performed on the
imported merchandise,'' which does not specifically include the cost of
moving the component or product from the port to its factory.
Third, Sandvik contends that according to the Court of
International Trade (CIT) ruling in Sandvik AB v. United States (721 F.
Supp. 1322, 1335 (CIT 1989)) the Department must calculate profit based
on the ``increased value'' as defined in the statute. Sandvik maintains
that movement of a product or component does not constitute performance
of a ``manufacture or assembly'' process on the imported merchandise.
Thus, Sandvik concludes that movement expenses may not be considered
part of the U.S. value added.
Department's Position
The Department's standard practice is to subtract from USP any
increased value added to the merchandise by a process performed after
importation and before sale to the first unrelated customer (see e.g.,
Roller Chain, Other Than Bicycle, from Japan; Final Results of
Administrative Review of Antidumping Finding (48 FR 51801, November 14,
1983), and Cellular Mobile Telephones and Subassemblies from Japan;
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review (54 FR 48011,
November 20, 1989). Accordingly, the Department correctly included the
costs of transporting the product from the port to the U.S. factory as
an element of further manufacturing. Contrary to respondent's claims,
this practice is consistent with the statute and the Department's
regulations, which allow for adjustments to USP for any increased value
resulting from a process of manufacture or production, or assembly (see
19 USC Sec. 1677a(e)(3) and 19 CFR 353.41(e)). The Department treats
the costs of moving the product to the factory as part of the process
of further manufacturing because, were it not for the further
manufacturing, these costs would not be incurred. Furthermore, the
Department's regulations allow for inclusion of transportation costs in
calculating value added adjustments. Specifically, 19 CFR 353.41(e)(3)
states that the Secretary ``generally will'' consider many factors,
including ``other expenses,'' in the determination of ``increased
value.'' Thus, the Department's practice is consistent with its
authority to assess the costs of port to factory movement expenses in
determining value added adjustments.
Sandvik's reliance on the CIT case, Sandvik AB v. United States
(721 F. Supp. 1322, 1335 (CIT 1989) (Sandvik)), to support its
contention that the movement of a product does not constitute
performance of a ``manufacture or assembly'' process is misplaced. In
Sandvik, the CIT held that the Department can deduct from the USP the
profit associated with further manufacturing. In making this decision,
the CIT simply quoted the relevant portions of the statute and
regulations at issue, but never addressed the precise meaning of the
statute or the issue of movement expenses.
Moreover, the Department's approach to these movement expenses is
in accordance with longstanding practice (see Gray Portland Cement and
Clinker from Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review (56 FR 48826, September 20, 1983, as amended, 58 FR 53705, April
21, 1983) (the Department included freight from the U.S. port to the
U.S. plant in the U.S. further manufacturing costs); see also,
Stainless Steel Hollow Products from Sweden; Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review (57 FR 21389, 21392, May 20,
1992)). Finally, in Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, Certain Internal-Combustion, Industrial Forklift Trucks from
Japan (57 FR 3167, 3169, January 28, 1992), the Department included
transportation of merchandise as part of U.S. value added. Although
these were delivery charges incurred in the transportation of the goods
from the factory, this case nonetheless illustrates the Department's
practice of including movement expenses as part of the costs of further
manufacturing.
Therefore, the Department has included the costs of transporting
the product from the port to the factory as an element of further
manufacturing.
Comment 7: According to Sandvik, the company imposes a service
charge for cutting each piece of hollow bar sold in Sweden to the
length desired by each Swedish customer. Sandvik points out that since
none of the hollow bar sold in the United States was cut to length,
sales of hollow bar in the home market carry a selling expense that
U.S. sales do not. Accordingly, Sandvik requests that the Department
reduce the home market price by the amount of the service charge.
In support of its position, Sandvik contends that both the
Department's regulations and current practice establish that Sandvik is
entitled to a circumstance of sale adjustment for the service of
cutting hollow bar to length. According to Sandvik, 19 CFR 353.56(a)(2)
sets forth the types of differences in circumstances of sale for which
the Department may normally make reasonable allowances, which includes
``those involving differences in * * * servicing.'' Thus, Sandvik
contends that the company's service charge is properly characterized as
a circumstance of sale adjustment.
In addition, Sandvik cites cases demonstrating that the requested
adjustment is supported by Department practice. In the antidumping duty
investigation on Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet and Strip from
the Republic of Korea (Pet Film) (56 FR 16305, April 22, 1991), Sandvik
claims the Department granted a circumstance of sale adjustment to
account for slitting costs when respondent cut its merchandise to the
width desired by each home market customer. According to Sandvik, no
such expenses were incurred for U.S. sales. Thus, Sandvik claims Pet
Film is analogous to the situation in the present review on SSHP.
Moreover, Sandvik states that the Department previously determined
in the LTFV investigation of SSHP that the service charge for cutting
hollow bar to length should properly be treated as a circumstance of
sale adjustment. Sandvik stresses that the Department, during its
verification in the LTFV investigation, found that hollow bar sold in
Sweden was in fact cut to length, while hollow bar sold in the United
States was not. Sandvik claims that nothing has changed since the LTFV
investigation to warrant a change in the treatment of the expense.
Based upon Department practice and in particular, the Department's
previous treatment of the service charge in the SSHP case, Sandvik
concludes that the Department should make a circumstance of sale
adjustment under 19 CFR 353.56 to account for the additional selling
expense that Sandvik incurs when it sells hollow bar in the home
market.
Finally, Sandvik contends that, contrary to the Department's claim
in this administrative review that the company ``did not provide * * *
the necessary information to make the adjustment,'' Sandvik asserts
that the record demonstrates otherwise. Specifically, Sandvik cites to
its November 7, 1991, submission which sets forth the cutting charge as
a percentage of total Swedish hollow bar sales.
Department's Position
The Department grants a circumstance of sale adjustment where the
claimed expense is directly related to sales of the subject merchandise
or sales used to represent foreign market value, in accordance with 19
CFR 353.56(a). In this case, Sandvik calculated a per unit servicing
charge based upon the company's total servicing expense as a percentage
of total sales of hollow bar in Sweden. As indicated in its January 19,
1990, response, the amount charged for cutting hollow bar to length for
customers varies according to the grade and volume of hollow bar which
is purchased. Thus, the service charge varies by sale, and should have
been reported on a transaction-specific basis as specifically requested
in the Department's deficiency questionnaire. We have, therefore,
denied Sandvik a circumstance of sale adjustment in this case.
With respect to treatment of the servicing charge as an indirect
selling expense under 19 CFR 353.56(b), Sandvik calculated the total
servicing expense using the largest fixed percentage of the invoice
price rather than an application of either the grade or volume of the
sales, which would have reduced the amount of the servicing charge.
Therefore, we have denied Sandvik's servicing charge as an indirect
selling expense for these sales because the methodology used to
calculate the charge overstates the total expense by failing to account
for the effect of different grades and volumes on the total amount.
Final Results of Review
The final results of our reviews are as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/exporter Time period (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sandvik................................. 05/22/87-11/30/88 3.65
Sandvik................................. 12/01/88-11/30/89 1.33
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department will instruct the U.S. Customs Service to assess
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Furthermore, the
following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication
of this notice of final results of administrative reviews for all
shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as
provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate
for the reviewed company listed above will continue to be the rate
established in the final results of the third administrative review (57
FR 21389, May 20, 1992); (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 manufacture of the merchandise; (4) the cash deposit rate for
all other manufacturers or exporters will be 20.47 percent, the ``all
other'' rate established in the original LTFV investigation by the
Department (52 FR 37810, October 9, 1987; as amended 52 FR 45985,
December 3, 1987), in accordance with the decisions of the CIT in
Floral Trade Council v. United States, Slip Op. 93-79, and Federal-
Mogul Corporation v. United States, Slip Op. 93-83.
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 the only reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibilities
concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(d). Failure to
comply is a violation of the APO.
These administrative reviews and notice are in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 353.22 of the
Department's regulations.
Dated: August 17, 1994.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 94-20846 Filed 8-24-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
