[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 88 (Monday, May 8, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22557-22561]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11263]



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


DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-549-812]


Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Furfuryl 
Alcohol From Thailand

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 8, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Brinkmann or Greg Thompson, 
Office of Antidumping Investigations, Import Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone (202) 482-5288 or 482-2336, 
respectively.

Final Determination

    We determine that furfuryl alcohol from Thailand is being, or is 
likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV), 
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 preliminary determination of sales at LTFV on December 9, 
1994 (59 FR 65014, December 16, 1994), the following events have 
occurred.
    At the request of the petitioner, QO Chemicals, the Department 
postponed the final determination until May 1, 1995 (59 FR 66901, 
December 28, 1994). Pursuant to the Department's request, on January 
17, 1995, the respondent, Indo-Rama Chemicals (Thailand) Ltd. (IRCT), 
submitted additional information pertaining to its potential exports 
sales price (ESP) transactions. In addition, IRCT submitted its 
response to Section D of the questionnaire, which requests information 
on the cost of production (COP) and constructed value (CV). The 
petitioner commented on this response, which IRCT later supplemented 
pursuant to our request on February 6, 1995.
    Verification of IRCT's sales and COP/CV questionnaire responses was 
conducted during the months of February and March, 1995. The Department 
issued reports concerning these verifications on March 21, 1995.
    IRCT and the petitioner submitted case briefs on March 29, 1995, 
and rebuttal briefs on March 31, 1995. At the petitioner's request, the 
Department held a hearing on April 4, 1995.

Scope of Investigation

    The product covered by this investigation is furfuryl alcohol 
(C4H3OCH2OH). Furfuryl alcohol is a primary alcohol, and 
is colorless or pale yellow in appearance. It is used in the 
manufacture of resins and as a wetting agent and solvent for coating 
resins, nitrocellulose, cellulose acetate, and other soluble dyes.
    The product subject to this investigation is classifiable under 
subheading 2932.13.00 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 proceeding is dispositive.

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation (POI) is December 1, 1993, through May 
31, 1994.

Applicable Statute and Regulations

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute and to the 
Department's regulations are in reference to the provisions as they 
existed on December 31, 1994.

Such or Similar Comparisons

    For purposes of the final determination, we have determined that 
furfuryl alcohol constitutes a single ``such or similar'' category of 
merchandise. Since the respondent sold merchandise in the home market 
identical to that sold in the United States during the POI, we made 
identical merchandise comparisons.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of furfuryl alcohol from Thailand 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. In accordance with 19 CFR 353.58 (1994), we made 
comparisons at the same level of trade, where possible.

United States Price

    We based USP on purchase price, in accordance with section 772(b) 
of the Act, because the subject merchandise was sold to an unrelated 
purchaser before importation into the United States and because 
exporter's sales price methodology was not otherwise indicated (see 
Comment 2 below).
    With regard to the calculation of movement expenses, we made 
deductions from the U.S. sales price, where appropriate, for foreign 
brokerage, foreign inland freight, ocean freight, and marine insurance 
in accordance with section 772(d)(2)(A) of the Act.
    Since IRCT discounts all account receivables pertaining to its U.S. 
sales, we calculated U.S. credit expenses based on IRCT's average 
short-term interest rate. In accordance with section 772(d)(1)(B) of 
the Act, we added to USP the amount of the Thai import duties, not 
collected on material inputs, by reason of exportation of the subject 
merchandise to the United States.
    In accordance with our standard practice, pursuant to the decision 
of the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) in Federal-Mogul 
Corporation and The Torrington Company v. United States, 834 F. Supp. 
1391 (CIT 1993), our calculations include an adjustment to U.S. price 
for the consumption tax levied on comparison sales in Thailand (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). [[Page 22558]] 

Cost of Production

    As we indicated in our preliminary determination, the Department 
initiated an investigation of potential below-cost home market sales on 
November 21, 1994. In order to determine whether home market sales 
prices were below COP within the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act, 
we calculated COP based on the sum of the respondent's cost of 
materials, fabrication, general expenses and packing, in accordance 
with 19 CFR 353.51(c). We made the following adjustments to the 
respondent's reported COP data:
    1. We recalculated IRCT's corn cob consumption based on the 
weighted-average cost of corn cobs used in the production of furfuryl 
alcohol during the POI;
    2. We recalculated depreciation expense based on the fixed asset 
lives reported in IRCT's 1993 audited financial statements; and
    3. We allocated annual general and administrative expenses based on 
annual cost of sales.

After computing COP, we added the sales-specific VAT and home market 
packing to the COP figure. We compared COP to reported prices that were 
net of movement charges, direct and indirect selling expenses, and 
inclusive of VAT and home market packing. In accordance with section 
773(b) of the Act, we followed our standard methodology to determine 
whether the home market sales of each product were made at prices below 
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.
    To satisfy the requirement of section 773(b)(1) that below-cost 
sales be disregarded only if made in substantial quantities, we apply 
the following methodology. Where we find that over 90 percent of a 
respondent's sales were at prices above the COP, we do not disregard 
any below-cost sales because we determine that a respondent's below-
cost sales are not made in substantial quantities. If between ten and 
90 percent of a respondent's sales were at prices above the COP, we 
disregard only the below-cost sales if made over an extended period of 
time. Where we find that more than 90 percent of a respondent's sales 
were at prices below the COP and were sold over an extended period of 
time, we disregard all sales and calculate FMV based on CV, in 
accordance with section 773(b) of the Act. In this case, we found that 
between ten and 90 percent of the sales were made below the COP. As a 
result, we tested whether those below cost sales had been made over an 
extended period of time.
    In accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act, in order to 
determine whether below-cost sales had been made over an extended 
period of time, we compare the number of months in which below-cost 
sales occurred to the number of months in the POI in which the product 
was sold. If a product was sold in three or more months of the POI, we 
do not exclude below-cost sales unless there were below-cost sales in 
at least three months during the POI. When we find that sales occurred 
in one or two months, the number of months in which the sales occurred 
constitutes the extended period of time; i.e., where sales were made in 
only two months, the extended period of time was two months, where 
sales were made in only one month, the extended period of time was one 
month. (See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Certain Carbon Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from the United Kingdom 
(60 FR 10558, 10560, February 27, 1995)). In this case, we found that 
the respondent had made sales of furfuryl alcohol at prices below the 
COP in two of the months that sales were made. As a result, none of the 
sales made below the COP were disregarded.

Foreign Market Value

    As stated in the preliminary determination, we found that the home 
market was viable for sales of furfuryl alcohol, in accordance with 19 
CFR 353.48(a). We calculated FMV based on delivered prices, and 
deducted home market inland freight, unloading charges and insurance in 
accordance with 19 CFR 353.56(a).
    FMV was reduced by home market packing costs and increased by U.S. 
packing costs in accordance with section 773(a)(1) of the Act. The 
Department also made circumstance-of-sale adjustments for home market 
direct selling expenses, which included imputed credit expenses and 
technical services in accordance with 19 CFR 353.56(a)(2). We also 
deducted commissions incurred on home market sales and added total U.S. 
indirect selling expenses, capped by the amount of home market 
commissions in accordance with 19 CFR 353.56(b). The total U.S. 
indirect selling expenses included U.S. inventory carrying costs, and 
indirect selling expenses incurred in Thailand on U.S. sales.
    We adjusted for the consumption tax in accordance with our practice 
(see ``United States Price'' section of this notice).

Currency Conversion

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

Verification

    As provided in section 776(b) of the Act, we verified the 
information used in making our final determination.

Interested Party Comments

    What follows are summaries of the parties' arguments, followed by 
the Department's positions on each of the issues raised.

Comment 1: Using Best Information Otherwise Available (BIA)

    The petitioner states that the Department should use BIA for 
purposes of the final determination because IRCT impeded the conduct of 
the investigation by failing to divulge the extent of its relationship 
with the U.S. importer, Indo-Rama Chemicals (America), Inc. (IRCA). The 
petitioner claims that IRCT should have reported its U.S. sales as ESP 
rather than on a purchase price basis, and only reported ESP data after 
the Department specifically requested it to do so.
    The respondent states that it provided the Department with all the 
necessary ESP data in a timely manner when it was requested and, 
further, that it fully cooperated in the investigation regarding the 
relationship between IRCA and IRCT.

DOC Position

    We agree with the respondent that IRCT and IRCA cooperated with the 
Department throughout this investigation. They submitted all requested 
information, and documented it during verification. Because IRCT did 
not impede our investigation, we have used the respondent's data for 
purposes of the final determination.

Comment 2: ESP or Purchase Price

    IRCT contends that its categorization of IRCA as an unrelated party 
is consistent with the Department's definition of related parties 
pursuant to section 771(13), was verified by the Department, and that 
the U.S. price should be based upon the purchase price methodology. The 
respondent's argument is fully discussed in the proprietary version of 
its case brief.
    The petitioner argues that the record evidence indicates that IRCT 
and IRCA are related parties and, therefore, if the Department decides 
not to resort to BIA, it should base USP on ESP. The petitioner's 
argument is fully discussed [[Page 22559]] in the proprietary version 
of its case brief. The following are some of the non-proprietary points 
that the petitioner raises: (1) The owner of IRCA is also president and 
director to a sister company of IRCT; and (2) the ESP response was 
filed on behalf of IRCT by, and the entire response was certified only 
by, IRCT's counsel.

DOC Position

    We determined that the information on the record, as verified by 
the Department, does not satisfy the criteria set forth in section 
771(13) of the Act for recognizing the U.S. sales as ESP transactions. 
An analysis of the individual criteria considered requires reference to 
proprietary information and is discussed in the proprietary version of 
the concurrence memorandum, dated May 1, 1995. Because we found that 
IRCA does not act as IRCT's principal or agent, under 771(13), at least 
one of the parties would have to own or control an interest in the 
other, or some other person or persons would have to own or control 
sufficient interest in both, for the Department to determine USP on the 
basis of ESP data (see Small Business Telephone Systems from Korea, 54 
FR 53141 (1989) and/or Certain Forged Steel Crankshafts from Japan, 52 
FR 36984 (1987)). The Department confirmed at verification that there 
was no ownership or controlling interest between IRCT and IRCA, and no 
common ownership or controlling interest by a third party. Therefore, 
we have based the USP on purchase price.

Comment 3: Indirect Selling Expenses

    The petitioner argues that, because the respondent failed to 
provide the Department with information concerning additional indirect 
selling expenses and storage charges incurred in the United States, the 
Department should use BIA to determine the indirect selling expenses 
for the POI. As BIA, the petitioner requests that the Department rely 
on information in the petition.
    The respondent asserts that it did not understate any selling 
expenses incurred in the importation, storage, or sale of furfuryl 
alcohol. The respondent argues that the Department verified both IRCT 
and IRCA with respect to these expenses. Therefore, in the event the 
Department makes its final determination based on ESP, the respondent 
argues that the Department should calculate U.S. indirect selling 
expenses on the information provided. The respondent further states 
that many of the indirect selling expenses that the petitioner 
referenced simply do not exist.

DOC Position

    Based on the Department's decision to use the purchase price 
methodology, this issue has been rendered moot.

Comment 4: Interest Rate

    The petitioner argues that the Department should use the 
appropriate interest rate from IRCA's response in computing any credit 
expenses and inventory carrying cost. The petitioner's argument is 
fully discussed in the proprietary version of its March 29, 1995 case 
brief.
    The respondent states that it is not related to IRCA. However, 
should the Department base its determination on ESP sales, the 
respondent argues that the Department should not use IRCA's interest 
rate. The respondent's argument is fully discussed in the proprietary 
version of its case brief.

DOC Position

    The use of the importers's interest rate in the calculation of 
credit expense and inventory carrying cost for U.S. sales is not at 
issue because the calculation of USP is based on the purchase price 
methodology. Therefore, the interest rate used to calculate both 
expenses for U.S. sales is based on IRCT's short-term borrowing 
experience. Because the U.S. sales are made in U.S. dollars, the 
interest rate used to calculate the credit expense and inventory 
carrying cost is the rate that IRCT incurs for its U.S. dollar 
denominated short-term borrowing for the POI (see Final Determination 
of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Disposable Pocket Lighters from 
Thailand, 51 FR 14270, 14265 (March 16, 1995)).

Comment 5: Technical Service

    IRCT contends that home market ``outside'' technical service 
expenses are directly related to specific sales, and are properly 
deductible as direct selling expenses.

DOC Position

    This issue is moot because the expenses were incurred on sales 
which are not included in our final calculations, having occurred at a 
level of trade different than that of the U.S. sales.

Comment 6: Home Market Sale Outside the Ordinary Course of Trade

    In its original sales listing, IRCT categorized one home market 
sale as outside of the ordinary course of trade. IRCT states that the 
sale was inadvertently reported as a normal sale in the revised sales 
listing. IRCT states that this sale was (1) a single isolated trial 
sale for a different application, (2) of a quantity far smaller than 
the standard quantity sold for all other home market sales, and (3) at 
a price substantially higher than that charged to IRCT's regular 
customers.

DOC Position

    We agree with the respondent. Section 771(15) of the Act defines 
``ordinary course of trade'' as those conditions and practices which 
are ``normal in the trade under consideration.'' The documents for this 
sale were verified and the sale was found to be an isolated, non-
recurring sale, and at a quantity inconsistent with the standard 
quantity shipped. Therefore, because the sale was not normal in the 
trade under consideration, we found it to be made outside the ordinary 
course of trade under section 771(15) of the Act. Accordingly, we have 
not included it in our margin analysis.

Comment 7: Allocation of Indirect Selling Expenses

    IRCT argues that the Department should use the revised allocation 
percentages for unassigned indirect selling expenses (e.g., office 
rental, phone, etc.) that were presented during verification because 
these percentages more accurately reflect the actual time spent by the 
sales personnel.
    The petitioner contends that this revised allocation constitutes a 
submission of untimely, unsupported data in the middle of verification 
and, therefore, should not be relied upon by the Department.

DOC Position

    Based on the fact that neither IRCT's original allocation nor its 
revised allocation of indirect selling expenses was supported by 
documentation, neither was used in our final determination. Instead, 
the Department allocated these expenses based on the quantity of 
furfuryl alcohol sold in the domestic and export markets. Given the 
lack of information, this was the most reasonable allocation 
methodology available (see concurrence memorandum dated, May 1, 1995).

Comment 8: Corn Cob Costs

    The petitioner asserts that the cost of corn cobs, a primary direct 
material of furfuryl and furfuryl alcohol, should be calculated based 
on the respondent's actual corn cob expenses incurred during the POI, 
rather than on the annual weighted-average methodology submitted by 
IRCT. Further, the petitioner argues for the use of actual expenses 
because the respondent's corn cob prices vary according to competitive 
[[Page 22560]] market conditions, rather than the seasonality of corn 
production claimed by the respondent.
    The respondent contends that its methodology accurately reflects 
corn cob consumption because it eliminates seasonal trends in pricing, 
availability, and purchases. Additionally, the respondent states its 
submission methodology is consistent with its normal accounting system. 
Moreover, the petitioner's proposed methodology ignores the value of 
corn cob in beginning inventory. Therefore, the respondent argues that 
the Department should reject the petitioner's claim.

DOC Position

    The most appropriate cost calculation methodology for corn cobs 
used in the production of furfuryl alcohol should take into account the 
actual corn cobs used during the POI based on IRCT's normal weighted-
average inventory cost flow assumption. Therefore, we have recalculated 
IRCT's corn cob cost based on the weighted-average cost of corn cob 
inventories at the beginning of the POI, plus all purchases of the 
input made during the POI.

Comment 9: Depreciation

    The petitioner argues that the Department should reject IRCT's 
claimed increase in the useful lives of its buildings and machinery 
which was submitted in accordance with a change in IRCT's depreciation 
policy. According to the petitioner, IRCT's proposed change in its 
depreciation policy was approved after the initiation of this case. It 
maintains that, at a minimum, the Department should recompute 
depreciation expense for IRCT's buildings and machinery based on the 
original useful lives of the assets. However, the petitioner claims 
that even these useful lives, as well as the useful lives of other 
assets owned by IRCT, are inconsistent with U.S. generally accepted 
accounting principals (GAAP) and thus distort the costs associated with 
the production of furfuryl alcohol.
    IRCT argues that its submitted depreciation expense reflects its 
normal record keeping for the period that most closely corresponds to 
the POI. It claims that it extended the useful lives of its buildings 
and machinery because the assets were constructed of ``high-quality, 
long-lasting'' materials. The decision to change the estimated useful 
lives of its assets, IRCT states, was made prior to the initiation of 
this investigation.

DOC Position

    In computing COP for the subject merchandise, the Department 
generally relies on the accounting records maintained by respondent in 
the normal course of its operations. These records, however, must be 
kept in accordance with respondent's home country GAAP if those GAAP 
reasonably reflect the costs associated with producing the subject 
merchandise.
    In IRCT's case, the change in the useful lives of buildings and 
machinery assets, although reflected in the company's accounting 
records during 1994, had yet to be approved by the company's 
independent auditors or the Thai government as of the date of our 
verification. Thus, we believe that it is inappropriate for us to 
determine whether IRCT's change in the useful lives of these assets 
reasonably reflects the company's depreciation expense for the POI 
since it is impossible for us to conclude that the new policy is in 
accordance with Thai GAAP.
    We disagree with the petitioner's argument that the original useful 
lives of IRCT's assets are not in accordance with U.S. GAAP and thus 
distort furfuryl alcohol production costs. U.S. GAAP allows companies 
to determine the useful lives of production assets based on the 
estimated economic lives of those assets. In IRCT's case, we have no 
reason to believe that the depreciable lives historically utilized by 
the company fail to reflect the economic lives of the underlying 
assets. Therefore, we have calculated depreciation expense based on the 
original useful lives of the assets.

Comment 10: General and Administrative Expense (``G&A'') Allocation

    The petitioner contends that IRCT provided no justification for 
deviating from the Department's normal G&A calculation methodology by 
allocating G&A expenses to non-productive cost centers. According to 
the petitioner, IRCT's methodology distorts the cost of production for 
furfuryl alcohol. Therefore, as BIA, the petitioner asserts the 
Department should allocate all G&A expenses solely to furfuryl alcohol.
    IRCT argues that its G&A allocation methodology is consistent with 
GAAP and appropriate for this investigation. According to IRCT, the 
Department's normal methodology of allocating G&A, on the basis of cost 
of sales, overstates furfuryl alcohol production costs. IRCT contends 
that, its G&A allocation methodology more properly matches benefits 
received from G&A expenditures to the appropriate business cost 
centers.

DOC Position

    We agree with the petitioner that IRCT did not adequately support 
is G&A allocation methodology. To compute G&A expense for COP, IRCT 
allocated its G&A expense equally among its four cost centers. Two of 
those cost centers did not produce any products during the POI.
    During verification, IRCT provided no evidence to support its 
allocation methodology for G&A expenditures, nor did IRCT demonstrate 
that the allocation methodology was used in its normal accounting 
system. Instead, we found that IRCT's submitted G&A allocation 
methodology was based on subjective factors. We have, therefore, 
recalculated IRCT's G&A expenses by allocating reported fiscal year 
1993 company-wide G&A expense based on the company's cost of sales for 
that year. This is in accordance with our normal G&A methodology, as 
stated in section D of the Department's questionnaire.

Comment 11: G&A Expense Calculation Period

    IRCT reported G&A expenses based on the six-month POI rather than 
on an annual basis. IRCT contends its six-month G&A expense calculation 
accurately reflects the actual G&A costs incurred during the POI.

DOC Position

    Ordinarily, G&A expenses are considered to be period costs for 
accounting purposes. As such, they differ from product costs like 
direct materials, labor, and overhead in that G&A expenses are not 
included in inventory costs but, instead, are accounted for as expenses 
during the period in which they are incurred. This is because, unlike 
product costs, G&A can neither be easily nor accurately matched to the 
revenues generated from the sales of an individual unit of production. 
Instead, G&A expenses are typically incurred in connection with a 
company's overall operations. Many expenses categorized as G&A, such as 
insurance and bonus payments, are incurred sporadically throughout the 
fiscal year. Moreover, G&A expenses are often accrued during the fiscal 
year based on estimates that are then adjusted to actual expenses at 
year-end. Because of their nature as period costs, and due to the 
irregular manner in which many companies record G&A expenses, the 
Department generally looks to a full-year period in computing G&A 
expenses for COP and CV. Such a period encompasses operating results 
over a longer time span than the POI and typically reports the results 
of at [[Page 22561]] least one business cycle. Under ordinary 
circumstances, the most appropriate full-year G&A period is that 
represented by the latest fiscal year for which the respondent has 
complete and audited financial statements.
    IRCT provided no evidence to justify deviating from the 
Department's normal practice of using annual financial data for G&A. As 
of the last day of verification, IRCT's 1994 audited financial 
statements were not available. Consequently, we calculated G&A expense 
based on IRCT's 1993 annual audited financial statements.

Comment 12: Waste Water

    The petitioner states that IRCT excluded certain waste water 
treatment expenses from its submitted COP. As BIA, the petitioner 
suggests that the Department include the accounts payable amount 
reported in IRCT's May 1994 Trial Balance.
    The respondent asserts that it has properly included all waste 
water treatment costs in its submitted COP. It states that the 
particular account noted by the petitioner reflects costs associated 
with the purchase of waste water treatment equipment.

DOC Position

    We agree with the respondent. The respondent included all waste 
water treatment expenses incurred during the POI in its COP submission. 
Therefore, no adjustment is required.

Comment 13: Insurance Proceeds

    IRCT offset its submitted COP for furfuryl alcohol by insurance 
proceeds received due to an unexpected equipment failure during the 
POI. IRCT contends that it properly included insurance revenue received 
for both equipment repair costs and for the increase in per-unit costs 
resulting from the equipment failure.
    The petitioner concedes that IRCT tied part of the insurance 
settlement directly to equipment repair costs and should be allowed a 
partial offset for these costs. According to the petitioner, however, 
IRCT did not show how the remaining proceeds relate to the company's 
claimed increase in per-unit costs.

DOC Position

    We agree with the respondent that the insurance proceeds should be 
used to offset IRCT's furfuryl alcohol costs. During verification, we 
found that the insurance proceeds were paid to IRCT for equipment 
failure and overhead costs incurred during the period in which the 
equipment was under repair. Thus, these proceeds relate directly to the 
equipment failure which occurred during the POI. Due to this equipment 
failure, IRCT incurred higher per-unit production costs in addition to 
the cost of repairs. Accordingly, we consider it reasonable for IRCT to 
offset its submitted COP by all proceeds received for the insurance 
claim.

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we are directing the 
Customs Service to suspend liquidation of all entries of furfuryl 
alcohol from Thailand, as defined in the ``Scope of Investigation'' 
section of this notice, that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 
for consumption on or after the date of publication of our final 
determination1 in the Federal Register.

    \1\The preliminary determination was negative in this case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Customs Service shall require a cash deposit or posting of a 
bond on all entries equal to the estimated amount by which the FMV 
exceeds the USP, as shown below. The suspension of liquidation will 
remain in effect until further notice.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin  
               Producer/manufacturer/exporter                 percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IRCT........................................................        5.94
All Others..................................................        5.94
------------------------------------------------------------------------

ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the 
ITC of our determination. The ITC will make its determination whether 
these imports materially injure, or threaten injury to, a U.S. industry 
within 45 days of the publication of this notice. If the ITC determines 
that material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, the 
proceeding will be terminated and all securities posted as a result of 
the suspension of liquidation will be refunded or cancelled.
    However, if the ITC determines that such injury does exist, we will 
issue an antidumping duty order directing the Customs Service officers 
to assess an antidumping duty on furfuryl alcohol from Thailand, 
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the 
date of suspension of liquidation, equal to the amount by which the 
foreign market value of the merchandise exceeds the United States 
price.
    This determination is published pursuant to section 735(d) of the 
Act (19 U.S.C. 1673(d)) and 19 CFR 353.20.

    Dated: May 1, 1995.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-11263 Filed 5-5-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P