[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 193 (Thursday, October 5, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52150-52155]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-24806]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-412-602]
Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review: Certain Forged Steel Crankshafts From the United Kingdom
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 5, 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian C. Smith or John Beck, Office of
Antidumping Investigations, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202)
482-1766 or (202) 482-3464, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Case History
On May 4, 1995, the Department published in the Federal Register
the preliminary results of its 1992-93 administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on certain forged steel crankshafts
(crankshafts) from the United Kingdom (60 FR 22045). The review covers
one manufacturer/exporter. The review period is September 1, 1992,
through August 31, 1993. On June 5, and 12, 1995, both parties
submitted their case and rebuttal briefs, respectively. There was no
request for a hearing. On July 26, 1995, the Department requested
comments from both parties regarding the issue of the 20 percent weight
criterion it intended to use in making its product comparisons. On
August 9, 1995, both parties submitted their comments. On August 22,
1995, both parties submitted rebuttal comments. The Department has now
conducted this review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act
of 1930, as amended (the Tariff Act). The final margin for United
Engineering & Forging (UEF) is listed below in the section ``Final
Results of Review.''
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.
Scope of the Review
The products covered in this review are certain forged steel
crankshafts. The term ``crankshafts,'' as used in this review, includes
forged carbon or alloy steel crankshafts with a shipping weight between
40 and 750 pounds, whether machined or unmachined. The products are
currently classifiable under items 8483.10.10.10, 8483.10.10.30,
8483.10.30.10, and 8483.10.30.50 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of
the United States (HTSUS). Neither cast crankshafts nor forged
crankshafts with shipping weights of less than 40 pounds or more than
750 pounds are subject to this review. Although the HTSUS subheadings
are provided for convenience and Customs purposes, our
[[Page 52151]]
written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.
Such or Similar Merchandise
In determining similar merchandise comparisons, we considered the
following physical characteristics, which appear in order of
importance: (1) Twisted vs. untwisted; (2) number of throws; (3)
forging method; (4) engine type; (5) number of bearings; (6) number of
flanges; and (7) number of counterweights. We applied weight separately
based on a range of plus or minus 20 percent of the weight of the U.S.
model. We applied weight as we did to ensure that we would consider all
of the matching criteria in making our product comparisons (see Comment
1 in the ``Interested Party Comments Section'' of this notice). We did
not consider cost as a matching criterion (see Comment 2).
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether UEF's sales of crankshafts from the United
Kingdom to the United States were made at less than fair value, we
compared United States price (USP) to foreign market value (FMV), as
specified in the ``United States Price'' and ``Foreign Market Value''
sections of this notice.
United States Price
We calculated USP according to the methodology described in our
preliminary results.
Foreign Market Value
As stated in the preliminary results, we found that the home market
was viable for sales of crankshafts and based FMV on home market sales.
We calculated FMV according to the methodology described in our
preliminary results.
For four U.S. products, we found no home market product comparisons
after applying the model matching methodology, the contemporaneity
test, and the difference-in-merchandise (difmer) test. For the four
products, we based FMV on CV. We calculated CV based on the sum of the
respondent's submitted cost of materials, fabrication, general and
administrative (G&A) expenses, U.S. packing and profit.
We reduced G&A expenses for certain plant redundancy expenses
because such expenses were already included in the cost of manufacture
(COM) (see Comment 6 for a further discussion).
In accordance with section 773(e)(1)(B) (i) and (ii) of the Act, we
included the actual general expenses, which exceeded the statutory
minimum of ten percent of the COM. We used the statutory minimum
profit, which is eight percent of the sum of COM and general expenses,
because the actual profit amount was less than the statutory minimum
(see Comment 7 for a further discussion).
Currency Conversion
We made currency conversions in accordance with 19 CFR 353.60(a).
All currency conversions were made at the rates certified by the
Federal Reserve Bank.
Interested Party Comments
Comment 1: Application of the Weight Criterion
The petitioner contends that when matching sales of U.S. to home
market merchandise, the Department has always applied the weight
criterion in its matching hierarchy only to avoid comparisons of models
of greatly disparate weight. Moreover, the petitioner contends that the
Department's application of the weight criterion in the preliminary
results was flawed because the Department's methodology did not
consider all matching criteria. Therefore, the petitioner supports the
use of a 20 percent weight range in the matching hierarchy.
The respondent argues that the Department should not apply the
weight criterion only to avoid comparisons of greatly disparate weight
and should keep using the method from the preliminary results. The
respondent argues that use of a 20 percent weight range would be
arbitrary, too narrow, and would treat differences in weight
erratically. The respondent further argues that if the Department must
change the application of the weight criterion from the method used in
the preliminary results, it should use weight differences only to
``break ties'' between models that are equally similar in terms of
primary characteristics.
DOC Position
We agree, in part, with the petitioner. In past reviews, we applied
the weight criterion to avoid comparisons of models that were ``greatly
disparate'' in weight. See Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Certain Forged Steel Crankshafts from the United
Kingdom (56 FR 5975, 5979, Feb. 14, 1991)(Second Review). We did not,
however, define the term ``greatly disparate'' in those reviews. In the
final results of this review, we sought to increase the predictability
of our matching hierarchy by clarifying what we consider ``greatly
disparate.''
In the preliminary results, we considered weight as the third
matching criterion and applied the criterion by selecting the home
market model that was closest in weight to the U.S. model. This was
consistent with the matching methodology outlined in a February 1993
memorandum prepared during the third review, and in furtherance of our
efforts to increase the predictability of our matching hierarchy.
However, we then discovered two flaws in our methodology for applying
the weight criterion, which compelled us to seek an alternative
methodology to that used in the preliminary results.
First, we realized that in the preliminary results, by applying
weight as the third criterion of a descending hierarchy and selecting
the home market model that was closest in weight to the U.S. model, our
methodology effectively nullified the remaining matching criteria
(i.e., forging method, engine type, bearings, flanges and
counterweights). This problem would be avoided only in the rare
instance where two or more home market models were identical in weight.
Thus, our methodology in the preliminary results frustrated the proper
operation of our matching hierarchy.
Second, we realized that simply choosing the home market model that
was closest in weight to the U.S. model did not prevent us from
comparing models that were greatly disparate in weight, because the
methodology failed to address situations where all home market models
were greatly disparate in weight compared to the U.S. model. In such
cases, one home market model could be ``closest'' in weight to the U.S.
model, but still greatly disparate. This would violate our established
practice of not comparing models that are greatly disparate in weight.
See Second Review (56 FR 5979). The 20 percent difmer test would not
necessarily prevent such comparisons because, in past crankshafts
reviews, we have found that the relatively high material costs of
heavier crankshafts may be offset by the relatively high cost of
producing the other physical differences in lighter crankshafts.
As a result, two products could appear on paper (i.e., according to
the difmer test) to be more similar than they actually were. Id.
Due to these problems, on July 26, 1995, we indicated to both
interested parties that we were considering applying the weight
criterion as a 20 percent weight range rather than by choosing the home
market model that was closest in weight to the U.S. model. Under our
proposed methodology, the weight of a home market model would have to
be within 20 percent of the weight of the U.S. model to be
[[Page 52152]]
considered ``similar'' for purposes of the weight criterion. We also
invited the interested parties to suggest an alternative methodology
and explain why their proposed methodology would be more reasonable
than our proposed 20 percent weight range.
We proposed the 20 percent weight range for two reasons. First, we
wanted to define the phrase ``greatly disparate,'' and the only way to
do so with any kind of predictability was to assign a specific value to
the term. Second, we used a 20 percent range rather than any other
percentage range because the Department uses a 20 percent range in
similar circumstances when applying its difmer test. As discussed
above, the function of the weight criterion in these reviews is similar
to that of the difmer test, and ensures that we do not make
unreasonable comparisons.
We disagree with the respondent's claim that the Department's 20
percent weight range treats differences in weight erratically. By
applying the weight criterion as a range, we are simply setting an
outside parameter for acceptable weight differences. Within that range,
the Department applied the remaining criteria to find the most similar
matches. If there was more than one potential home market match after
applying the remaining criteria, the Department chose the home market
model that was closest in weight to the U.S. model. Applying weight as
a specific percentage range, and then choosing the model that is
closest in weight if there is more than one potential match after
applying the remaining criteria, makes the criterion's operation
predictable, not erratic.
The Department would be treating differences in weight erratically
if it were to apply the weight criterion only to choose the home market
model that is ``closest'' in weight to the U.S. model, because in some
cases the potential home market comparisons may be very close in weight
to the U.S. model, and in other cases the potential home market
comparisons may all be far from the weight of the U.S. model. Simply
choosing the home market model that is ``closest'' in weight, without
also setting an outside limit for acceptable weight differences, would
thus treat differences in weight differently in analogous
circumstances. The respondent's proposed solution of making weight the
fifth criterion or using it only to ``break ties'' would not avoid this
problem. Moreover, each of the respondent's proposed alternative
methodologies would, like the Department's preliminary methodology,
effectively nullify any remaining matching criteria.
We also disagree with the respondent's contention that a 20 percent
range is too narrow. As discussed above, we solicited comments from the
parties on our proposed methodology. If the respondent believed that a
20 percent range was too narrow, it had an opportunity to suggest a
broader range and explain why that broader range would have been more
appropriate than the Department's proposal. While the respondent
suggests the range should have been ``much'' broader than 20 percent,
it declined our invitation to quantify what that range should be.
Moreover, after asserting that the range should have been much
broader than 20 percent, the respondent then asserted that any
percentage ``cutoff'' would be inappropriate. While the respondent
seems to believe that there is no point at which the differences in
weight between the home market and U.S. models would be so great as to
make comparisons ipso facto unreasonable, we disagree. If the
Department were to accept the respondent's argument, we would be
required to make ad hoc determinations of what constitutes a ``great
disparity'' in weight each time we made a comparison. This would
frustrate our intent to ensure greater predictability in our
application of the weight criterion.
We also disagree with the respondent's argument that the Department
has previously determined that a range approach would be inappropriate
for comparing crankshafts. In the original investigation, we simply
declined to group crankshafts according to size because crankshafts are
not sold in specific sizes. Our methodology in this review does not
create ``groups'' of U.S. and home market models; it merely establishes
boundaries for comparing individual U.S. models to all potential home
market comparisons.
Finally, we disagree with the respondent's assertion that our
methodology is inconsistent with the Act and our prior determinations.
First, the respondent claims that there are no compelling reasons to
change our methodology from the preliminary determination, because
there were no ``unreasonable'' matches in this review. As noted above,
however, the methodology we applied in the preliminary results was
flawed in several respects. Thus, the matches may not be those that are
truly most similar when all of the criteria are considered. It would
undermine our attempts to make our matching hierarchy more accurate and
predictable if we were to continue applying that methodology in this
review, only to change the methodology in a future review when the
flaws manifested themselves in unreasonable matches.
Second, the respondent claims there is no evidence that our
preliminary methodology was unpredictable, and that a 20 percent range
will not increase predictability. We disagree. Our preliminary
methodology, while ``predictable,'' was flawed; applying the weight
criterion as a range will increase predictability without invalidating
the remaining matching criteria.
Third, the respondent argues that applying the weight criterion as
a 20 percent range will require the use of CV for certain models.
However, as discussed below in Comment 3, the goal in establishing a
model match methodology is not simply to yield the greatest number of
matches, the goal is to identify matches of ``similar'' products. We
have determined that products are not similar if the difference between
the U.S. and home market weights are more than 20 percent; in such
situations, resort to CV would be appropriate.
Finally, the respondent's argument that our methodology will permit
the use of more than one home market comparison for a single U.S. model
is incorrect. As discussed above, if there were two or more potential
home market matches after applying each of the Department's matching
criteria, we chose the model that was closest in weight to the U.S.
model because that model was, objectively speaking, ``most'' similar to
the U.S. model.
Comment 2: Excluding Certain Models from Use in Matching
The petitioner contends that the Department should have excluded,
as potential matches, all home market crankshaft models that appeared
to have been sold at prices below their COP. The petitioner argues that
the Department has the information necessary for initiating a COP
investigation in accordance with section 773(b) of the Act and should
have done so. Furthermore, the petitioner argues that if the Department
is applying the 90/60 rule and difmer test in order to limit the pool
of possible home market comparisons, then the Department should also
take into account whether models are sold at or above their costs of
production.
The respondent contends that the Department should not disregard
any sales of home market models when selecting its matches because no
authority cited by the petitioner supports disregarding them in this
case. The respondent maintains that: 1) the
[[Page 52153]]
petitioner never requested a COP investigation as set out in section
773(b) of the Act; and 2) the use of COP as a matching criterion is
contrary to both the Department's practice and section 773(b) of the
Act.
DOC Position
We agree with the respondent. We have rejected the petitioner's
argument for initiating a COP investigation for the reasons stated
below.
According to 19 CFR 353.31(c)(ii), in an administrative review, the
Department will not consider any allegation of sales below the COP that
is submitted by the petitioner more than 120 days after the date of
publication of the notice of initiation of the review, unless a
relevant response is considered untimely or incomplete. If the response
is received more than 120 days after initiation, however, the
Department may use its discretion in determining what constitutes a
reasonable amount of time for the petitioner to make a sales below cost
allegation.
In this case, on June 9, 1994, the petitioner submitted a letter
expressing its concern that specific home market models appeared to be
sold at below COP. We spoke with the petitioner's counsel on June 14,
1994, and asked whether the letter was a sales below cost allegation
(see June 15, 1994, memorandum from Brian Smith to the file). Rather
than answer the question, the petitioner's counsel simply urged the
Department to consider cost when making its LTFV comparisons. The
petitioner made a submission on that same day which stated, among other
things, that it was not making a ``typical'' allegation of sales below
cost. Because the petitioner said it was not making a typical
allegation of sales below cost, the Department did not investigate
whether initiation of such an inquiry would have been appropriate. We
disagree with the petitioner's suggestion that the June 9, 1994, letter
``could have been'' considered a sales below cost allegation.
Even if the March 9, 1994 letter could have been considered an
allegation of sales below cost, the letter did not contain sufficient
information to support initiation of a COP inquiry. For example, the
petitioner made no attempt to provide fixed cost information for the
two specific models it mentioned in its letter. Rather, the petitioner
merely claimed there was ``reason to question'' whether sales of these
two models were made above the COP.
Moreover, if the petitioner's case brief was intended to represent
such an allegation, the allegation was untimely, and could not serve as
the basis for initiating a sales below cost investigation. In the Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sulfur Dyes, Including
Sulfur Vat Dyes, From the United Kingdom, 58 FR 3253, 3255-56 (Comment
2)(Jan. 8, 1993), the petitioner had access to the raw data necessary
to support a sales below cost allegation, but chose not to make an
allegation until it filed its case brief. The Department noted that the
petitioner could have filed an allegation after receiving the
respondent's supplemental response, and that the allegation would not
necessarily have been considered untimely. Because the petitioner
waited to make the allegation until it filed its case brief, the
Department found the allegation to be untimely.
We disagree with the petitioner's argument that the Department
should have self-initiated a COP inquiry based on the June 9, 1994
letter. As the CIT has stated,
[G]iven the burdens placed on ITA by the statute it is not
reasonable to expect ITA in every case to pursue all investigative
avenues, even such important areas as less than cost of production
sales, without some direction by petitioners. It should be
remembered that cost of production need not be investigated in every
case, but only where reasonable grounds are present. Part of whether
ITA has ``reasonable grounds to believe or suspect'' that a less
than cost of production analysis is needed is whether it has been
requested.
Floral Trade Council v. United States, 704 F. Supp. 233, 236 (CIT
1988). In this case, the petitioner did not request a sales below cost
investigation; in fact, it affirmatively stated that its June 9, 1994
letter was not a typical allegation. The CIT has stated that the
Department ``may be relieved of its duty to utilize certain information
potentially favorable to a party, if that party has acted in a manner
which directs the investigation in another direction.'' Floral Trade
Council of Davis v. United States, 698 F. Supp. 925, 926 (CIT 1988).
Finally, we disagree with the petitioner's argument that the
Department should have considered cost as a factor in choosing between
various home market models in making its FMV calculations, because cost
is not a criterion for determining what is most similar merchandise
under the statute. See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Canada, 59 FR
Reg. 18791, 18793 (Apr. 20, 1994); Policy Bulletin 92/4, The Use of
Constructed Value in COP Cases 3-4 (Dec. 15, 1992).
Comment 3: Improper Use of CV
The petitioner contends that the Department improperly used CV
because it placed undue importance on the twisted/untwisted criterion.
The petitioner argues that in the second administrative review, the
Department indicated that all crankshafts were one ``such or similar''
category and that crankshafts would be compared if reasonable
adjustments could be made for physical differences in merchandise. In
this case, the petitioner argues that the Department resorted to CV
even though there were untwisted home market models (which passed the
difmer test) which the Department could have matched to the U.S.
twisted model. The petitioner argues that the Department's resort to CV
in this case is inconsistent with its clear preference for price-to-
price comparisons found in its own regulations.
The respondent maintains that comparing twisted to untwisted
crankshaft models is contrary to the law of this case. The respondent
points out that in the second administrative review of crankshafts, the
Department declined to match twisted and untwisted models and used CV
as the basis for FMV because it could not adjust for the difference
between twisted and untwisted crankshafts.
DOC Position
We agree with the respondent. We have not compared twisted with
untwisted cranshafts and vice-versa because we cannot adjust for
physical differences between twisted and untwisted crankshafts. In the
original LTFV investigation, we examined the issue of whether a twisted
crankshaft was sufficiently similar to a non-twisted crankshaft to
allow comparison. See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value: Certain Forged Steel Crankshafts from the United Kingdom, (52 FR
32951, 32952, 32954, September 1, 1987). In the Second Review, we
revisited the issue. We determined in both cases that it was
inappropriate to compare twisted with untwisted crankshafts.
Furthermore, we concluded in the second review that we could not adjust
for the physical differences between twisted and untwisted crankshafts.
We disagree with the petitioner's argument that the Department was
unjustified, because of the statutory preference for price-to-price
comparisons, in resorting to CV rather than match a twisted to an
untwisted crankshaft. Section 773(a)(2) of the Act specifically
provides that when neither identical merchandise nor similar
[[Page 52154]]
merchandise is available for comparison, the Department may resort to
CV as FMV. The goal in establishing a model match methodology is not
simply to set up a method that yields the greatest number of matches
between U.S. and home market models; the goal, rather, is to set up a
method that identifies matches of reasonably ``similar'' merchandise.
The statute clearly permits the use of CV where the Department
determines that there are no models in the two markets that constitute
``similar'' merchandise. Because the Department has determined that it
would be inappropriate to compare a twisted crankshaft to an untwisted
crankshaft, resorting to CV is justified.
Comment 4: Use of the CV Data
The petitioner argues that the Department cannot rely on certain
COM data for two die numbers because the reported data is flawed. The
petitioner argues that the Department should have sent a supplemental
CV questionnaire for the two die numbers and then verified that data if
it was to be used.
The respondent maintains that the COM data in question has been
verified by the Department and is reliable.
DOC Position
We agree with the respondent. Contrary to the petitioner's
allegation, the information necessary to calculate CV for the two die
numbers in question was contained in the respondent's questionnaire
response. We verified this information and have used it for purposes of
the final results.
Comment 5: Treatment of the Difmer
The respondent contends that the Department should revise its
calculation of the dumping margin by subtracting the difmer adjustment
from FMV, rather than adding the difmer to the FMV. The respondent
maintains that all of the home market products are more costly to
produce than the U.S. products. Therefore, the respondent alleges that
the Department should have subtracted the difmer from FMV instead of
adding it to FMV. The respondent cites to the Import Administration
Antidumping Manual, chapter 9, pages 21-22, (Antidumping Manual) in
support of its argument.
The petitioner maintains that the Antidumping Manual states that
the Department is to add difmer adjustments to FMV and this is what the
Department has done in this case. Therefore, the petitioner maintains
that the Department properly added the difmer adjustment to FMV in the
SAS computer program.
DOC Position
We agree with the respondent. We have changed the SAS instructions
in our computer program such that we now subtract the difmer from FMV.
We have made this change because it is the Department's practice to
decrease FMV by the difmer if the home market materials, labor and
overhead costs are greater than the U.S. materials, labor and overhead
costs. In the preliminary results, we incorrectly added the difmer
amount to FMV in the SAS computer program.
Comment 6: Redundancy Expenses
The respondent alleges that the Department erroneously included
certain plant redundancy expenses in its G&A calculation because these
costs were already reported in its submitted cost of manufacturing.
The petitioner contends that all redundancy expenses should be
included in calculating G&A expenses rather than UEF's submitted COM.
DOC Position
We agree with the respondent. We find that the respondent included
certain plant redundancy expenses in its submitted COM (see pages 12-13
of the June 20, 1994, submission and cost verification exhibit 1).
Therefore, we have reduced the G&A expense by the amount of plant
redundancy expenses.
Comment 7: Profit
The respondent asserts that the Department miscalculated profit by
excluding fixed overhead costs. According to the respondent, its home
market profit with the adjustment for fixed overhead costs was less
than the statutory minimum of eight percent. Therefore, the respondent
maintains that the Department should apply the statutory minimum profit
of eight percent.
The petitioner contends that the respondent's fixed overhead cost
calculation and revised profit argument is untimely and unsupported.
Thus, the petitioner maintains that the Department should not revise
the respondent's profit in the final results.
DOC Position
We agree with the respondent. We have now applied the statutory
minimum profit. Contrary to petitioner's claim, we find that the
respondent demonstrated that its average home market profit was less
than the statutory minimum of eight percent and that the argument for
revising the profit calculation is not untimely (see August 18, 1994,
Constructed Value Verification Report, p. 11 and the respondent's case
brief).
Final Results of Review
As a result of the comments received, we have revised our
preliminary results and determine that the following margin exists:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/exporter Review period (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UEF...................................... 9/01/92-8/31/93 0.02
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual
differences between USP and FMV may vary from the percentage stated
above. The Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to
the Customs Service.
Furthermore, the following deposit requirement will be effective
for all shipments of crankshafts from the United Kingdom entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication
date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by
section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for UEF
will be zero because the rate is less than 0.50 percent and, therefore,
de minimis; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not
listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-
specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter
is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original
LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will
be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer
of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other
manufacturers or exporters will be 6.55 percent, which is the amended
``all others'' rate from the LTFV investigation. It is not 14.67
percent, as was erroneously published in the preliminary results.
These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in
effect until publication of the final results of the next
administrative review.
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26 to file a certificate regarding the
reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the
relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this
requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
[[Page 52155]]
This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (APO) in this investigation of their
responsibility covering 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 administrative review and notice are in accordance with
section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR
353.22.
Dated: September 29, 1995.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-24806 Filed 10-4-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P