[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 142 (Tuesday, July 25, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38031-38035]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-18262]



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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-428-602]


Brass Sheet and Strip From Germany; Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review

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

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

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

SUMMARY: On January 17, 1995, the Department of Commerce (the 
Department) published the preliminary results of its administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on brass sheet and strip from 
Germany. The review covers exports of this merchandise to the United 
States by one manufacturer/exporter, Wieland-Werke AG (Wieland), during 
the period March 1, 1993 through February 28, 1994.
    The review indicates the existence of de minimis dumping margins 
for this period.
    We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on our 
preliminary results. Based on our analysis of the comments received, we 
have adjusted Wieland's margin for these final results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 25, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Killiam, Chip Hayes, or John 
Kugelman, Office of Antidumping Compliance, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 
(202) 482-5253.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On January 17, 1995, the Department published in the Federal 
Register (60 FR 3392) the preliminary results of its 1993-94 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on brass sheet and 
strip from Germany (52 FR 6997, March 6, 1987).

Applicable Statute and Regulations

    The Department has now completed this administrative review in 
accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 
Act). 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.

Scope of the Review

    Imports covered by this review are sales or entries of brass sheet 
and strip, other than leaded and tinned brass sheet and strip. The 
chemical composition of the products under review is currently defined 
in the Copper Development Association (C.D.A.) 200 Series or the 
Unified Numbering System (U.N.S.) C20000 series. This review does not 
cover products the chemical compositions of which are defined by other 
C.D.A. or U.N.S. series. The merchandise is currently classified under 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) item numbers 7409.21.00 and 
7409.29.20. The HTS item numbers are provided for convenience and 
Customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive. 

[[Page 38032]]

    The review period is March 1, 1993 through February 28, 1994. The 
review involves one manufacturer/ exporter, Wieland.

Analysis of Comments Received

    We received case and rebuttal briefs from Wieland and from the 
petitioners, Hussey Copper, Ltd., The Miller Company, Outokumpu 
American Brass, Revere Copper Products, Inc., International Association 
of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, International Union, Allied 
Industrial Workers of America (AFL-CIO), Mechanics Educational Society 
of America (Local 56), and the United Steelworkers of America.

Model-matching Methodology

    Comment 1: Wieland disputes the Department's use of specific alloy 
grades in matching U.S. to home market sales. Wieland would have the 
Department use only two classes of alloys, above or below 75 percent 
copper content, instead of using exact alloy grades. The respondent 
states that the exact-alloy comparison method which we used in the 
preliminary results is a change from the method used in the prior 
review.
    The respondent further alleges that the Department used the exact-
alloy method in order to conform the model-matching criteria with other 
orders, and that in so doing the Department ignored record evidence 
demonstrating that Wieland's U.S. sales cannot be ``appropriately 
matched'' to home market sales of identical alloys. Wieland claims that 
``using alloy groups . . . provides the most practical means of 
achieving reasonable comparisons''.
    Wieland claims that our approach is contrary to Department practice 
in other cases involving brass sheet and strip, because the Department 
failed, in this review, to determine the appropriate matching criteria 
on the basis of the specific nature of Wieland's sales. The respondent 
alleges that by relying on specific alloy grades rather than using 
Wieland's two alloy groups, the Department ``fails to take account of 
the nature of Wieland's sales''. Wieland does not make clear how our 
approach neglects to take account of the nature of its sales, but 
implies that its sales are made more often on the basis of whether 
products are above or below 75 percent in copper content than on the 
basis of exact alloys.
    The respondent also asserts that, since certain other model-
matching criteria, namely gauge and width, are grouped by classes, 
alloys should also be grouped.
    The petitioners note in rebuttal that there is no industry standard 
to distinguish alloys for high copper content (i.e., greater than 75 
percent), that customers specify exact alloys in placing their orders, 
that in all other antidumping proceedings involving brass sheet and 
strip the Department has always made exact-alloy matches, and that 
Wieland's alloy groupings disregard the Department's conclusion in an 
earlier review that it should abandon the grouping methodology and 
instead make matches on an exact-alloy basis. The petitioners further 
assert that Wieland failed to establish that its home market sales, 
when matched to U.S. sales on the basis of exact alloys, ought not to 
be taken as representative of home market prices.
    Department's Position: We disagree with the respondent. We did not 
employ the alloy-specific approach merely to conform to approaches used 
in reviews of other brass sheet and strip orders, but in order to 
follow section 771(16)(B) of the Act, which requires us to compare U.S. 
sales to home market merchandise which is identical or, when not 
identical, is ``like that (U.S.) merchandise in component material or 
materials and in the purposes for which used,'' prior to resorting, if 
necessary, to less similar merchandise as described in 771(16)(C)(i)-
(iii).
    Wieland does not identify which U.S. sales, if any, are not 
``appropriately'' matched to home market merchandise by our method, or 
otherwise explain how its less specific standard would be more 
appropriate. Nor does Wieland explain how its grouped alloy approach 
would be ``the most practical means of achieving reasonable 
comparisons'', other than by arguing that it would make the number of 
home market sales used in sales comparisons ``sufficient''.
    Regarding Wieland's claim that matching by alloy groups would more 
appropriately reflect the nature of Wieland's sales, nothing in the 
record supports this claim. On the contrary, according to Wieland, its 
customers generally specify exact alloys in their orders. While its 
customers may sometimes choose the lowest-cost combination of metals 
within a narrow range, no information on the record suggests that 
Wieland's customers use the standard of 75 percent copper content in 
ordering merchandise.
    In arguing that grouping alloys would be appropriate because 
grouping is used for gauge and width ranges, Wieland glosses over the 
distinction between the gauge and width measures on the one hand, and 
alloy grades on the other. Gauge and width are both infinitely variable 
and therefore must be divided into tiers to permit any comparisons. 
Alloy grades, by contrast, are discretely defined proportions of 
metals. Matching by specific alloys provides more precision than merely 
differentiating between merchandise which contains above or below 75 
percent copper.
    The respondent's grouped-alloy approach would assign all home 
market merchandise to one of two groupings, would compare each U.S. 
sale to home market merchandise containing up to seven different 
alloys, and would not necessarily result in comparisons of U.S. sales 
to home market merchandise made of only the identical alloy, or of only 
the single most similar alloy. The respondent's suggested groupings 
could result in understated or overstated dumping margins, due to the 
mix of home market models which would form the basis of foreign market 
value (FMV). Matching by specific alloys, on the other hand, ensures 
that we use the most similar merchandise possible to establish FMV in 
our dumping calculations. Therefore, the Department has continued to 
use the alloy-specific matching method.
    Comment 2: The respondent complains that the Department's change in 
model-matching methodology reduces the dumping analysis to ``little 
more than a game of chance,'' since, according to Wieland, the margin 
depends far more on the chance occurrence that a home market customer 
will place an order for an alloy identical to one sold in the United 
States than on Wieland's general pricing policies for its U.S. and home 
market sales. Where a single home market sale serves as the basis for 
comparison, Wieland argues, the results of the U.S./home market price 
comparison will depend completely on the date on which that home market 
sale was made, or, more particularly, on the metal pricing date for the 
metal component of the home market sale. Thus, Wieland argues, 
differences between U.S. and home market prices are caused by 
volatility in the market prices for copper, zinc, and tin, rather than 
by Wieland's brass sheet and strip pricing strategies. Wieland suggests 
that as an alternative the Department should use alloy groups for 
model-matching purposes. Wieland points out that differences in alloy 
costs could then be adjusted for with a sale-specific metal adjustment.
    Department's Position: We disagree with the respondent. Wieland's 
``game of chance'' complaint is not supported by the facts of the case 
or the methodology we used. This complaint hinges on Wieland's implicit 
suggestion that individual home market sales, or pairs of sales, 
somehow may not conform to its pricing policies. Wieland offers no 
evidence on the record that 

[[Page 38033]]
any home market sale prices should be excluded as unrepresentative. 
Wieland has not argued or demonstrated that some of its home market 
sales are outside the ordinary course of trade or are, for some other 
reason, inappropriate as the basis of FMV.
    While Wieland has alleged that there is a danger that price 
differences for identical merchandise comparisons might result from 
changes in commodity prices of components, it has not demonstrated that 
such price fluctuations should affect the model-match methodology.
    In the statutory definition of such or similar merchandise (section 
771(16) of the Act) there is a clear preference for matching U.S. sales 
to home market merchandise which is composed of the same materials, 
before resorting to comparisons to less similar merchandise. Our 
approach reflects this preference; the respondent's approach would 
ignore it. We are not permitted to ignore contemporaneous sales of 
identical merchandise. Wieland's suggested approach simply does not 
conform to the requirements of the antidumping law and regulations.
    The risk of price differences caused by changes in the prices of 
commodities used as components is not unique to this proceeding but is 
inherent in price comparisons in many industries. That risk has not 
heretofore served as justification for omitting comparisons of U.S. 
sales to contemporaneous home market sales of identical or most similar 
merchandise. Yet the respondent's approach would make comparisons to 
identical or most similar merchandise impossible, by defining models so 
broadly that all comparisons would potentially include similar 
merchandise as well as identical merchandise (and would thus be subject 
to adjustments for differences in alloy values under 19 CFR 353.57(b)). 
But this grouped-alloy approach would not be warranted by the 
regulations cited above or by the facts of this review; using exact 
alloy comparisons, we were able to match a substantial portion of U.S. 
sales to home market merchandise of identical alloys, and all the 
remaining U.S. sales with home market merchandise containing one of the 
three most similar alloys.
    Comment 3: Wieland states that the Court of International Trade 
(CIT), addressing the model-matching issue in remanding the final 
results in the first administrative review, did not require the 
Department to abandon the use of two alloy groups, but merely asked the 
Department to articulate the reasons why it did not use the exact-alloy 
method. See Hussey Copper Ltd., v. United States, 834 F. Supp. 413 (CIT 
1993).
    Department's Position: As explained in our response to Comment 2 
above, the Department has concluded that the exact-alloy matching 
methodology more closely follows the statute, which requires us to make 
comparisons of identical merchandise, when this is possible, before 
making comparisons with similar merchandise.
    Comment 4: The petitioners request that the Department alter the 
hierarchy of traits used in matching U.S. sales to home market sales. 
In particular, the petitioners ask the Department to place alloy in the 
third position, instead of the fifth position. According to the 
petitioners, alloy was placed in the third position in certain other 
brass sheet and strip cases, and alloy specifications are more 
important to customers than gauge and width differences.
    Department's Position: The petitioners argue that the model-match 
methodology used in this review is a departure from the methodology 
used in reviews of brass sheet and strip from other countries. In fact, 
although there are many similarities in the methodologies used in the 
various brass sheet and strip cases, they are not identical. Because 
the facts of each case are distinct from those of other cases, 
different hierarchies are applied to the criteria to define home market 
sales of the most similar merchandise.
    In this review, as in preceding reviews under this order, the 
Department used five criteria to define models in order to compare 
sales: Form, coating, gauge, width, and alloy. For those U.S. sales for 
which we did not find sales of identical home market merchandise, we 
determined that the most similar home market merchandise for comparison 
purposes was merchandise which was identical in form, coating, gauge, 
and width, and similar in alloy content. Therefore, we used specific 
programming instructions to search for contemporaneous home market 
sales of merchandise which was identical except for alloy. Thus, the 
only criterion for which we considered differences was alloy, no matter 
what the order of the criteria as listed in the program. Consequently, 
we do not agree with the petitioner's suggestion that we change the 
ordering of the criteria in a search for similar merchandise.
    Concerning the question of whether alloy is more important to 
customers than gauge and width specification, as the petitioners 
allege, we note that Wieland states in its February 23, 1995 Rebuttal 
Brief (p. 3) that ``generally customers must have very precise gauges 
and widths to serve their particular purpose and to use with their 
particular equipment, and no gauge or width substitutes would be 
acceptable''. Notwithstanding the petitioners' allegation, there is 
nothing in the record of this review to confirm or support the 
petitioners' suggestion that customers have less flexibility in alloy 
than in gauge and width specifications, which typically have narrow 
tolerances reflecting the customers' machining or assembly 
requirements. Thus, the petitioners' assertion that alloy is more 
important than gauge and width to the respondent's customers is without 
foundation in the record of this review.
    Therefore, we have determined for these final results to use the 
model-matching methodology used for the preliminary results.

Differences in Average Order Size

    Comment 5: Defending its claim for adjustments in price to reflect 
the different average order sizes of its U.S. sales, Wieland contests 
our preliminary finding that it has not demonstrated a relationship 
between order size and price. In support of the claimed adjustment, 
Wieland cites the price lists in its questionnaire responses, the 
Department's verification report in the 1991-1992 administrative 
review, section 773(a)(4)(A) of the Act, and the regulations (19 CFR 
353.55).
    In rebuttal, the petitioners point to the Department's disallowance 
in the first review, as upheld by the CIT, concerning the same cost 
adjustment claim for different order sizes. The petitioners also note 
Wieland's failure to show that it met the regulatory requirement for 
such an adjustment, i.e., that Wieland must show that it ``granted 
quantity discounts of at least the same magnitude on 20 percent or more 
of sales of such or similar merchandise * * *'' (19 CFR 353.55(b)(1)).
    Department's Position: We disagree with the respondent. The 
regulations do not allow for adjustments to price based merely on 
claimed differences in per-pound costs according to order size. The 
adjustments allowed are only for differences in price or discounts for 
different quantities produced. The regulations (19 CFR 353.55(b)(2)) 
provide for adjustments if ``the producer demonstrates * * * that the 
discounts reflect savings specifically attributable to the production 
of the different quantities.'' In its questionnaire response Wieland 
complied in part, by showing the savings, in the form of differences in 
per-kilogram costs for processing different order quantities. But 
Wieland did not place on the record any evidence of quantity discounts 
actually given, or information showing 

[[Page 38034]]
that prices were affected by different production quantities. Indeed, 
Wieland's questionnaire response states unequivocally: ``Wieland does 
not provide price-based quantity discounts''.
    The price list Wieland cites in this regard is not an adequate 
basis for this claim since it is a matter of record that the 
respondent's prices are negotiated ad-hoc and do not necessarily follow 
the price list. The verification report for a prior review, in which we 
noted variations in prices for varying quantities in one particular 
contract, is not dispositive; our inspection of a contract in a 
verification does not signal our acceptance of a claimed adjustment to 
price. Wieland has the burden, in each review, of showing how its 
actual prices varied according to quantity, as required by 19 CFR 
353.55.
Value-added Tax

    Comment 6: While conceding that the practice is consistent with 
current Department policy on value-added tax (VAT), Wieland contests 
the Department's application of a 14-percent VAT adjustment to both 
U.S. and home market sales in this review, and requests that the 
Department instead add the actual home market VAT amount to U.S. price. 
Wieland alleges that the use of the VAT rate on sales in both markets 
introduces a multiplier effect. Wieland urges the Department to instead 
adopt its alternative solution, at least until this issue can be 
resolved more definitively by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal 
Circuit (CAFC), once an appeal is heard in the case of Federal Mogul 
Corporation v. United States, 834 F.Supp 1391 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
    Department's Position: We disagree with Wieland. We adjusted U.S. 
Price (USP) and FMV for VAT in accordance with our practice, pursuant 
to the decision of the CIT in Federal-Mogul Corporation and the 
Torrington Company v. United States, 813 F. Supp. 856 (October 7, 1993) 
(Federal-Mogul) and as outlined in Silicomanganese From Venezuela; 
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value, 59 FR 
31204, June 17, 1994, where we address the multiplier effect issue in 
detail.
    Comment 7: Citing 19 U.S.C. 1677a(d)(1)(C), the petitioners state 
that for U.S. sales not found to be sold at less than fair value, the 
Department must cap the absolute tax amount added to U.S. price, 
limiting it to the absolute amount of taxes in the home market. The 
petitioners argue that the absolute net U.S. price that becomes the 
denominator in our calculation of dumping duties is otherwise 
overstated, and that ad valorem margins are consequently reduced 
improperly.
    The respondent, in rebuttal, argues that the petitioners cannot 
have it both ways, and that the Department cannot selectively apply the 
tax rate to sales which may have dumping margins and apply the absolute 
tax amount only to those sales which do not have margins.
    Department Position: We disagree with the petitioners. The 
Department's methodology consists of applying the home market tax rate 
to the U.S. price at the same point in the chain of distribution at 
which the home market tax base is determined and then reducing the tax 
in each market by that portion of the tax attributable to expenses 
which are deducted from each price. For example, because we deduct 
ocean freight from U.S. price, ocean freight is also eliminated from 
the U.S. tax base. This is consistent with the decision of the CIT in 
Federal-Mogul. The effect of these adjustments is the same as initially 
calculating the tax in each market on the basis of adjusted prices.
    The ``cap'' was devised at a time when the Department was not 
effectively calculating the tax in each market on the basis of adjusted 
prices. It was intended to keep differences in expenses which were 
eliminated through adjustments to the price in each market from 
continuing to affect the dumping margin by remaining in the basis upon 
which the tax in each market was determined. The Department's current 
practice of effectively using adjusted prices in each market as the tax 
base automatically achieves this purpose. The imputed U.S. tax will 
exceed the tax on home market comparison sales only where the adjusted 
U.S. price is higher than the adjusted home market price, i.e., where 
there is no dumping margin. A tax cap is irrelevant for such sales, 
because no duties are assessed upon them and they do not contribute to 
the weighted-average margin. Consequently, the absolute margins 
obtained under the Department's current approach are identical to those 
which would have been obtained after imposing the tax cap.
    Although applying a tax cap may affect the relative weighted-
average margins, and hence deposit rates, we decline to reapply the tax 
cap solely to achieve this purpose. The Department includes the U.S. 
prices that exceed foreign market prices in the denominator of the 
deposit rate equation. It would be inconsistent to include that portion 
of the U.S. price that exceeds the home market price in that 
denominator, but to remove the tax on this amount. Just as we treat the 
tax on ocean freight consistently with ocean freight itself, where we 
include the full adjusted U.S. price in the denominator of the deposit 
rate equation, we must also leave the tax on that full U.S. price in 
the denominator.

Interest Rates Used in Credit Expenses

    Comment 8: The petitioners claim that the Department should correct 
for Wieland's use of Wieland-America's short-term borrowing rate to 
calculate direct expenses for U.S. sales, since during the period of 
review U.S. customers were billed by Wieland-Werke in Germany. The 
petitioners argue that the U.S. imputed credit expenses should have 
been calculated on the basis of Wieland-Werke' short-term interest 
rates, rather than on the basis of Wieland-America's short-term 
interest rate.
    The respondent argues in rebuttal that the Department correctly 
measured the cost of financing sales made in dollars by applying a 
dollar interest rate, citing Department policy in Final Determination 
of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Fresh Cut Roses from Colombia, 60 FR 
6980, 6998 (1995) (Comment 21) (Roses). Wieland also notes that in 
Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Class 150 
Stainless Steel Threaded Pipe Fittings from Taiwan (59 FR 38432 (July 
28, 1994) (Class 150 Stainless Steel Pipe), the Department stated that 
it ``is required to use the lowest rate at which the respondent has 
borrowed or to which the respondent has access.''
    Department's Position: We disagree with the petitioners and concur 
with the respondent that it is reasonable to use local, dollar-
denominated borrowing rates in this case. The respondent is correct in 
arguing that the interest rate used for credit expenses should match 
the currency in which the sales are denominated, as stated in Roses. On 
the question of whether the parent's or the U.S. subsidiary's dollar-
denominated borrowing rate should be applied, where a company had 
access, directly or through its U.S. affiliate, to two different 
dollar-denominated rates, the lower of the two rates is presumed to 
have been used. See, for example, Class 150 Stainless Steel Pipe, where 
the Department calculated imputed credit for purchase price sales using 
the lower of two U.S. interest rates available to the respondent. In 
this case we are aware of only the U.S. subsidiary having U.S. 
borrowings during this POR. See also Notice of Final Determinations of 
Sales at Less than Fair Value: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat 
Products, 

[[Page 38035]]
Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products, and Certain 
Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from France, 58 FR 37125 
(1993)(Comment 30); the Department does not concern itself with 
determining which of the corporate entities related to the respondent 
actually incurs the cost of financing.
Sales to Related Parties

    Comment 9: The petitioners state that the Department failed to 
exclude sales to related parties from home market sales, or test such 
sales for arm's-length pricing. In rebuttal, the respondent states that 
all sales between related parties are at arm's length, but that, in any 
case, excluding related-party sales will not significantly affect sales 
matching.
    Department's Position: We agree with the petitioners and have 
included an arm's-length test in our analysis. We compared prices net 
of difference-in-merchandise adjustments, movement expenses, early 
payment discounts, commissions and after-sale rebates. The results of 
that test indicate that a substantial number of sales to affiliates 
were at lower prices than those to unrelated parties. In accordance 
with 19 CFR 353.45(a), we have therefore excluded those sales to 
related parties that were not at arm's length, and have used home 
market sales by Wieland to unrelated customers, and home market sales 
to related parties that were at arm's length, as the basis for FMV.

Clerical and Programming Errors

    Comment 10: The respondent points out that adjustments for 
different alloys were not converted to pounds.
    Department's Position: We agree with the respondent and have 
converted the adjustments for different alloys to pounds.
    Comment 11: The petitioners state, and Wieland agrees, that for 
U.S. sales, the Department neglected to adjust the difference-in-
merchandise data for physical characteristics and for different alloys 
by the VAT rate.
    Department Position: We agree with the petitioners and have 
adjusted these data by the VAT rate.

Final Results of Review

    As a result of our analysis of the comments received, we determine 
that the following margin exists for Wieland:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Percent
               Manufacturer/exporter                   Period    margin 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wieland-Werke AG...................................    3/1/93-          
                                                       2/28/94  \1\ 0.49
                                                                      5 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ We have not rounded this result to two places, as is our usual      
  practice, since doing so would indicate a margin above de minimis,    
  where the actual margin is de minimis.                                

    Individual differences between the USP and FMV may vary from the 
above percentage. The Department shall instruct the U.S. Customs 
Service to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective 
for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of these 
final results, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act.
    (1) Because the rate for Wieland is de minimis, the Department 
shall not require cash deposits on shipments from Wieland;
    (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 less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but 
the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established 
for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and
    (4) If neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered 
in this or any previous review conducted by the Department, the cash 
deposit rate will be 8.87 percent, the ``all others'' rate established 
in the LTFV investigation.
    This notice also 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 the 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 a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (APOs) of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(d). Timely written notification of 
the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial 
protective order is hereby requested.
    Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a 
violation which is subject to sanction. This administrative review and 
this notice are in accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 
U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 353.22.

    Dated: July 11, 1995.

Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-18262 Filed 7-24-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P