[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 164 (Thursday, August 22, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43337-43341]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-21464]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-570-844]


Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Melamine Institutional 
Dinnerware Products From the People's Republic of China

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 22, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Wojcik-Betancourt, Everett 
Kelly, David J. Goldberger, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
0629, (202) 482-4194, or (202) 482-4136, respectively.

The Applicable Statute

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended (``the Act'') are references to the provisions 
effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to 
the Act by the Uruguay Rounds Agreements Act (``URAA'').

Preliminary Determination

    We preliminarily determine that melamine institutional dinnerware 
products (``MIDPs'') from the People's Republic of China (``PRC'') are 
being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair 
value (``LTFV''), as provided in section 733 of the Act. The estimated 
margins are shown in the ``Suspension of Liquidation'' section of this 
notice.

Case History

    Since the initiation of this investigation (61 FR 8039, March 1, 
1996) the following events have occurred:
    On March 22, 1996, the United States International Trade Commission 
(``ITC'') issued an affirmative preliminary injury determination in 
this case (see ITC Investigation Nos. 731-TA-741, -742, and -743).
    On March 8 and 29, 1996, we sent surveys to the PRC's Ministry of 
Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation (``MOFTEC'') and to the China 
Chamber of Commerce of Metals, Minerals, and Chemicals (``China 
Chamber'') requesting the identification of producers and exporters, 
and information on production and sales of MIDPs exported to the United 
States. In April we received responses from the PRC government 
identifying the following exporters as companies who sold the subject 
merchandise during the period of investigation (``POI'').

Shenzhen Baon District Foreign Economic Development Corp.
Shenzhen Longang District Foreign Economic Service Corp.
Guandong Light Industrial Products Import & Export Corp. 
(hereinafter, ``Guandong'')
Xinjian Foreign Trade Corp. (hereinafter, ``Xinjian FTC'')
Shanghai Foreign Corp.
Sam Choan Plastic Co. Ltd. (hereinafter, ``Sam Choan'')
Nian Jing Koto Melamine Products Company Ltd.
Zhejiang Melamine Dinnerware Company Ltd.
Hui Zhou Ziao Cheng Plastic Products Co. Ltd.
Shang Hai Jia Da Plastic Products Co. Ltd.
Dongguan Wan Chao Melamine Products Co., Ltd.
Shin Lung Melamine Guangzhou Co., Ltd.
Dong Guan Hotai Plastic Products Company Ltd.
Ji Nan Fortune Long Melamine Products Co. Ltd.
Kunshan Ever Unison Melamine Products Co. Ltd.
Guang Dong Guan Living Products Co. Ltd.
Tar Hong Melamine Xiamen Co. Ltd. (hereinafter, ``Tar Hong Xiamen'')
Chen Hao (Xiamen) Plastic Industrial Co. Ltd. (hereinafter, ``Chen 
Hao Xiamen''), and
Gin Harvest Melamine (Heyuan) Enterprises Co. Ltd. (hereinafter, Gin 
Harvest Heyuan).

    On April 8, 1996, the Department received faxes from two of the 
identified companies, Guandong and Xinjian FTC, stating that they did 
not export the subject merchandise to the United States during the POI.
    On April 15, 1996, the Department issued an antidumping 
questionnaire to the China Chamber and MOFTEC with instructions to 
forward the document to all producers/exporters of the subject 
merchandise and that these companies must respond by the due dates. We 
also sent courtesy copies of the antidumping duty questionnaire to all 
identified companies. The questionnaire is divided into four sections. 
Section A requests general information concerning a company's corporate 
structure and business practices, the merchandise under investigation 
that it sells, and the sales of the merchandise in all of its markets. 
Sections B and C request home market sales listings and U.S. sales 
listings, respectively (section B does not normally apply in 
antidumping proceedings involving the PRC). Section D requests 
information on the factors of production of the subject merchandise.
    On May 10, 1996, the Department requested that interested parties 
provide information for valuing the factors of production and for 
surrogate country selection. We received comments from the interested 
parties in June 1996.
    On June 6, 1996, the Department postponed the preliminary 
determination of this investigation and the companion investigations 
from Indonesia and Taiwan until August 14, 1996, in accordance with 
section 733(c)(1)(B) of the Act (61 FR 30219, June 14, 1996).
    In May and June 1996, the five participating respondents--Chen Hao 
Xiamen, Sam Choan, Dongguan, Tar Hong Xiamen, and Gin Harvest-- 
submitted questionnaire responses. We issued supplemental 
questionnaires to these companies on June 26, 1996, and we received 
responses in July 1996. We did not receive any information from the 
other thirteen identified companies.
    On May 29, 1996, petitioner, the American Melamine Institutional 
Tableware Association (``AMITA''), requested that the Department 
consider whether the special rule for certain multinational 
corporations (``MNC'') set forth in section 773(d) of the Act should be 
applied in this investigation. Petitioner suggested that this provision 
should be applied with respect to Chen

[[Page 43338]]

Hao Xiamen (for further discussion, see the ``Normal Value'' section of 
this notice, below).

Postponement of Final Determination

    On August 5, 1996, all participating respondents requested that, 
pursuant to section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act, in the event of an 
affirmative preliminary determination in this investigation, the 
Department postpone its final determination until not later than 135 
days after the publication of the affirmative preliminary determination 
in the Federal Register. In accordance with 19 CFR 353.20(b), inasmuch 
as our preliminary determination is affirmative, these respondents 
account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject 
merchandise, and we are not aware of the existence of any compelling 
reasons for denying the request, we are granting respondents' request 
and are postponing the final determination.

Scope of the Investigation

    This investigation covers all items of dinnerware (e.g., plates, 
cups, saucers, bowls, creamers, gravy boats, serving dishes, platters, 
and trays) that contain at least 50 percent melamine by weight and have 
a minimum wall thickness of 0.08 inch. This merchandise is classifiable 
under subheadings 3924.10.20, 3924.10.30, and 3924.10.50 of the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS''). Excluded 
from the scope of investigation are flatware products (e.g., knives, 
forks, and spoons).
    Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and 
customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this 
investigation is dispositive.

Period of Investigation

    The POI for all participating companies is January 1, 1995, through 
December 31, 1995.

Nonmarket Economy Country Status

    The Department has treated the PRC as a nonmarket economy country 
(``NME'') in all past antidumping investigations and administrative 
reviews (see, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China 59 FR 22585 
(May 2, 1994) (Silicon Carbide) and Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol from the People's Republic of 
China 60 FR 22544 (May 8, 1995) (Furfuryl Alcohol). No party to the 
proceeding has challenged such treatment. Therefore, in accordance with 
section 771(18)(C) of the Act, we will continue to treat the PRC as an 
NME in this investigation.
    When the Department is investigating imports from an NME, section 
773(c)(1) of the Act directs us to base normal value (NV) on the NME 
producers' factors of production, valued, to the extent possible, in a 
comparable market economy that is a significant producer of comparable 
merchandise. The sources of individual factor prices are discussed 
under the NV section, below.

Surrogate Country

    The Department has determined that India, Nigeria, Pakistan, Sri 
Lanka, Egypt, and Indonesia are countries comparable to the PRC in 
terms of overall economic development (see Memorandum from David 
Mueller, Director, Office of Policy, to Gary Taverman, Acting Director, 
Office of Antidumping Investigations, dated May 6, 1996).
    According to the available information on the record, we have 
determined that Indonesia is the only significant producer of MIDPs 
among these six potential surrogate countries. Accordingly, we have 
calculated NV using Indonesian prices--except, as noted below in the 
``Normal Value'' section of this notice, in certain instances where an 
input was sourced from a market economy--for the PRC producers' factors 
of production. We have obtained and relied upon published, publicly 
available information wherever possible.

Separate Rates

    Of the five responding exporters in this investigation, three--Gin 
Harvest Heyuan, Tar Hong Xiamen, and Chen Hao Xiamen--reported that (1) 
they are wholly foreign-owned and (2) all sales to the United States of 
merchandise produced by these companies are made by the Taiwan parent 
companies. Thus, we consider the Taiwan-based parent to be the 
respondent exporter in the proceeding. No separate separate rates 
analysis is required for these exporters. (See, e.g., Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Disposable Pocket 
Lighters from the People's Republic of China (60 FR 22359, 22361 May 5, 
1995).)
    Dongguan reported that it is a joint venture involving a Hong Kong 
company. Sam Choan is wholly foreign owned but its sales to the United 
States are made from its facilities in the PRC. For these respondents, 
a separate rates analysis is necessary to determine whether they are 
independent from government control over their export activities.
    To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from 
government control to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department 
analyzes each exporting entity under a test arising out of the Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the 
People's Republic of China 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) and amplified in 
Silicon Carbide. Under the separate rates criteria, the Department 
assigns separate rates in nonmarket economy cases only if respondents 
can demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto governmental 
control over export activities.
1. Absence of De Jure Control
    Both Dongguan and Sam Choan have submitted for the record the 1994 
Foreign Trade Law of the PRC, enacted by the State Council of the 
central government of the PRC, which demonstrates absence of de jure 
control. The companies also reported that MIDPs are not included on any 
list of products that may be subject to central government export 
constraints.
    In prior cases, the Department has analyzed the provisions of the 
law that the respondents have submitted in this case and found that 
they establish an absence of de jure control (see, e.g., Bicycles). We 
have no new information in this proceeding which would cause us to 
reconsider this determination.
    However, as in previous cases, there is some evidence that the PRC 
central government enactments have not been implemented uniformly among 
different sectors and/or jurisdictions in the PRC. (See Silicon Carbide 
and Furfuryl Alcohol). Therefore, the Department has determined that an 
analysis of de facto control is critical in determining whether 
respondents are, in fact, subject to a degree of governmental control 
which would preclude the Department from assigning separate rates.
2. Absence of De Facto Control
    The Department typically considers four factors in evaluating 
whether each respondent is subject to de facto governmental control of 
its export functions: (1) Whether the export prices are set by or 
subject to the approval of a governmental authority; (2) whether the 
respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other 
agreements; (3) whether the respondent has autonomy from the government 
in making decisions regarding the selection of management; and (4) 
whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and 
makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or 
financing of

[[Page 43339]]

losses (see Silicon Carbide and Furfuryl Alcohol).
    With respect to Dongguan and Sam Choan, each has asserted the 
following: (1) It establishes its own export prices; (2) it negotiates 
contracts, without guidance from any governmental entities or 
organizations; (3) it makes its own personnel decisions and there is no 
central government control over selection of management; and (4) it 
retains the proceeds of its export sales, uses profits according to its 
business needs and has the authority to sell its assets and to obtain 
loans. In addition, respondents' questionnaire responses indicate 
company-specific pricing during the POI, which suggests lack of 
coordination among exporters. This information supports a preliminary 
finding that there is a de facto absence of governmental control of 
export functions.
    Consequently, we preliminarily determine that Dongguan and Sam 
Choan have met the criteria for the application of separate rates. We 
will examine this matter further at verification and determine whether 
the questionnaire responses are supported by verifiable documentation.

Fair Value Comparisons

A. Non-Responding Exporters

    Because some companies did not respond to the questionnaire, we are 
applying a single antidumping deposit rate--the PRC-wide rate--to all 
exporters in the PRC (except the five participating exporters) based on 
our presumption that the export activities of the companies that failed 
to respond are controlled by the PRC government. See, e.g., Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Bicycles from the 
People's Republic of China (61 FR 19026, April 30, 1996).
    This PRC-wide antidumping rate is based on adverse facts available. 
Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that ``if an interested party or 
any other person--(A) Withholds information that has been requested by 
the administering authority, (B) fails to provide such information by 
the deadlines for the submission of the information or in the form and 
manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782, 
(C) significantly impedes a proceeding under this title, or (D) 
provides such information but the information cannot be verified as 
provided in section 782(i), the administering authority * * * shall, 
subject to section 782(d), use the facts otherwise available in 
reaching the applicable determination under this title.''
    In addition, section 776(b) of the Act provides that, if the 
Department finds that an interested party ``has failed to cooperate by 
not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for 
information,'' the Department may use information that is adverse to 
the interests of that party as the facts otherwise available. The 
statute also provides that such an adverse inference may be based on 
secondary information, including information drawn from the petition.
    The exporters that did not respond in any form to the Department's 
questionnaire have not cooperated at all. Further, absent a response, 
we must presume government control of these and all other PRC companies 
for which we cannot make a separate rates determination. Accordingly, 
consistent with section 776(b)(1) of the Act, we have applied, as total 
facts available the highest margin calculated by the Department for a 
participating respondent.

B. Participating Exporters

    To determine whether respondents' sales of the subject merchandise 
to the United States were made at less than fair value, we compared the 
EP to the NV, as described in the ``Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' 
sections of this notice. In accordance with section 777A(d)(1)(A)(i), 
we compared POI-wide weighted-average EPs to the factors of production. 
For Chen Hao Xiamen, in accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we 
considered all products covered by the description in the ``Scope of 
Investigation'' section of this notice, above, produced in the 
comparison market (Taiwan) by Chen Hao and sold in that market during 
the POI, to be foreign like products for purposes of determining 
appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. Where there were no 
sales of identical merchandise in the home market to compare to U.S. 
sales, we compared U.S. sales to the next most similar foreign like 
product on the basis of the characteristics listed in the Department's 
antidumping questionnaire. In making the product comparisons, we relied 
on the following criteria (listed in order of preference): shape type 
(i.e., flat, e.g., plates, trays, saucers, etc.; or container, e.g., 
bowls, cups, etc.), specific shape, diameter (where applicable), length 
(where applicable), capacity (where applicable), thickness, design 
(i.e., whether or not a design is stamped into the piece), and glazing 
(i.e., where a design is present, whether or not it is also glazed). 
See also Model Match Methodology for the Preliminary Determinations 
memorandum from MIDP team to Louis Apple, Acting Office Director, dated 
August 12, 1996.

Export Price and Constructed Export Price

    For all responding exporters, when the subject merchandise was sold 
directly to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior 
to importation and when constructed export price (``CEP'') methodology 
was not otherwise indicated, we calculated the price of the subject 
merchandise in the United States in accordance with section 772(a) of 
the Act. In addition, for Tar Hong Xiamen, where sales to the first 
unaffiliated purchaser took place after importation into the United 
States, we based the price in the United States on CEP, in accordance 
with section 772(b) of the Act.
    We made company-specific adjustments as follows:
1. Chen Hao Xiamen
    We calculated EP based on packed, FOB Xiamen port prices to 
unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made deductions from 
the starting price, where appropriate, for foreign inland freight and 
brokerage and handling. Because all foreign inland freight and 
brokerage and handling services were provided by PRC suppliers, we 
based the deduction on surrogate values from valued in Indonesia.
2. Dongguan
    We calculated EP based on packed, FOB Hong Kong port or ex-factory 
port prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States, as 
appropriate. We made deductions from the starting price, where 
appropriate, for the following services which were provided by market 
economy suppliers: foreign brokerage and handling. We also deducted 
from the starting price, where appropriate, an amount for foreign 
inland freight. Because the foreign inland freight services were 
provided by PRC suppliers, we based the deduction on surrogate values 
from valued in Indonesia. We also deducted, where appropriate, 
discounts.
3. Gin Harvest
    We calculated EP based on packed, ex-factory or FOB Hong Kong port 
prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States, as appropriate. 
We made deductions from the starting price, where appropriate, for the 
following services: foreign inland freight and foreign brokerage and 
handling expenses. However, because these movement services were 
provided by PRC suppliers they were valued in

[[Page 43340]]

Indonesia. We also deducted discounts (for freight and brokerage 
charges).
4. Sam Choan
    We calculated EP based on packed, FOB Hong Kong port prices to 
unaffiliated purchasers in the United States, as appropriate. We made 
deductions from the starting price, where appropriate, for the 
following: foreign brokerage and handling expenses, which were provided 
by market economy carriers and paid for in market economy currencies. 
We also deducted an amount for foreign inland freight but since this 
service was provided by a PRC supplier, we valued this expense in 
Indonesia.
5. Tar Hong Xiamen
    We calculated EP and CEP based on packed, FOB PRC port or CIF U.S. 
port prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made 
deductions from the starting price, where appropriate, for discounts, 
foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling, ocean freight, 
marine insurance, U.S. duty, and U.S. movement expenses. For CEP sales, 
we made additional deductions for indirect selling expenses, inventory 
carrying expenses, commissions, and imputed credit expenses, and 
commissions incurred in the United States. We added an amount for CEP 
profit by applying the surrogate value profit rate to the sum of 
selling expenses incurred in the U.S. As foreign inland freight and 
foreign brokerage and handling expenses were incurred in the PRC, the 
expenses for these services were based on surrogate values. Because all 
other movement expenses were incurred by market-economy service 
providers and paid in market economy currencies, we based our 
deductions on the actual amounts reported.

Normal Value

A. Factors of Production

    In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, where appropriate, we 
calculated NV based on factors of production reported by the responding 
exporters. Where an input was sourced from a market economy and paid 
for in market economy currency, we used the actual price paid for the 
input to calculate the factors-based NV in accordance with our 
practice. See Lasko Metal Products v. United States, 437 F. 3d 1442, 
1443 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (``Lasko''). Where appropriate, we adjusted the 
reported market-economy prices for certain inputs to include an amount 
for a tax that the companies had not included in the reported unit 
prices; sample documents in the questionnaire responses indicated that 
each producer had paid this tax. In instances where inputs were sourced 
domestically, we valued the factors using published publicly available 
information from Indonesia. Reported unit factor quantities were 
multiplied by Indonesian values. From the available Indonesian 
surrogate values we selected the surrogate values based on the quality 
and contemporaneity of data. As appropriate, we adjusted input prices 
to make them delivered prices. For those values not contemporaneous 
with the POI, we adjusted for inflation using wholesale price indices 
published in the International Monetary Fund's International Financial 
Statistics. For a complete analysis of surrogate values, see the 
Valuation Memorandum, dated August 14, 1996. We then added amounts for 
overhead, general expenses, interest and profit, based on the 
experience of an MIDP producer in Indonesia, as well as for packing 
expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition packed and 
ready for shipment to the United States.

B. Multinational Rule

    As noted above, petitioner has alleged that section 773(d) of the 
Act, the special rule for multinational corporations, should be applied 
to Chen Hao Xiamen. The company did not respond to petitioner's 
allegation.
    The plain meaning of the MNC provision is that it applies, without 
exception, whenever, in any investigation under Title VII, the 
statutory criteria are met--regardless of whether the case involves a 
market or nonmarket economy. In addition, the history of the provision 
does not make any reference to general limitations on its 
applicability. Also, the specificity of the MNC rule indicates that, 
when its prerequisites have been satisfied, it controls the 
determination of normal value. See August 6, 1996, Memorandum from 
Jeffrey Bialos to Robert LaRussa Re: Use of Taiwanese Affiliate's 
Price/Cost Data for further discussion. Accordingly, the Department 
would appear to be obligated by law to examine whether the MNC criteria 
are satisfied and apply the MNC rule where such statutory criteria are 
met.
    For Chen Hao Xiamen, we have preliminarily determined that the 
record evidence supports a finding that the first criterion of the MNC 
provision (ownership of the production facilities in the exporting 
country by an entity with production facilities located in another 
country) has been met. The second criterion of the MNC provision 
(concerning viability of the PRC market) has been met, per se, because 
Chen Hao Xiamen, the PRC exporter, did not make any sales at all in the 
PRC market during the POI.
    In addition, the Department requested data to determine whether the 
third criterion was satisfied in regard to Chen Hao Xiamen. Hence, in 
addition to calculating NV using the factors of production methodology 
described above, we also calculated NV for Taiwan-produced merchandise 
(affiliated party NV) so that we could determine whether affiliated 
party NV exceeded PRC NV.
    In accordance with section 773(d)(3) of the Act, we compared the 
normal value calculated according to the factors of production 
methodology, net of packing, to the weighted-average Taiwan price for 
the most similar product, adjusting for the difference between the PRC 
cost of production as valued by the factors of production methodology, 
and the Taiwan cost of production. We defined cost of production as the 
sum of direct materials, direct labor, and fixed and variable overhead. 
In order to determine the most similar Taiwan product to the PRC-
produced product, we made product comparisons based on shape type (flat 
or container), specific shape, diameter, length, capacity, thickness, 
weight, design, and glazing. However, we did not compare products where 
the COM of the Taiwan product exceeded that of the PRC product by more 
than 20 percent as a percentage of the COM of the PRC product. We 
deducted Taiwan movement expenses in order to arrive at a net price 
equivalent to the PRC factors of production normal value.
    In addition, as a cost of production investigation has been 
initiated on Taiwan sales in the companion proceeding covering Melamine 
Institutional Dinnerware Products from Taiwan (``MIDPs from Taiwan'') 
investigation, we compared Taiwan prices to the Taiwan cost of 
production, according to the methodology discussed in our concurrent 
preliminary determination of MIDPs from Taiwan. Where Taiwan prices 
were below COP, we compared the factors of production in the PRC to COP 
in Taiwan.
    We found the affiliated party NV (price or COP, as appropriate) 
exceeded the PRC NV for a substantial majority of the sales based both 
on the number and quantity of sales involved. Therefore, in accordance 
with section 773(d) of the statute, we determined that affiliated party 
NVs should be used to calculate the dumping margin for Chen Hao Xiamen. 
We added to NV an amount for packing for shipment to the United

[[Page 43341]]

States, based on the PRC factors of production, as valued in a 
surrogate country, in accordance with section 773(d)(3) of the Act.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we will verify the 
information used in making our final determination.

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(d) of the Act, we are directing the 
Customs Service to suspend liquidation of all entries of MIDPs from the 
PRC--except those exported by Dongguan, Gin Harvest, Sam Choan, and 
Tar-Hong Xiamen--that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the 
Federal Register. The Customs Service will require a cash deposit or 
posting of a bond equal to the estimated dumping margins by which the 
NV exceeds the EP, as shown below. These suspension of liquidation 
instructions will remain in effect until further notice.
    The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Manufacturer/producer/exporter    Weighted-average, margin percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chen Hao Xiamen....................  10.49                              
Dongguan...........................  0.43 (de minimis).                 
Gin Harvest........................  0.29 (de minimis).                 
Sam Choan..........................  0.01 (de minimis).                 
Tar Hong Xiamen....................  0.02 (de minimis).                 
PRC-Wide Rate......................  10.49                              
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The PRC-Wide rate applies to all entries of subject merchandise 
except for entries from exporters/factories that are identified 
individually above.

ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the 
ITC of our determination. If our final determination is affirmative, 
the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of 
this preliminary determination or 45 days after our final determination 
whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material 
injury to, the U.S. industry.

Public Comment

    In accordance with 19 CFR 353.38, case briefs or other written 
comments in at least ten copies must be submitted to the Assistant 
Secretary for Import Administration no later than November 26, 1996, 
and rebuttal briefs, no later than December 4, 1996. A list of 
authorities used and a summary of arguments made in the briefs should 
accompany these briefs. Such summary should be limited to five pages 
total, including footnotes. We will hold a public hearing, if 
requested, to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on 
arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs. At this time, the hearing 
is scheduled for December 6, 1996, at 10:00 a.m. in Room 1412 at the 
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20230. Parties should confirm by telephone the time, 
date, and place of the hearing 48 hours before the scheduled time.
    Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate 
if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant 
Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 
B-099, within ten days of the publication of this notice. Requests 
should contain: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; 
(2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of the issues to be 
discussed. In accordance with 19 CFR 353.38(b) oral presentations will 
be limited to issues raised in the briefs. If this investigation 
proceeds normally, we will make our final determination 135 days after 
publication of this notice in the Federal Register.
    This determination is published pursuant to section 733(f) of the 
Act.

    Dated: August 14, 1996.
Jeffrey P. Bialos,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-21464 Filed 8-21-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P