[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