[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 57 (Thursday, March 24, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-6974]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: March 24, 1994]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-582-802]

 

Sweaters Wholly or in Chief Weight of Man-Made Fiber From Hong 
Kong; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: International Trade Administration/Import Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of antidumping duty administrative 
review.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On December 3, 1993, the Department of Commerce published the 
preliminary results of its administrative review of the antidumping 
duty order on sweaters wholly or in chief weight of man-made fiber from 
Hong Kong. The review covers 29 manufacturers/exporters and the period 
April 27, 1990 through August 31, 1991.
    We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on our 
preliminary results. We have analyzed the comments received, and have 
changed the method in which the sample rate is calculated.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 24, 1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elisabeth Urfer or Maureen Flannery, 
Office of Antidumping Compliance, International Trade Administration, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4733.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On September 24, 1990, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published in the Federal Register (55 FR 39036) the antidumping duty 
order on sweaters wholly or in chief weight of man-made fiber (MMF 
sweaters) from Hong Kong. On September 30, 1991, the petitioner, the 
National Knitwear & Sportswear Association (NKSA), requested that we 
conduct an administrative review, in accordance with section 751(a) of 
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Tariff Act) and 19 CFR 
353.22(a). We published the notice of initiation of the antidumping 
duty administrative review on October 18, 1991 (56 FR 52254), covering 
the period April 27, 1990 through August 31, 1991. On December 3, 1993 
the Department published the preliminary results in the Federal 
Register (58 FR 63913). The initiation notice named 31 companies. Of 
these 31 companies, we terminated the review of two companies, which 
had requested review of their own shipments, but later withdrew those 
requests. (See ``Termination of Review in Part'' section of the 
preliminary results notice.) Of the remaining 29 companies the 
following four companies were selected to be analyzed, using sampling 
techniques: Apace Knitting Factory (Apace), Bond Manufacturing Co., 
Ltd. (Bond), Hayward Knitters (Hayward), and LaMagma, Ltd. (LaMagma). 
The other companies covered by this review preliminarily received a 
rate which was the simple average of the margins of these four 
companies.
    Four exporters, Peninsula Knitters Ltd. (Peninsula), Fang Brothers 
Knitting Limited (Fang), Sun Hing Knitting Factory Limited (Sun Hing) 
and Comitex Knitters Limited (Comitex), and the Hong Kong Woollen & 
Synthetic Knitting Manufacturers' Association, (Peninsula et al.) 
submitted a joint case brief. Susan Bristol, Inc. (Bristol) an 
importer, submitted a case brief. No party submitted a rebuttal brief. 
The Department has now completed this administrative review in 
accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act.

Scope of the Review

    Imports covered by this review are shipments of MMF sweaters from 
Hong Kong. MMF sweaters are defined as garments for outerwear that are 
knitted or crocheted, in a variety of forms including jacket, vest, 
cardigan with button or zipper front, or pullover, usually having 
ribbing around the neck, bottom, and cuffs on the sleeves (if any), 
encompassing garments of various lengths, wholly or in chief weight of 
man-made fiber. The term ``in chief weight of man-made fiber'' includes 
sweaters where the man-made fiber material predominates by weight over 
each other single textile material. This excludes sweaters 23 percent 
or more by weight of wool. It includes men's, women's, boys', or girls' 
sweaters, as defined above, but does not include sweaters for infants 
24 months of age or younger. It includes all sweaters as defined above, 
regardless of the number of stitches per centimeter, provided that, 
with regard to sweaters having more than nine stitches per two linear 
centimeters horizontally, it includes only those with a knit-on rib at 
the bottom.
    Garments which extend below mid-thigh or cardigans that contain a 
sherpa lining or heavy-weight fiberfill lining, including quilted 
linings, used to provide extra warmth to the wearer, are not considered 
sweaters and are excluded from the scope of the order. Also 
specifically excluded from the scope are sweaters assembled in Guam 
that are produced from knit-to-shape component parts knit in and 
imported from Hong Kong and entering under Harmonized Tariff Schedule 
(HTS) item number 9902.61.
    The subject merchandise is currently classifiable under HTS item 
numbers 6110.30.30.10, 6110.30.30.15, 6110.30.30.20, 6110.30.30.25, 
6103.23.00.70, 6103.29.10.40, 6103.29.20.62, 6104.23.00.40, 
6104.29.10.60, 6104.29.20.60, 6110.30.10.10, 6110.30.10.20, 
6110.30.20.10, and 6110.30.20.20. This merchandise may also enter under 
HTS item numbers 6110.30.30.50 and 6110.30.30.55. The HTS item numbers 
are provided for convenience and Customs purposes only. The written 
description remains dispositive.

Sampling Methodology

    We applied our sampling methodology in the following manner. First, 
each of the 18 companies included in the sample pool was assigned 
points according to its percentage share of total export sales, by 
volume, to the United States. One point was given for each \1/2\ 
percent of U.S. sales. (Each company received a minimum of one point.) 
Each company was represented in the sample pool in proportion to the 
number of points it received. For example, a company that comprised 25 
percent of exports to the United States would receive 50 points and go 
``into the hat'' 50 times. A company that comprised one percent of 
total exports would receive two points and go ``into the hat'' twice. 
In this way, the company with a greater volume of exports had a greater 
chance of being selected than a company with a smaller volume of 
exports. There was a total of 203 points in the pool. We then selected 
random numbers between one and 203 corresponding to the points until 
four separate companies were selected. (In all, we selected seven 
points, four of which corresponded to the same company.)
    For the preliminary results, the companies in the sample pool that 
were not selected to be analyzed received a rate which was the simple 
average of the margins of the four selected companies. For the final 
results we have determined that it is more appropriate to weight the 
sample by the points drawn from the pool. Since each point represents a 
percentage of the total sales volume, each time we randomly selected a 
point we were, in effect, selecting a segment of the sales volume as 
representative of the entire pool. Each volume segment had an equal 
chance for selection, and each segment is equally representative of the 
pool. Therefore, each segment should be given equal weight in 
calculating the sample pool rate. Four points assigned to Hayward were 
drawn; therefore, Hayward's rate of 5.86 percent has entered the sample 
rate calculation four times. Points assigned to Apace, Bond and LaMagma 
were drawn only once; therefore, their rates of 115.15 percent, 5.86 
percent, and zero percent have each entered the sample rate once. The 
sample rate for these final results is 20.64 percent.

Analysis of the Comments Received

Comment 1

    Peninsula et al. contend that the Department does not have legal 
authority to utilize sampling to select respondents in administrative 
reviews. Peninsula et al. argue that the provision in the Trade 
Agreements Act of 1979 dealing with sampling was not intended to permit 
the Department to use sampling in selection of respondents, but in the 
calculation of foreign market value (FMV). They argue that, while the 
Trade and Tariff Act of 1984 expanded the Department's authority with 
regard to sampling, it did not give the Department the authority to 
sample respondents.
    Peninsula et al. argue that the statute and legislative history 
indicate that Congress intended to extend the authority for sampling to 
the calculation of U.S. price and other variables within the databases 
of a particular respondent, rather than to a group of respondents. They 
claim that when the Department restricts its review to a sample of the 
respondents named by the domestic industry, those respondents not 
selected for active participation are ipso facto excluded from the 
administrative process, and their fate is entirely in the control of 
their competitors. Peninsula et al. further contend that because the 
consequences of sampling are so dire, it should not be assumed, in the 
absence of an explicit statutory provision, that Congress intended that 
the Department investigate anything less than the entire universe of 
named parties in an administrative review.
    Peninsula et al. further contend that there is no judicial 
precedent to support the Department's sampling authority. They argue 
that in the one case where the Court of International Trade (CIT) 
considered the Department's exercise of sampling for respondent 
selection in an administrative review, Floral Trade Council v. United 
States, 775 F. Supp. 1492, 15 CIT 497 (1991), the Court assumed that 
the Department had the authority to use representative samples, and 
that the argument was therefore untested.
    Department's Position: We disagree. Section 777A of the Tariff Act 
provides the Department with broad authority to apply sampling 
techniques in administrative reviews (19 U.S.C. 1677f-1). The 
legislative history of the Trade and Tariff Act of 1984 indicates that 
this provision grants the Department the discretion to apply sampling 
to any aspect of an antidumping review:

    Section 109 [of H.R. 4784] authorizes sampling and averaging 
techniques utilized by the administering authority in determining 
foreign market value under the present antidumping law also to be 
used in determining United States price in dumping investigations 
and in all aspects of the annual review of outstanding 
countervailing and antidumping duty orders. (emphasis added) (H.R. 
Rep. No. 98-725, 98th Cong., 2nd. Sess., Reprinted in 1984 U.S. 
AAN., 5127, 5135.)

    The only criteria for using the sampling provision of section 777A 
are that a significant volume of sales be involved or a significant 
number of adjustments to prices be required, and that such samples 
shall be representative of the transactions under review. (See 19 
U.S.C. 1677f-1.) Those criteria were met in this case. (See comment 4.)
    We have employed sampling techniques to select respondents to be 
analyzed in past administrative reviews. See, e.g., Certain Fresh Cut 
Flowers From Colombia; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, Partial Termination of Administrative Review and 
Intent To Revoke Order (In Part) (58 FR 65329, December 14, 1993) Fresh 
and Chilled Atlantic Salmon from Norway; Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, (58 FR 17380, April 2, 1993), 
and Certain Fresh Cut Flowers from Colombia: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review (55 FR 20491, 20495-96, May 17, 
1990).
    The CIT has reviewed and upheld the Department's sampling 
methodology in the context of an antidumping duty review. (See Floral 
Trade Council v. United States, 775 F. Supp. 1492 (1991) (Floral Trade 
II).) In that case, the Court acknowledged Commerce's authority, which 
was unchallenged, to use sampling techniques (which in this case 
involved sampling among manufacturers/exporters). The decisions in 
Floral Trade II and numerous other cases support the proposition that 
the only limitations on Commerce's authority to use sampling techniques 
are the criteria in Section 777A, noted above. (See also Asociacion 
Colombiana de Exportadores v. United States, 704 F. Supp. 1114 (CIT 
1989); Floral Trade Council v. United States, 704 F. Supp. 233 (CIT 
1988) (Floral Trade I).)

Comment 2

    Peninsula et al. argue that, assuming the Department does have the 
authority to sample, the Department should not have done so in this 
review, as the statute mandates that the Department must use a 
generally accepted statistical method to conduct sampling. Peninsula et 
al. assert that, as reflected in the December 16, 1991 letter and 
December 13, 1991 sampling memorandum that the Department issued, the 
decision to sample was based simply on the total number of respondents 
requested by petitioners for the three concurrent MMF Sweater reviews 
(Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Korea), without regard to whether the total 
number of respondents in each individual country was amenable to 
sampling under generally recognized principles of statistical theory.
    Peninsula et al. contend that there is no evidence on the record 
which demonstrates that the Department made any effort to decide how 
large a sample was necessary to reduce the sampling error to an 
acceptable level. They argue that statistical theory does not permit 
sampling to be undertaken in all instances where there is a multitude 
of objects to be studied, and point out that required sample size 
should be directly proportional to the population variance. They argue 
that there is no analysis on the record which demonstrates that the 
Department considered how many firms, from the sample pool of 18, 
needed to be investigated in order to bring the sampling error to an 
acceptable level, and that Peninsula and Fang noted this in their 
December 23, 1991 letter to the Department.
    Department's Position: As in similar cases in the past, the 
Department's decision to sample was based on the large number of 
respondents in the three concurrent MMF sweater reviews, and the 
resource constraints that existed at the time these reviews were 
initiated. We have employed sampling in the past based on a large sales 
volume and the resulting burden that analyzing all sales would place 
upon us. In Certain Fresh Cut Flowers From Colombia; Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Partial Termination 
of Administrative Review and Intent To Revoke Order (In Part) (58 FR 
65329, December 14, 1993), we noted the large number of firms and 
transactions under review, and in Antifriction Bearings (Other Than 
Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof from the Federal Republic of 
Germany; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews 
and Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews (56 FR 11200, March 
15, 1991) we noted the large number of transactions and the resulting 
administrative burden involved in calculating individual margins for 
all of these transactions. Furthermore, the CIT has upheld the use of 
sampling based on the cumulative burden resulting from simultaneous 
cases. (See, e.g., Floral Trade I.) In the present case, we initiated 
reviews on 128 firms from Korea, Taiwan, and Hong Kong, and, due to the 
significant sales volume, we sampled firms. (We later eliminated from 
the sample pools companies which did not respond to our sampling 
questionnaire, had no shipments, or could not be located.)
    We also disagree with Peninsula et al. regarding the information we 
had concerning the firms in the sample, at the time we made the 
decision to sample. We received from the Hong Kong government a list of 
quota holders and their allocated export quantities on November 11, 
1994, more than a month before our decision to sample. Based on that 
information, we were able to assess the approximate volume of the Hong 
Kong MMF sweater manufacturers/exporters before making our decision to 
sample in the three cases. The Hong Kong sample constituted 22 percent 
of the firms in the sample pool, and captured approximately 60 percent 
of the sales volume. We therefore concluded that the sample was 
adequate.

Comment 3

    Peninsula et al. argue that sampling was inappropriate because the 
sample pool was too small. They cite the December 23, 1991 letter from 
NKSA to the Department, in which NKSA pointed out that the Department 
had not sampled respondent companies in other administrative reviews 
that had involved a greater number of companies. They also cite a 1991 
submission from Peninsula and Fang, in which Peninsula and Fang argued 
that the 17 companies which had, at that time, responded to the 
preliminary questionnaire, accounted for only 204,742 dozen sweaters 
worth $19 million, and that, in reviews of other antidumping duty 
orders, the Department had reviewed transactions of single respondents 
with much greater values and volumes.
    Peninsula et al. argue that even the results of the review 
demonstrate that the pool was too small, noting that the presence of a 
single BIA respondent drove the sample rate from 5.86 to 31.72 percent. 
They point out that in Fresh Cut Flowers from Colombia: Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Administrative Review, 58 FR 65329 (December 14, 
1993), a BIA margin of 72.35 percent was applied to two firms and was 
included in the sample pool margin, but that the effect of the 
inclusion of these firms was a margin of 5.71 percent. They also argue 
that the Department did not seem to verify that the four companies 
which claimed no shipments did not export to the United States during 
the period of review.
    Department's Position: We disagree with Peninsula et al. that the 
size of the sample was too small to be appropriate. As mentioned above, 
our sample captured approximately twenty-two percent of firms and sixty 
percent of all sales. While we have at times been able to review 
companies with greater value and volume, given that we simultaneously 
initiated reviews on 128 firms from three countries, and that there 
were scarce resources available to us at the time, the decision to 
sample was justified. In Hong Kong alone, the sample pool was 18 firms, 
a greater number than in most antidumping reviews. Furthermore, given 
the differences in selling practices generally found among companies, 
and the necessity of conducting a separate analysis of each company 
selected, it is less of an administrative burden to analyze a large 
number of sales from a few companies, than a smaller number of sales 
spread among a greater number of companies.
    Regarding the companies which claimed no shipments, we did verify 
their claims with the U.S. Customs Department. (See e-mail from the 
U.S. Department of Commerce to U.S. Customs, dated July 2, 1992.)

Comment 4

    Peninsula et al. argue that the Department's methodology was 
erroneous because the sample was not representative. They point out 
that Peninsula and Fang, in a December 23, 1991 letter to the 
Department, argued that the pool of respondents was not homogeneous, 
and displayed clear biases related to company size. Peninsula et al. 
state that the Department presumed that it was dealing with a 
homogenous universe of potential respondents. They present a chart 
which shows quantity, value, and average per unit value for each of the 
firms in the pool, which, they argue, shows that there is an inverse 
correlation between volume of sales and unit price. They claim that the 
selected firms were predominantly large-size, low-unit-value firms, and 
the results for these big firms are being applied to the smaller, 
higher-unit-value firms. Peninsula et al. cite the Department's January 
6, 1992 memorandum, in which we noted that the Korean respondents were 
theoretically correct in their argument that the sampling methodology 
was biased towards small firms, although the potential bias was 
minimal.
    Department's Position: Because of the way our sample was 
structured, firms with the largest volumes were more likely to be 
chosen. We assigned one point for every 0.5 percent of total sales 
volume within the sample, then randomly drew numbers, corresponding to 
the assigned points. Firms with less than 0.5 percent of total sales 
volume were assigned one point. As larger firms had more points 
assigned to them, they were more likely to be chosen. However, the 
theoretical statistical bias was actually in favor of the selection of 
the smallest firms, because there were five firms with less than 0.5 
percent of sales volume, all of whom received one point. None of these 
low volume firms were selected for the sample, so this theoretical bias 
had no practical effect.
    We chose our sampling methodology because it was both 
representative and efficient. When we issued our proposed sampling 
methodology and invited interested parties to comment thereon, we asked 
that the parties focus on methodology rather than the decision to 
sample. In their submissions, NKSA, as well as Fang and Peninsula, 
objected to sampling, but did not suggest an alternative to the 
sampling methodology we proposed. Where, as here, the sampling 
methodology is legally adequate and the results have not been shown to 
be unrepresentative, the CIT has upheld the sampling of representative 
firms. In Asociacion Colombiana de Exportadores de Flores v. U.S., the 
CIT upheld the Department's sampling of respondent firms in a less than 
fair value investigation, noting that ``the sampling methodology was 
legally adequate and the results of the sampling have not been shown to 
be unrepresentative.'' (704 F. Supp. 1114, 1122 (1989).)
    We also disagree that sales price should be used as the basis of 
stratification, as Peninsula et al. now suggest. Whether a company's 
price to the United States is high or low is not in itself indicative 
of the existence or level of dumping. Rather, dumping is measured by a 
comparison of U.S. prices to the home market or third country prices, 
or to constructed value. A company that sells at higher prices than a 
second company could have a higher margin of dumping, depending on the 
FMVs of the two companies. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to 
group respondents on the basis of price, or a surrogate for price, as 
Peninsula et al. suggest.

Comment 5

    Peninsula et al. argue that given the technical deficiencies in the 
sampling protocol, the Department should have allowed respondents who 
were not selected to participate voluntarily, without such firms' 
results going into the sample-rate calculation. They argue that 
Peninsula and Fang, in their December 23, 1991 letter, suggested that 
respondents not selected as questionnaire recipients be able to 
participate voluntarily without the rates for such firms being 
incorporated in the sample rate.
    Department's Position: We disagree. Every MMF sweater manufacturer/
exporter in Hong Kong had ample opportunity to request that it be 
reviewed during the anniversary month of the antidumping duty order, 
should it have wanted its own rate. Peninsula and Fang, as well as 
other companies in the sample pool, chose not to request a review of 
their sales.

Comment 6

    Peninsula et al. argue that the best information available (BIA) 
outlying rate of 115.15 percent should have been excluded from the 
sample rate calculation. Rather, the fourteen firms in the sample pool 
should be subject to a sample rate of 3.91 percent. Bristol similarly 
argues that the companies in the sample pool were unfairly punished by 
the inclusion of Apace, the firm which received the 115.15 percent 
rate. Bristol contends that the fourteen companies in the sample pool 
indicated a willingness to cooperate with the Department by submitting 
sampling questionnaire responses. Bristol further argues that had Apace 
not responded to the sampling questionnaire, it would have been 
assigned the 115.15 percent BIA rate, but would not have been included 
in the sample pool, thereby punishing itself, but not the others in the 
pool.
    Department's Position: We disagree with Peninsula et al. and 
Bristol regarding the appropriateness and fairness of including Apace 
in the sample pool. Removal of Apace from the sample pool would have 
jeopardized the integrity of the sample, as the sample margin would be 
skewed towards firms with low margins. We note that the sample rate of 
the four firms includes not one, but three firms with BIA rates. It is 
as reasonable for us to assume that Apace's rate of 115.15 percent 
represents one-seventh of the volume of sampled firms as it is to 
assume that LaMagma's zero percent rate represents one-seventh of that 
volume.
    Bristol is correct in its assertion that had Apace not responded to 
the sampling questionnaire, it would have received an uncooperative BIA 
rate of 115.15 percent, and would have not been included in the sample 
pool. However, once the sample universe is defined, and the sample 
selected, we cannot then discard the results of the sample for any 
particular selected company. There is no reason to believe that Apace's 
failure to respond to the antidumping questionnaire was not 
representative of other companies that answered the sampling 
questionnaire.

Final Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we determine that the following margins 
exist: 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin  
        Manufacturer/exporter            Period of review     (percent) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apace Knitting Factory...............     04/27/90-08/31/91       115.15
Bond Manufacturing Company, Ltd......     04/27/90-08/31/91         5.86
Hayward Knitters.....................     04/27/90-08/31/91         5.86
LaMagma..............................     04/27/90-08/31/91         0.00
Sample pool:                                                            
    Chung Cheung Knitting Factory....     04/27/90-08/31/91     \1\20.64
    Comitex Knitters, Ltd............     04/27/90-08/31/91     \1\20.64
    Everest Knitwear, Ltd............     04/27/90-08/31/91     \1\20.64
    Fang Brothers Knitting, Ltd......     04/27/90-08/31/91     \1\20.64
    Fortuna Knits....................     04/27/90-08/31/91     \1\20.64
    Gee Cheung Knitting..............     04/27/90-08/31/91     \1\20.64
    Just Fashions International......     04/27/90-08/31/91     \1\20.64
    Ken Shing Knitting Factory.......     04/27/90-08/31/91     \1\20.64
    Peninsula Knitters, Ltd..........     04/27/90-08/31/91     \1\20.64
    Sun Hing Knitting Factory, Ltd...     04/27/90-08/31/91     \1\20.64
    Union Knitting Factory Co., Ltd..     04/27/90-08/31/91     \1\20.64
    Wai Tai Knitwear.................     04/27/90-08/31/91     \1\20.64
    Wing Yick Knitting Factory.......     04/27/90-08/31/91     \1\20.64
    Wiseknit Factory.................     04/27/90-08/31/91     \1\20.64
No shipments:                                                           
    Afasia Knitting Factory, Ltd.....     04/27/90-08/31/91      \2\5.86
    Esquel Enterprises, Ltd..........     04/27/90-08/31/91      \2\5.86
    King Ah Knitting Factory.........     04/27/90-08/31/91      \2\5.86
    Shui Ling Industries Co., Ltd....     04/27/90-08/31/91      \2\5.86
Did not respond to Sampling                                             
 Questionnaire:                                                         
    Kent Phone.......................     04/27/90-08/31/91    \3\115.15
    Ko Tang Knitting Factory.........     04/27/90-08/31/91    \3\115.15
    Simee Knitting Factory, Ltd......     04/27/90-08/31/91    \3\115.15
    Tai Wah Garment & Knitting.......     04/27/90-08/31/91    \3\115.15
    Excluded from the sample:........                                   
    Great Wind.......................     04/27/90-08/31/91      \4\5.86
    Liaoning Knitwear................     04/27/90-08/31/91      \4\5.86
    Maurice Knitters.................     04/27/90-08/31/91      \4\5.86
All Others...........................     04/27/90-08/31/91         5.86
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Not selected from the sample pool; rate is the average of the margins
  for the four selected companies, weighted by the number of times each 
  company was selected from the sample pool.                            
\2\No shipments during the period; rate is (1) the firm's calculated    
  margin from the LTFV investigation or, (2) if not covered in the      
  investigation, the ``all others'' rate, 5.86 percent.                 
\3\Did not respond to the sampling questionnaire; the uncooperative BIA 
  rate is 115.15 percent, the highest rate from the LTFV investigation. 
\4\No address found; rate is the all others rate from the LTFV          
  investigation, 5.86 percent.                                          

    Parties to the proceeding may request disclosure within 5 days of 
the date of publication of this notice.
    The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual 
differences between U.S. price and FMV may vary from the percentages 
stated above. The Department will issue appraisement instructions on 
each exporter directly to the Customs Service.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective 
upon publication of this notice of final results of review for all 
shipments of MMF sweaters from Hong Kong entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as 
provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act: (1) The cash deposit 
rates for the reviewed companies will be those established in the final 
results of this administrative review; (2) for previously investigated 
companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be 
the company-specific rate published for the LTFV investigation; (3) if 
the exporter is not a firm covered in this review or the LTFV 
investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be 
the rate established in the LTFV investigation for the manufacturer of 
the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other 
manufacturers or exporters will be the ``all other'' rate established 
in the final notice of LTFV investigation of this case (see 55 FR 
30733), in accordance with the Court of International Trade's decisions 
in Floral Trade Council v. United States, Slip Op. 93-79, and Federal-
Mogul Corporation and the Torrington Company v. United States, Slip Op. 
93-83. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect 
until publication of the final results of the next administrative 
review.
    This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26 to file a certificate regarding the 
reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the 
relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this 
requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and subsequent assessment 
of double antidumping duties.

Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(d). Timely written notification of 
return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial 
protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the 
regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
    This administrative review and notice are in accordance with 
section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 
353.22.

    Dated: March 12, 1994.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 94-6974 Filed 3-23-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P