[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