[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 38 (Monday, February 27, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10558-10562]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-4726]



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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE.
[A-412-816]


Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Certain Carbon Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings From the United Kingdom

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 27, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie Anne Osgood or Todd Hansen, 
Office of Countervailing Investigations, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone 
(202) 482-0167 or 482-1276, respectively.

Final Determination

    We determine that certain carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings from 
the United Kingdom are being sold in the United States at less than 
fair value, as provided in section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the ``Act''). The estimated margins are shown in the 
``Suspension of Liquidation'' section of this notice.

Case History

    Since the publication of the preliminary determination in the 
Federal Register on October 4, 1994 (59 FR 50571), the following events 
have occurred:
    On October 3, 1994, pursuant to the Department's regulations (19 
CFR 353.20(b)(1) (1994)), BKL Fittings, Ltd. (``BKL''), requested that 
the final determination in this case be postponed. On November 14, 
1994, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice 
postponing the final determination in this case until February 16, 1995 
(59 FR 56461). From November 21 through 23, and November 29 and 30, 
1994, we verified the further manufacturing operations and exporter's 
sales price information of BKL's related entity in Union, New Jersey. 
From December 12 through 23, 1994, we verified BKL's responses to the 
Department's antidumping duty questionnaire at company headquarters in 
Redditch, England. On January 23 and 30, 1995, petitioner and 
respondent submitted case and rebuttal briefs to the Department. The 
Department held a public hearing in this investigation on February 2, 
1995.

Scope of the Investigation

    The products covered by this investigation are certain carbon steel 
butt-weld pipe fittings (``pipe fittings'') having an inside diameter 
of less than fourteen inches (355 millimeters), imported in either 
finished or unfinished condition. Pipe fittings are formed or forged 
steel products used to join pipe sections in piping systems where 
conditions require permanent welded connections, as distinguished from 
fittings based on other methods of fastening (e.g., threaded, grooved, 
or bolted fittings). Butt-weld fittings come in a variety of shapes 
which includes ``elbows,'' ``tees,'' ``caps,'' and ``reducers.'' The 
edges of finished pipe fittings are beveled, so that when a fitting is 
placed against the end of a pipe (the ends of which have also been 
beveled), a shallow channel is created to accommodate the ``bead'' of 
the weld [[Page 10559]] which joins the fitting to the pipe. These pipe 
fittings are currently classifiable under subheading 7307.93.3000 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 September 1, 1993, through 
February 28, 1994.

Such or Similar Comparisons

    In making our fair value comparisons, we first compared sales of 
merchandise identical in all respects, in accordance with the 
Department's standard methodology. If no identical merchandise was 
sold, we compared sales of the most similar merchandise, as determined 
by the model-matching criteria contained in Appendix V of the 
questionnaire (``Appendix V'') (on file in Room B-099 of the main 
building of the Department of Commerce (``Public File'')).

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether BKL's sales for export to the United States 
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. For those U.S. sales compared to sales of similar merchandise, 
we made an adjustment, pursuant to 19 CFR 353.57, for physical 
differences in the merchandise.
    We compared U.S. sales, where possible, with sales in the home 
market at the same level of trade, in accordance with 19 CFR 353.58.
    We made revisions to BKL's reported data, where appropriate, based 
on verification findings.

United States Price

    Where BKL's U.S. sales of pipe fittings were made to an unrelated 
distributor in the United States prior to importation, and the 
exporter's sales price (``ESP'') methodology was not indicated by other 
circumstances, we based USP on the purchase price sales methodology in 
accordance with section 772(b) of the Act.
    We calculated purchase price based on packed, c.i.f. import prices 
to an unrelated customer in the United States. We made deductions, 
where appropriate, for foreign brokerage, foreign inland freight, ocean 
freight, marine insurance, U.S. brokerage and U.S. duty.
    Where sales to the first unrelated purchaser took place after 
importation of the subject merchandise into the United States, we 
calculated USP using the ESP methodology, in accordance with section 
772(c) of the Act.
    For ESP sales, we made deductions, where appropriate, for 
discounts, foreign brokerage, foreign inland freight, ocean freight, 
marine insurance, U.S. duty, U.S. inland freight, and U.S. brokerage 
and handling. In addition, we deducted credit expense, indirect selling 
expense, inventory carrying costs, and commissions to an unrelated 
agent.
    We made an adjustment to USP for value-added tax (``VAT'') assessed 
on comparison sales in the U.K. in accordance with our practice, 
pursuant to the Court of International Trade (``CIT'') decision in 
Federal-Mogul, et al v. United States, 834 F. Supp. 1391. See 
Preliminary Antidumping Duty Determination: Color Negative Photographic 
Paper and Chemical Components from Japan, 59 FR 16177, 16179 (April 6, 
1994), for an explanation of this methodology.
    For pipe fittings that were further manufactured in the United 
States, we deducted all value added in the United States, pursuant to 
section 772(e)(3) of the Act. The value added consists of the cost of 
fabrication and general expenses associated with the further 
manufacturing operations, as well as a proportional amount of profit or 
loss attributable to the further manufacture. (See, e.g., Notice of 
Final Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Hot-
Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products, Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel 
Flat Products, Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products, 
and Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from France, 58 FR 37125 
(July 9, 1993).) We calculated profit or loss by deducting from the 
sales price of the further manufactured merchandise the related 
production costs and selling expense incurred by the company in both 
the U.K. and the United States. We then allocated total profit or loss 
proportionately to all components of cost. We included only the profit 
or loss allocated to the further manufacturing portion of total cost in 
our calculation of value added. We adjusted BKL's allocation of general 
and administrative (``G&A'') expenses for further manufactured sales to 
an allocation based on cost of sales rather than weight.

Foreign Market Value

    In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of 
sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating 
FMV, we compared the volume of home market sales of subject merchandise 
to the volume of third country sales of subject merchandise, in 
accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act. BKL's volume of home 
market sales was greater than five percent of the aggregate volume of 
third country sales. Therefore, we determined that the home market 
constituted a viable basis for calculating FMV, in accordance with 19 
CFR 353.48(a).
    For purposes of calculating FMV, we used BKL's sales to its home 
market customers and constructed value (``CV''), as described below. We 
excluded from the home market database any sales of fittings not 
manufactured by BKL.

Cost of Production

    Petitioner alleged that BKL made home market sales during the POI 
at prices below the cost of production (``COP''). In the course of this 
investigation, we gathered and verified data on production costs.
    In order to determine whether home market prices were below the COP 
within the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act, we performed a 
product-specific cost test, in which we examined whether each product 
sold in the home market during the POI was priced below the COP of that 
product. We calculated COP based on the sum of BKL's cost of materials, 
fabrication, general expenses, and packing, in accordance with 19 CFR 
353.51(c). For each product, we compared this sum to the home market 
unit price, net of movement expenses and rebates. We made changes, 
where appropriate, to submitted COP data, as discussed in the 
``Interested Party Comments'' section of this notice, below.
    In accordance with section 773(b) of the Act, we also examined 
whether the home market sales of each product were made at prices below 
their COP in substantial quantities over an extended period of time, 
and whether such sales were made at prices that would permit recovery 
of all costs within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of 
trade.
    For each product where less than ten percent, by quantity, of the 
home market sales during the POI were made at prices below the COP, we 
included all sales of that model for the computation of FMV. For each 
product where ten percent or more, but less than 90 percent, of the 
home market sales during the POI were priced below the COP, we did not 
include in the calculation of FMV those home market sales which were 
priced below the COP, provided that the below-cost sales of 
[[Page 10560]] that product were made over an extended period of time. 
Where we found that more than 90 percent of respondent's sales were at 
prices below the COP, and such sales were over an extended period of 
time, in accordance with section 773(b) of the Act, we disregarded all 
sales of that product and instead based FMV on CV.
    In order to determine whether below-cost sales had been made over 
an extended period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the 
Act, we compared the number of months in which below-cost sales 
occurred for each product to the number of months in the POI in which 
that product was sold. If a product was sold in three or more months of 
the POI, we did not exclude below-cost sales unless there were below-
cost sales in at least three months during the POI. When we found that 
sales of a product only occurred in one or two months, the number of 
months in which the sales occurred constituted the extended period of 
time; i.e., where sales of a product were made in only two months, the 
extended period of time was two months, where sales of a product were 
made in only one month, the extended period of time was one month.
    BKL provided no evidence that the disregarded sales were at prices 
that would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of 
time and in the normal course of trade. (See Section 773(b)(2); 19 
U.S.C. 1677b(b)(2).)

Constructed Value

    We calculated CV based on the sum of the cost of materials, 
fabrication, general expenses, U.S. packing costs and profit. In 
accordance with section 773(e)(1)(B)(i) and (ii) of the Act we: (1) 
included the greater of BKL's reported general expenses or the 
statutory minimum of ten percent of the cost of manufacture (``COM''), 
as appropriate; and (2) used the greater of BKL's actual profit on 
sales in the home market or the statutory minimum profit of eight 
percent of the sum of COM and general expenses.

Price-to-Price Comparisons

    For price-to-price comparisons, we calculated FMV based on ex-
factory or delivered prices, inclusive of packing to home market 
customers. We deducted rebates, where appropriate, on home market 
sales. We deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing 
costs in accordance with section 773(a)(1) of the Act. We also made 
adjustments, where appropriate, for differences in the physical 
characteristics of the merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(1) 
of the Act.
    In light of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision 
in Ad Hoc Committee of AZ-NM-TX-FL Producers of Gray Portland Cement v. 
United States, 13 F.3d 398 (Fed. Cir., January 5, 1994), the Department 
can no longer deduct home market movement charges from FMV pursuant to 
its inherent power to fill in gaps in the antidumping statute. Instead, 
we adjust for those expenses under the circumstance-of-sale provision 
of 19 CFR 353.56(a) and the exporter's sales price offset provision of 
19 CFR 353.56(b)(2), as appropriate. Accordingly, in the present case, 
we deducted post-sale home market movement charges from the FMV under 
the circumstance-of-sale provision of 19 CFR 353.56(a). This adjustment 
included home market inland freight.
    For both price-to-price comparisons and comparisons to CV, we also 
made circumstance-of-sale adjustments, where appropriate, for 
differences in credit expenses, pursuant to 19 CFR 353.56(a)(2).
    We adjusted for VAT in the home market in accordance with our 
practice. (See the ``United States Price'' section of this notice, 
above.)

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions based on the official exchange rates 
in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal 
Reserve Bank of New York (19 CFR 353.60).

Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances

    Petitioner alleged that critical circumstances exist with respect 
to imports of pipe fittings from the U.K. In our preliminary 
determination, pursuant to section 733(e)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 
353.16, we analyzed the allegations using the Department's standard 
methodology. Because no additional information has been submitted since 
the preliminary determination, the Department is using the same 
analysis as explained in its preliminary determination and finds, in 
accordance with section 735(a)(3) of the Act, that critical 
circumstances exist with respect to imports of certain carbon steel 
butt-weld pipe fittings from the U.K.

Verification

    As provided in section 776(b) of the Act, we verified information 
provided by the respondent using standard verification procedures, 
including the examination of relevant sales, cost and financial 
records, and selection of original source documentation. Our 
verification results are outlined in detail in the public version of 
the verification report (Public File).

Interested Party Comments

    Comment 1: BKL contends that the methodology used for the 
preliminary determination where sales made below the cost of production 
were excluded in calculating profit for CV is not in accordance with 
law. According to BKL, Section 773(e)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, 
as amended, provides that profit will be ``equal to that usually 
reflected in sales of merchandise of the same general class or kind as 
the merchandise under consideration which are made by producers in the 
country of exportation, in the usual commercial quantities and in the 
ordinary course of trade***'' BKL claims that the statute neither 
explicitly nor implicitly authorizes CV profit to be calculated solely 
upon above-cost sales. Further, BKL cites to Antifriction Bearings 
(Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France; et 
al.; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 57 FR 
28360, 28374 (June 24, 1992) (``AFBs from France'') where the 
Department rejected the argument that the calculation of profit should 
be based only on sales at prices above the cost of production. BKL 
contends that excluding below-cost sales would be contrary to law 
because the Department would be excluding a portion of sales ``of the 
same class or kind of merchandise.''
    Petitioner maintains that the law leaves the decision of whether to 
include below-cost home market sales in calculating the profit element 
of CV to the discretion of the Department. While the statute does state 
that profit is to be calculated based on home market sales of the same 
general class or kind of merchandise, it also states that such sales 
must be made ``in the ordinary course of trade.'' According to 
petitioner, it is entirely consistent with the purpose of the statutory 
provision to determine that below-cost sales are made outside the 
ordinary course of trade. Petitioner asserts that this approach 
advances the statute's purpose by preventing a foreign exporter from 
indirectly reducing FMV through below cost sales. Finally, petitioner 
argues that the fact that Commerce has included below-cost sales in the 
profit calculations in other proceedings does not dictate that the 
Department must do so in this investigation.
    Department's Position: We agree with respondent. The Department's 
practice has been to calculate profit for constructed value using 
above- and below-cost home market sales. (See [[Page 10561]] AFBs from 
France.) Therefore, we have included below-cost sales in our 
calculation of profit for constructed value in the final determination, 
and used the greater of the average profit on both above- and below-
cost sales or the statutory eight percent minimum profit.
    Comment 2: BKL maintains that sales made below cost in one month of 
the POI do not constitute sales made below cost over an extended period 
of time. BKL cites to Tapered Roller Bearings, and Parts Thereof, 
Finished and Unfinished, From Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 57 FR 4960, 4965 (February 11, 1992) (``TRBs 
from Japan'') where the Department stated: ``[W]e use a period of three 
months to define extended period of time since three months is commonly 
used to measure corporate, financial, and economic performance.'' 
According to BKL, this rationale is inconsistent with defining a single 
month as an ``extended period of time.''
    In addition, BKL contends that the Department's position that a 
single month comprises an ``extended period of time'' is inconsistent 
with the Department's definition of the term ``relatively short 
period'' in connection with critical circumstances. BKL argues that for 
critical circumstances the Department defines the term ``relatively 
short period'' as covering at least three months.
    BKL also contends that if the frequency of below-cost sales is 
limited to one month of the period of investigation, then that is prima 
facie evidence of sporadic or possibly seasonal sales. Hence, according 
to the legislative history of the COP provision, these sales should not 
be disregarded.
    Petitioner maintains that the Department's position is clear that 
if sales are made in less than three months of the POI, then an 
extended period is the number of months in which sales occur. In 
support of this argument, petitioner also cites to TRBs from Japan. In 
addition, petitioner argues that respondent has provided no evidence 
that the sales that occurred in only one month of the POI involved 
obsolete products or end-of-year sales.
    Department's Position: In determining whether sales below cost were 
made over an extended period of time in accordance with section 
773(b)(1) of the Act, the Department has consistently considered an 
extended period of time to be the lesser of the number of months during 
the POI in which sales occur or three months for the reason stated in 
TRBs from Japan: ``[T]he use of only a three month time measurement is 
incomplete since it excludes models that were only sold in one or two 
months of the review period.''
    BKL's contention that the Department is inconsistent in defining a 
``relatively short period'' is misguided. It ignores the Department's 
rationale of needing to preserve the possibility of disregarding below-
cost sales in cases where such sales have occurred in only one or two 
months. This is not a consideration that applies to critical 
circumstances.
    Comment 3: Petitioner contends that by not reporting a portion of 
its parent's G&A, BKL has understated its total G&A expense for the 
subject merchandise. Additionally, petitioner argues that the 
Department should adjust reported G&A expense for the further 
manufacturing operations to include the other operating expenses which 
are related to the activities of the company as a whole.
    BKL disagrees that any of the G&A expense of its parent company 
should be allocated to BKL because BKL's entire manufacturing, sales, 
and R&D activities are conducted without assistance from its parent. 
The parent company receives periodic operational reports from BKL only 
for the purpose of evaluating its investment in its capacity as a 
shareholder. BKL states that allocating its parent company's G&A to 
subsidiaries when the books and records are not consolidated is 
inconsistent with the Department's professed policy of relying upon 
respondent's cost and financial records in COP investigations.
    Department's Position: We agree with petitioner that a portion of 
the G&A expense of BKL's parent company should be allocated to BKL. It 
is clear from the information on the record of this case that BKL's 
parent company's involvement in BKL is more than that of a passive 
investor. The parent company's Overseas Department monitors the 
operations of BKL through monthly reports from BKL and provides 
strategic planning and management services to BKL. Accordingly, we have 
allocated to BKL a proportionate share of the expenses from the 
Overseas Department of the parent company based on the cost of sales of 
its overseas affiliates.
    Additionally, we have increased the further manufacturing G&A cost 
to include other operating expenses incurred that had not been included 
in the reported costs.
    Comment 4: Petitioner maintains that the Department should allocate 
total G&A for the further manufacturing operations based on cost of 
sales rather than weight of finished fittings because an allocation of 
G&A based on weight is contrary to the Department's long-standing 
practice.
    Department's Position: For calculations used in our final 
determination, we have allocated G&A expense based on cost of sales 
rather than weight. Allocating the G&A costs of the further 
manufacturing operations based on weight of finished fittings produces 
a less representative result than allocating based on cost. The weight 
of fittings varies markedly for fittings of different thicknesses, but 
the process of finishing the fittings does not vary proportionately to 
weight. (See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Certain All-Terrain Vehicles from Japan, 54 FR 4864, 4867 (January 31, 
1989).)
    Comment 5: Petitioner claims that BKL understated its costs through 
incorrect reporting of its financing expenses. According to petitioner, 
the finance expense ratios reported by BKL understate the total cost of 
subject merchandise because, where BKL combined its interest expense 
with its parent, it did not reduce the cost of sales for the combined 
group by the intercompany transactions. As a result, the denominator of 
the calculation (total cost of sales) was inflated. Similarly, 
petitioner contends that the Department should adjust respondent's 
financing costs to include its other borrowing not reported, and that 
interest expense for the further manufacturing operations should be 
allocated on the basis of cost of sales rather than weight.
    BKL claims it has correctly calculated financing expense by 
combining BKL's financing expense with that of its parent company and 
dividing by the combined cost of sales. BKL suggests that for purposes 
of computing net interest expense for CV, the Department should adjust 
the parent company's interest expense to account for finished goods 
inventory and trade accounts receivable.
    Department's Position: We agree with petitioner that combining the 
financing expense and cost of sales of BKL and its parent creates a 
distorted financial expense ratio unless intercompany transactions are 
eliminated from the calculation. The Department generally calculates 
net financing expense from the financial statements of the consolidated 
entity because of the fungible nature of capital. (See Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Carbon Steel 
Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from Thailand, 57 FR 21065, 21069 (May 18, 
1992).) In this investigation, however, the parent company and its 
subsidiaries do not prepare consolidated financial statements. 
Additionally, we cannot consolidate the financial data of BKL and its 
parent company because we are unable to quantify all intercompany 
[[Page 10562]] transactions. Since the parent company ultimately 
controls the capital of all affiliates in which it holds a controlling 
interest, and due to the nature of certain intercompany transactions, 
we have used the parent company's financing expense rate as a 
reasonable surrogate for purposes of our final determination.
    We have also adjusted the parent company's CV financing expense 
rate to allow an offset for credit expenses and inventory carrying cost 
as is our normal practice.
    For purposes of our final determination, we have allocated 
financing expense of the further manufacturing operations based on cost 
of sales rather than weight. (See Final Determinations of Sales at Less 
than Fair Value: Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller 
Bearings) and Parts Thereof From the Federal Republic of Germany, 54 FR 
18992, 19076, May 3, 1989.)
    Comment 6: Petitioner contends that BKL understated total cost 
through the incorrect reporting of pension costs. Petitioner argues 
that BKL excluded certain pension costs in reporting its cost for the 
subject merchandise, claiming that the pension costs do not reflect the 
actual costs that will be incurred. According to petitioner, because 
generally accepted accounting principles (``GAAP'') in the U.K. 
required BKL to include an additional amount for pension costs in its 
audited financial statements, such costs must be included in the COP 
and CV of subject merchandise in order to accurately reflect BKL's 
fully absorbed cost for subject merchandise.
    Department's Position: We agree with petitioner, and have adjusted 
labor costs to reflect pension expense in conformity with U.K. GAAP for 
purposes of our final determination. To be in conformity with U.K. 
GAAP, an entity is required to perform an annual recalculation of 
pension expense to account for fluctuations in investment performance. 
The purpose of this recalculation is to more accurately reflect an 
entity's year-end pension liability. Not adjusting the pension 
liability to conform with U.K. GAAP would result in an understatement 
of per-unit costs of production. (See Calculation Memorandum from 
Theresa L. Caherty and Peter S. Scholl to Christian B. Marsh, dated 
February 9, 1995, (``Proprietary Document'').)
    Comment 7: Petitioner states that the Department may not have 
properly adjusted FMV to account for VAT for any calculations where FMV 
is based on CV. As a result, petitioner maintains that USP was 
overstated and BKL's dumping margin was understated.
    Respondent cites to Federal-Mogul Corp. v. U.S., 813 F. Supp 856 
(CIT 1993), stating the Department is authorized to ``add only the 
amount of tax actually paid on each home market sale.'' Respondent 
states that CV is not associated with an amount of VAT actually paid, 
because CV is not based on actual sales. Thus, an imputed amount for 
VAT cannot be included in CV.
    Department's Position: In accordance with the statute, our practice 
is to exclude indirect taxes on component materials from CV if the 
taxes are rebated upon export. Once we have excluded the VAT on 
component materials from the constructed value, we cannot add the VAT 
to USP because section 772(d)(1)(C) of the Act requires that we add 
internal taxes to USP only to the extent that those taxes are included 
in the FMV.

Suspension of Liquidation

    We are directing the U.S. Customs Service to continue to suspend 
liquidation of all entries of butt-weld pipe fittings from the U.K., as 
defined in the ``Scope of Investigation'' section of this notice, that 
are entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption on or after 
July 6, 1994, the date 90 days prior to the date of publication of our 
preliminary determination, pursuant to section 735(c)(4)(A) of the Act.
    The Customs Service shall require a cash deposit or the posting of 
a bond equal to the estimated weighted-average amount by which the 
foreign market value of the subject merchandise exceeds the U.S. price 
as shown below. This suspension of liquidation will remain in effect 
until further notice. The weighted-average dumping margins are as 
follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin  
               Manufacturer/producer/exporter                 (percent) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BKL Industries, Ltd........................................        48.85
All other producers/exporters..............................        48.85
------------------------------------------------------------------------

ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the 
ITC of our determination.

Notice to Interested Parties

    This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility 
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.
    This determination is published pursuant to section 735(d) of the 
Act (19 U.S. C. 1671(d)).

    Dated: February 16, 1995.
Barbara R. Stafford,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-4726 Filed 2-24-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P