[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 149 (Thursday, August 4, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-19066]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: August 4, 1994]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-830]

 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Coumarin From the People's Republic of China

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 4, 1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David J. Goldberger or Michelle A. 
Frederick, Office of Antidumping Investigations, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; 
telephone: (202) 482-4136 or (202) 482-0186, respectively.

Preliminary Determination

    We preliminarily determine that coumarin from the People's Republic 
of China (PRC) is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States 
at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided in section 733 of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The estimated margins are 
shown in the ``Suspension of Liquidation'' section of this notice. We 
have also determined that critical circumstances exist.

Case History

    Since the initiation of this investigation on January 19, 1994, (59 
FR 3841, January 27, 1994), the following events have occurred.
    On January 31, 1994, we sent a survey to the PRC's Ministry of 
Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation (MOFTEC) and certain companies 
in the PRC requesting information on production and sales of coumarin 
exported to the United States. The names of the companies were found in 
the petition and in data supplied by the Port Import Export Reporting 
Service (PIERS). We requested MOFTEC's assistance in forwarding the 
survey to all exporters and producers of coumarin and in submitting 
complete responses on their behalf.
    On February 14, 1994, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) 
notified the Department of Commerce (the Department) of its preliminary 
determination that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in 
the United States is materially injured by reason of imports of 
coumarin from the PRC that are alleged to be sold at less than fair 
value.
    On February 26 and 27, 1994, responses to the survey were received 
from Tianjin No. 1 Perfumery Factory (Tianjin Perfumery) and Shanghai 
Perfumery General Factory (Shanghai Perfumery), both of whom 
manufacture coumarin. These responses helped us identify other 
producers and exporters of coumarin.
    On February 28, 1994, MOFTEC and those PRC producers and exporters 
identified in the course of this proceeding, for which we had 
addresses, were sent full questionnaires. Additionally, during the 
month of March, the Department held a questionnaire presentation with 
MOFTEC and company officials in Beijing.
    In a March 28, 1994, filing, MOFTEC advised the Department that the 
following companies produced or exported the subject merchandise to the 
U.S. during the POI: Tianjin Perfumery, Shanghai Perfumery, Gaoyo 
Perfumery Factory (Gaoyo Perfumery), Changzhou No. 2 Chemical Plant 
(Changzhou Chemical) (producers); China Foreign Trade Development 
Companies (CFTD), Tianjin Chemicals Import & Export (Tianjin 
Chemicals), Tianjin Native Produce Import & Export Corporation (Tianjin 
Native), Jiangsu Native Produce Import & Export (Jiangsu Native), and 
China Tuhsu Flavors and Fragrances Import and Export Corporation (China 
Tuhsu) (exporters).
    In March and April, 1994, responses to section A of our 
questionnaire were received from the following producers and exporters: 
Shanghai Perfumery and CFTD, Tianjin Chemicals and Gaoyo Perfumery, 
Tianjin Perfumery and Tianjin Native, and Jiangsu Native and Changzhou 
Chemical.
    On April 13, 1994, pursuant to section 353.15(c) of the 
Department's regulations, we postponed the preliminary determination in 
this investigation (see, 59 FR 19692, April 25, 1994).
    In April 1994, we received responses to section C of our 
questionnaire from Tianjin Chemicals, Tianjin Native, CFTD, and Jiangsu 
Native; and responses to section D of our questionnaire from Gaoyo 
Perfumery, Tianjin Perfumery, Shanghai Perfumery, and Changzhou 
Chemical. China Tuhsu did not respond to any portion of our 
questionnaire.
    On April 28, 1994, counsel for Shanghai Perfumery and CFTD 
submitted public information concerning surrogate values for factors of 
production for coumarin. On May 20, 1994, petitioners provided the 
Department with Indian prices for certain factors used in the 
production of coumarin, and on July 15, 1994, counsel for the remaining 
participating respondents submitted information regarding surrogate 
values.
    On May 13 and 19, 1994, the Department issued supplemental 
questionnaires to all producers and exporters in the investigation 
except China Tuhsu. On June 9, 1994, counsel for Shanghai Perfumery and 
CFTD advised the Department that it was withdrawing its representation 
of the companies. On May 27 and June 9, we received responses to our 
supplemental questionnaires from all respondents except Shanghai 
Perfumery, CFTD, and China Tuhsu. On June 23, 1994, Changzhou Chemical 
submitted minor revisions to its factors of production data.
    On May 27, 1994, the Department issued a questionnaire to all 
respondents except China Tuhsu regarding the issue of separate rates. 
Responses were received from Jiangsu Native, Tianjin Native, and 
Tianjin Chemical on June 13, 1994 (see, ``Separate Rates'' section 
below).
    On June 20, 1994, petitioners, pursuant to section 353.16 of the 
Department's regulations, amended the petition in this investigation to 
allege the existence of critical circumstances with respect to imports 
of coumarin from the PRC. On June 22, 1994, the Department sent letters 
to Jiangsu Native, Tianjin Chemicals, and Tianjin Native requesting 
information on volume and value of shipments of the subject merchandise 
to the United States. We received their responses on July 12, 1994.
    On July 15, 1994, we sent supplemental ``Separate Rates'' 
questionnaires to Jiangsu Native, Tianjin Chemicals, and Tianjin 
Native.

Scope of Investigation

    The product covered by this investigation is coumarin. Coumarin is 
an aroma chemical with the chemical formula C9H6O2 that 
is also known by other names, including 2H-1-benzopyran-2-one, 1,2-
benzopyrone, cis-o-coumaric acid lactone, coumarinic anhydride, 2-Oxo-
1,2-benzopyran, 5,6-benzo-alpha-pyrone, ortho-hydroxyc innamic acid 
lactone, cis-ortho-coumaric acid anhydride, and tonka bean camphor.
    All forms and variations of coumarin are included within the scope 
of the investigation, such as coumarin in crystal, flake, or powder 
form, and ``crude'' or unrefined coumarin (i.e. prior to purification 
or crystallization). Excluded from the scope are ethylcoumarins 
(C11H10O2) and methylcoumarins (C10H8O2). 
Coumarin is classifiable under subheading 2932.21.0000 of the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the 
HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, our 
written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation (POI) is July 1, 1993, through December 
31, 1993.

Separate Rates

    Jiangsu Native, Tianjin Chemicals, and Tianjin Native have each 
requested a separate, company-specific rate. Their respective business 
licenses each indicate that they are owned ``by all the people.'' As 
stated in the Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: 
Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China (59 FR 22585, 
22586, May 2, 1994) (``Silicon Carbide''), and the Final Determination 
of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Sebacic Acid from the People's 
Republic of China (59 FR 28053, May 31, 1994 (``Sebacic Acid''), 
``ownership of a company by all the people does not require the 
application of a single rate.'' Accordingly, these three respondents 
are eligible for consideration for separate rates.
    To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent to be 
entitled to a separate rate, the Department analyzes each exporting 
entity under a test arising out of the Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China (56 
FR 20588, May 6, 1991) (``Sparklers'') and amplified in Silicon 
Carbide. Under the separate rates criteria, the Department assigns 
separate rates only where respondents can demonstrate the absence of 
both de jure and de facto governmental control over export activities.
1. Absence of De Jure Control
    The respondents in this investigation have submitted a number of 
documents to demonstrate absence of de jure control, including three 
enactments indicating that the responsibility for managing enterprises 
``owned by all of the people'' is with the enterprises themselves and 
not with the government. These are the ``Law of the People's Republic 
of China on Industrial Enterprises Owned by the Whole People,'' adopted 
on April 13, 1988 (``1988 Law''); ``Regulations for Transformation of 
Operational Mechanism of State-Owned Industrial Enterprises,'' approved 
on August 23, 1992 (``1992 Regulations''); and the ``Temporary 
Provisions for Administration of Export Commodities,'' approved on 
December 21, 1992 (``Export Provisions'').
    The 1988 Law and 1992 Regulations shifted control from the 
government to the enterprises themselves. The 1988 Law provides that 
enterprises owned ``by the whole people'' shall make their own 
management decisions, be responsible for their own profits and losses, 
choose their own suppliers, and purchase their own goods and materials. 
The 1988 Law also has other provisions which support a finding that 
enterprises have management independence from the government. The 1992 
Regulations provide that these same enterprises can, for example, set 
their own prices (Article IX); make their own production decisions 
(Article XI); use their own retained foreign exchange (Article XII); 
allocate profits (Article II); sell their own products without 
government interference (Article X); make their own investment 
decisions (Article XIII); dispose of their own assets (Article XV); and 
hire and fire their employees without government approval (Article 
XVII).
    The Export Provisions list those products subject to direct 
government control. Coumarin is not included in the Export Provisions 
list and does not, therefore, appear to be subject to the export 
constraints of these provisions.
    The existence of these enactments indicates that Jiangsu Native, 
Tianjin Chemicals, and Tianjin Native are not de jure subject to 
governmental control. However, there is some evidence that the 
provisions of the above-cited laws and regulations have not been 
implemented uniformly among different sectors and/or jurisdictions in 
the PRC (see ``PRC Government Findings on Enterprise Autonomy,'' in 
Foreign Broadcast Information Service-China-93-133 (July 14, 1993)). 
Therefore, the Department has determined that an analysis of de facto 
control is critical to determining whether respondents are, in fact, 
subject to governmental control.
2. Absence of De Facto Control
    The Department typically considers four factors in evaluating 
whether each respondent is subject to de facto governmental control of 
its export functions: (1) Whether the export prices are set by or 
subject to the approval of a governmental authority; (2) whether the 
respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other 
agreements; (3) whether the respondent has autonomy from the government 
in making decisions regarding the selection of management; and (4) 
whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and 
makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or 
financing of losses (see Silicon Carbide and Sebacic Acid).
    Jiangsu Native, Tianjin Chemicals, and Tianjin Native have each 
asserted that (1) it establishes its own export prices; (2) it 
negotiates contracts without guidance from any governmental entities or 
organizations; (3) its management operates with a high degree of 
autonomy and there is no information on the record that suggests 
central government control over selection of management; and (4) it 
retains the proceeds of its export sales, and has the authority to sell 
its assets and to obtain loans. In addition, questionnaire responses 
indicate that company-specific pricing during the POI does not suggest 
any coordination among exporters (i.e., the prices for comparable 
products differ among companies). This information supports a 
preliminary finding that there is a de facto absence of governmental 
control of export functions.
    Consequently, Jiangsu Native, Tianjin Chemicals, and Tianjin Native 
have preliminarily met the criteria for the application of separate 
rates. We will examine this issue in detail at verification and 
determine whether the questionnaire responses are supported by 
verifiable documentation.
    There are two additional issues relating to governmental control 
that we will consider further for purposes of our final determination. 
First, Jiangsu Native, Tianjin Chemicals, and Tianjin Native have 
indicated that the appointments of their general managers are subject 
to approval by the local Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation Bureaus 
(local Bureaus). Second, each of the responding exporters has reported 
that they are ``administratively subject to'' the local Bureaus. While 
the significance of the involvement of the local Bureaus is unclear, 
the respondents have reported that the local bureaus do not control the 
key functions of the enterprises. However, we will examine at 
verification the precise nature of the authority that the local Bureaus 
exercise over the enterprises.

Nonmarket Economy Country Status

    The PRC has been treated as a nonmarket economy country (NME) in 
all past antidumping investigations (see, e.g., Sebacic Acid and 
Silicon Carbide). No information has been provided in this proceeding 
that would lead us to overturn our former determinations. Therefore, in 
accordance with section 771(18)(c) of the Act, we have treated the PRC 
as an NME for purposes of this investigation.
    Where the Department is investigating imports from an NME, section 
773(c)(1) of the Act directs us to base FMV on the NME producers' 
factors of production, valued in a comparable market economy that is a 
significant producer of the merchandise. Section 773(c)(2) of the Act 
alternatively provides that where available information is inadequate 
for using the factors of production methodology, FMV may be based on 
the export prices for comparable merchandise from market economy 
countries at a comparable level of economic development.
    For purposes of the preliminary determination, we have relied on 
the methodology provided by section 773(c)(1) of the Act to determine 
FMV. The sources of individual factor prices are discussed under the 
FMV section, below.

Surrogate Country

    Section 773(c)(4) of the Act requires the Department to value the 
NME producers' factors of production, to the extent possible, in one or 
more market economy countries that (1) are at a level of economic 
development comparable to that of the NME country, and (2) are 
significant producers of comparable merchandise. The Department has 
determined that India is the country most comparable to the PRC in 
terms of overall economic development (see Memorandum from David 
Mueller, Director Office of Policy, to Gary Taverman, Director of 
Division I of Office of Antidumping Investigations, dated March 10, 
1994). In addition, there is evidence on the record that coumarin is 
produced in India.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of coumarin from the PRC to the United 
States by Jiangsu Native, Tianjin Chemicals, and Tianjin Native were 
made at less than fair value, we compared the United States price (USP) 
to the foreign market value (FMV), as specified in the ``United States 
Price'' and ``Foreign Market Value'' sections of this notice.

United States Price

    We based USP on purchase price, in accordance with section 772(b) 
of the Act, because the subject merchandise was sold directly by the 
Chinese exporters to unrelated parties in the United States prior to 
importation into the United States.
    For those exporters that responded to the Department's 
questionnaire and were found to be eligible for a separate rate, we 
calculated purchase price based on packed, FOB foreign-port prices to 
unrelated purchasers in the United States. As necessary, we made 
deductions for foreign inland freight, containerization, loading, port 
handling expenses, foreign inland and marine insurance, valued in a 
surrogate country. We were unable to obtain surrogate value information 
for ocean freight, so we valued ocean freight on international shipping 
rates between the PRC and U.S. ports, as quoted by a market-economy 
shipping company. (For a complete analysis of USP deductions, see the 
Calculation Memorandum for this investigation).

Foreign Market Value

    In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated FMV 
based on factors of production reported by the factories in the PRC 
which produced the subject merchandise for the three exporters. The 
factors used to produce coumarin include materials, labor, and energy. 
To calculate FMV, the reported quantities were multiplied by the 
appropriate surrogate values from India and Indonesia for the different 
inputs. We made adjustments to materials costs for the recovery of by-
products, where applicable. In determining which surrogate value to use 
for valuing each factor of production, we selected, where possible, 
from publicly available, published information (public information). 
For a complete analysis of surrogate values, see the Calculation 
Memorandum for this investigation.
    We used surrogate transportation rates to value inland freight 
between the source of the production factor and the coumarin factories, 
and between factories and exporters/ports. In those cases where a 
respondent failed to provide any information on transportation 
distances, we applied, as best information available, the farthest 
distance reported for the input in the public version of questionnaire 
responses.
    To value certain raw materials, we used public information from 
Chemical Business of India for July-October 1993, and India Chemical 
Weekly for July-November 1993. For raw materials not listed in Chemical 
Business of India, or India Chemical Weekly, we used the Monthly Trade 
Statistics of Foreign Trade of India, Volume II--Imports (Indian Import 
Statistics) for April 1992-March 1993. We adjusted the factor values to 
the POI using wholesale price indices published in International 
Financial Statistics (IFS) by the International Monetary Fund. For 
materials sourced from market-economy countries and purchased in 
convertible currencies, we applied the actual purchase price paid 
during the POI, or the time period closest to the POI. No product-
specific public information pertaining to India or any other potential 
surrogate country was available for certain raw materials. With respect 
to these raw materials, we have used, privately researched Indian price 
quotes, Indian import statistics for categories that include the 
specific raw materials (i.e., ``basket'' categories), or Indonesian 
import statistics. (For a complete analysis of raw material valuations, 
see the Calculation Memorandum for this investigation).
    To value electricity, we used public information from the Electric 
Utilities Data Book for the Asian and Pacific Region (January 1993) 
published by the Asian Development Bank. We selected this source 
because it provides an electricity rate for industrial use during the 
POI from India, our preferred surrogate country. To value water, we 
have used public information for India from the Water Utilities Data 
Book for the Asian and Pacific Region (November 1993) which is also 
published by the Asian Development Bank. To value coal, we used Indian 
Import Statistics. We adjusted the factor values to the POI using 
wholesale price indices published in the IFS.
    To value hourly labor rates in India, we used the International 
Labor Office's 1993 Yearbook of Labor Statistics and Country Reports: 
Human Rights Practices for 1990.
    To value factory overhead, we calculated percentages based on 
relevant data from The Reserve Bank of India Bulletin (RBI), December 
1993. We based our overhead percentage calculations on the RBI summary 
income statement data applicable to the chemical manufacturing 
industry, and adjusted to reflect an energy-exclusive overhead 
percentage. For selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, we 
calculated percentages based on the RBI summary income statement data. 
We used the calculated SG&A percentages because they were greater than 
the ten percent statutory minimum. For profit we used the statutory 
minimum of eight percent of materials, labor, factory overhead, and 
SG&A expenses, because the RBI percentage was less than eight percent. 
We added packing based on Indian values obtained from Indian Import 
Statistics.

Best Information Available (BIA)

    Because information has not been presented to the Department to 
prove otherwise, any PRC company that did not respond fully to the 
Department's questionnaires or otherwise did not participate in this 
investigation, are assumed to be under government control, and, 
therefore, are not entitled to separate dumping margins. In the absence 
of responses from those companies that did not fully respond to the 
Department's questionnaire, and other PRC exporters during the POI, we 
are basing the All Other rate on BIA, pursuant to section 776(c) of the 
Act (see Silicon Carbide). In determining what to use as BIA, the 
Department follows a two-tiered methodology, whereby the Department 
normally assigns lower margins to those respondents that cooperated in 
an investigation and more adverse margins for those respondents which 
did not cooperate in an investigation. When a company refuses to 
provide the information requested in the form required, or otherwise 
significantly impedes the Department's investigation, it is appropriate 
for the Department to assign to that company the higher of (a) the 
highest margin alleged in the petition, or (b) the highest calculated 
rate of any respondent in the investigation (see Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat 
Products, Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products, and Certain 
Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Belgium (58 FR 37083, July 9, 
1993). In this investigation, since some PRC exporters failed to 
respond to our questionnaire, we are assigning to them the highest 
margin based on information submitted in the petition (see Initiation 
of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Coumarin from the People's Republic 
of China, 59 FR 3841, January 27, 1994). This rate applies to all 
exporters other than those responding exporters that are receiving 
separate rates.

Critical Circumstances

    Petitioners allege that ``critical circumstances'' exist with 
respect to imports of coumarin from the PRC. Section 733(e)(1) of the 
Act provides that there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect 
that critical circumstances exist if:
    (A)(i) there is a history of dumping in the United States or 
elsewhere of the class or kind of merchandise which is the subject of 
the investigation, or
    (ii) the person by whom, or for whose account, the merchandise was 
imported knew or should have known that the exporter was selling the 
merchandise which is the subject of investigation at less than its fair 
value, and
    (B) there have been massive imports of the class or kind of 
merchandise which is the subject of the investigation over a relatively 
short period.
    Regarding criterion (A) above, we normally consider margins of 25 
percent or more (in purchase price situations) as sufficient to impute 
knowledge of dumping (see Silicon Carbide). Since the preliminary 
estimated dumping margins for exporters of coumarin in the PRC are in 
excess of 25 percent, we can impute knowledge of dumping to the 
importers of the subject merchandise.
    Regarding criterion (B) above, pursuant to 19 CFR 353.16(f), we 
generally consider the following factors in determining whether imports 
have been massive over a short period of time: (1) The volume and value 
of the imports; (2) seasonal trends (if applicable); and (3) the share 
of domestic consumption accounted for by the imports. If imports during 
the period immediately following the petition increase by 15 percent 
over imports during a comparable period immediately preceding the 
filing of a petition, we consider them massive pursuant to section 
353.16(f)(2) of the Department's regulations. Three respondents have 
responded to the Department's request for the quantity and value of 
monthly exports to the U.S. To determine whether there have been 
massive imports of coumarin from the PRC, we compared each respondent's 
volume of shipments for the period following the petition (January 
through June 1994) to the period immediately preceding the petition 
(July through December 1993). Based on an analysis of these export 
data, we find that imports from Tianjin Chemical and Tianjin Native 
have been massive, while imports from Jiangsu Native have not been 
massive.
    With respect to share of domestic consumption, the information 
available to us at this time does not allow us to evaluate whether the 
increase in absolute volume of coumarin shipments can be accounted for 
by a change in domestic consumption.
    For Tianjin Chemical and Tianjin Native, because the preliminary 
dumping margins are sufficient to impute knowledge of dumping, and 
because we have found that imports of coumarin have been massive, we 
preliminarily determine that critical circumstances do exist for these 
two exporters.
    With respect to Jiangsu Native, because we have found that imports 
of coumarin have not been massive, we preliminarily determine that 
critical circumstances do not exist for this exporter.
    As regards the firms covered by the ``All Others'' rate, we have 
used BIA as the basis for determining whether critical circumstances 
exist for non-respondent exporters. The BIA margin exceeds the 25 
percent threshold for imputing a knowledge of dumping to the importers 
of the merchandise. In addition, we have adversely assumed, as BIA, a 
massive increase in imports from these non-respondent exporters. We, 
therefore, determine that critical circumstances also exist for these 
exporters.

Verification

    As provided in section 776(b) of the Act, we will verify all 
information determined to be acceptable for use in making our final 
determination.

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(d)(1) of the Act, we are directing 
the Customs Service to suspend liquidation of all entries of coumarin 
from the PRC, that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption on or after the date 90 days before the date of publication 
of this notice in the Federal Register, except for imports from Jiangsu 
Native, in which case the effective date of suspension of liquidation 
is the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. The 
Customs Service shall require a cash deposit or posting of a bond equal 
to the estimated amount by which the FMV exceeds the USP as shown 
below. These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in 
effect until further notice.
    The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows: 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Weighted-                     
                                           average         Critical     
     Manufacturer/Producer/Exporter         margin      circumstances   
                                          percentage                    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tianjin Chemicals I/E Corp.............       143.40  Affirmative.      
Jiangsu Native Produce I/E Corp........        97.61  Negative.         
Tianjin Native Produce I/E Corp........        35.21  Affirmative.      
All Others.............................       444.37  Affirmative.      
------------------------------------------------------------------------

ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the 
ITC of our determination. If our final determination is affirmative, 
the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of 
this preliminary determination or 45 days after our final determination 
whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material 
injury to, the U.S. industry.

Public Comment

    In accordance with 19 CFR 353.38, case briefs or other written 
comments in at least six copies must be submitted to the Assistant 
Secretary for Import Administration no later than September 13, 1994, 
and rebuttal briefs, no later than September 20, 1994. In accordance 
with 19 CFR 353.38(b), we will hold a public hearing, if requested, to 
afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on arguments raised 
in case or rebuttal briefs. Tentatively, the hearing will be held at 
1:00 p.m. on September 22, 1994, at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 
Room 3708, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20230. Parties should confirm by telephone the time, date, and place of 
the hearing 48 hours before the scheduled time.
    Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate 
if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant 
Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 
B-099, within ten days of the publication of this notice. Requests 
should contain: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; 
(2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of the issues to be 
discussed. In accordance with 19 CFR 353.38(b), oral presentations will 
be limited to issues raised in the briefs. If this investigation 
proceeds normally, we will make our final determination by the 135th 
day after the date of publication of the affirmative preliminary 
determination in the Federal Register.
    This determination is published pursuant to section 733(f) of the 
Act and 19 CFR 353.15(a)(4).

    Dated: July 28, 1994.
Barbara R. Stafford,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration
[FR Doc. 94-19066 Filed 8-3-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P