[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 170 (Friday, August 30, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45937-45941]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-22237]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-122-047]


Elemental Sulphur From Canada; Preliminary Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Reviews

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

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of antidumping duty 
administrative reviews.

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

SUMMARY: In response to requests by respondents and a U.S. producer, 
the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting two 
administrative reviews of the antidumping finding on elemental sulphur 
from Canada. The reviews cover the periods December 1, 1992 through 
November 30, 1993, and December 1, 1993 through November 30, 1994.
    As a result of the reviews, we have preliminarily determined that 
sales have been made below foreign market value (FMV). If these 
preliminary results are adopted in our final results of administrative 
reviews, we will instruct U.S. Customs to assess antidumping duties 
equal to the difference between United States price (USP) and FMV.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results. Parties who submit argument in these proceedings are requested 
to submit with each argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a 
brief summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 29, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karin Price or Maureen Flannery, 
Office of Antidumping Compliance, Import Administration, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 
482-4733.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On December 17, 1973, the Department of the Treasury published in 
the Federal Register (38 FR 34655) the antidumping finding on elemental 
sulphur from Canada. On November 26, 1993 and December 6, 1994, the 
Department published in the Federal Register notices of opportunity to 
request an administrative review of this antidumping finding for the 
periods December 1, 1992 through November 30, 1993 (58 FR 62326), and 
December 1, 1993 through November 30, 1994 (59 FR 62710), respectively.
    With respect to the 1992/1993 administrative review, on December 
30, 1993, Pennzoil Sulphur Company (Pennzoil), a domestic producer of 
elemental sulphur, requested that we conduct an administrative review 
of Alberta Energy Co., Ltd. (Alberta), Allied-Signal Inc. (Allied), 
Brimstone Export (Brimstone), Burza Resources (Burza), Fanchem, Husky 
Oil Ltd. (Husky), Mobil Oil Canada, Ltd. (Mobil), Norcen Energy 
Resources (Norcen), Petrosul International (Petrosul), Saratoga 
Processing Co., Ltd. (Saratoga), and Sulbow Minerals (Sulbow). On 
December 21, 1993, Petrosul requested revocation of the finding with 
respect to itself. The review was initiated on January 18, 1994 (59 FR 
2593).
    With respect to the 1993/1994 administrative review, on December 
29, 1994, Pennzoil requested that we conduct an administrative review 
of Alberta, Husky, Mobil, Norcen, and Petrosul. On December 28, 1994, 
Petrosul requested revocation of the finding with respect to itself, 
and, on December 30, 1994, Mobil requested an administrative review of 
its sales. The review was initiated on January 13, 1995 (60 FR 3193).
    The Department is conducting these reviews in accordance with 
section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

Scope of the Review

    Imports covered by these reviews are shipments of elemental sulphur 
from Canada. This merchandise is classifiable under Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule (HTS) subheadings 2503.10.00, 2503.90.00, and 2802.00.00. 
Although the HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and for U.S. 
Customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this finding 
remains dispositive.
    The periods of review are December 1, 1992 through November 30, 
1993, and December 1, 1993 through November 30, 1994. The 1992/1993 
review covers eleven companies, and the 1993/1994 review covers five 
companies.

Applicable Statute and Regulations

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute and to the 
Department's regulations are references to the provisions as they 
existed on December 31, 1994. Pursuant to section 291(a)(2)(B) of the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), the provisions of that Act apply 
only to reviews requested on or after January 1, 1995. Thus, although 
the 1993/1994 review was initiated after the effective date of the 
amendments pursuant to the URAA, those provisions do not apply to this 
review.

Verification

    As provided in section 776(b) of the Act, we conducted verification 
of the sales information provided by Mobil in the 1992/1993 
administrative review. We conducted the verification using standard 
verification procedures, including onsite inspection of the 
manufacturer's facilities, the examination of relevant sales and 
financial records, and selection of original documentation containing 
relevant information. Our verification results are outlined in the 
public version of the verification report.

Best Information Available

    We preliminarily determine, in accordance with section 776(C) of 
the Act, that the use of best information available (BIA) is 
appropriate for Mobil in the 1992/1993 and the 1993/1994 administrative 
reviews, for Petrosul in the 1992/1993 and the 1993/1994 administrative 
reviews, for Norcen in the 1992/1993 administrative review, and for 
Allied, Brimstone, Burza, Fanchem, and Sulbow in the 1992/1993 
administrative review, and that the use of partial BIA is appropriate 
for Husky in the 1992/1993 and the 1993/1994 administrative reviews. 
Section 776(c) of the Act requires the Department to use BIA whenever a 
company refuses or is unable to produce information requested in a 
timely manner or in the form required, or otherwise significantly 
impedes an investigation.
    In deciding what to use as BIA, section 353.37(b) of the 
Department's regulations provide that the Department take into account 
whether a party refuses to provide requested information or impedes a 
proceeding. Prior Department practice has been to determine, on a case-
by-case basis, what constitutes BIA. When it is necessary to base a 
firm's antidumping margin completely on BIA, the Department uses a two-
tiered approach in its choice of BIA. When a company refuses to provide 
the information in the form required by the Department or otherwise 
significantly impedes the proceeding (first tier), the Department will 
normally assign to that company the higher of (1) the highest rate 
found for any firm in the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation or 
a prior administrative review, or (2) the highest rate found in the 
current review for any firm. When a company substantially cooperates 
with the Department's requests for

[[Page 45938]]

information but fails to provide the information requested in a timely 
manner or in the form required (second tier), the Department will 
normally assign to that company the higher of (1) the highest rate ever 
applicable to that company from either the LTFV investigation or a 
prior administrative review, or (2) the highest calculated rate in the 
current review for any respondent. See Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Reviews and Revocation in Part of An Antidumping 
Duty Order (Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) 
and Parts Thereof from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Romania, 
Singapore, Sweden, Thailand and the United Kingdom (58 FR 39729, 39739, 
July 26, 1993). The Department's use of a two-tiered methodology was 
upheld in Allied-Signal Aerospace Co. v. United States, 996 F.2d 1185 
(Fed. Cir. 1993).

A. Mobil

    In both administrative reviews, Pennzoil alleged that Mobil made 
sales in the comparison market at prices below the cost of production 
(COP). Based on these allegations, the Department found reasonable 
grounds to believe or suspect that Mobil's sales were below cost, and 
initiated cost investigations pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act in 
each review. In response to our requests for cost information, Mobil 
submitted cost questionnaire responses and supplemental cost 
questionnaire responses. However, we have determined that these cost 
responses cannot be used to calculate margins in either administrative 
review and have preliminarily determined that total BIA should be 
applied to Mobil. As Mobil has substantially cooperated with the 
Department in its requests for information, we have determined to apply 
second-tier BIA as described above to Mobil for the preliminary results 
of each review. For a further discussion of the Department's 
determination that second-tier BIA is appropriate for Mobil, see 
Decision Memorandum to Joseph A. Spetrini, Deputy Assistant Secretary 
for Compliance, dated June 4, 1996, ``Whether to Use Best Information 
Available for Husky Oil Ltd. and Mobil Oil Canada, Ltd. in the 1992/
1993 Administrative Review of Elemental Sulphur from Canada,'' and 
Decision Memorandum to Joseph A. Spetrini, Deputy Assistant Secretary 
for Compliance, dated June 4, 1996, ``Whether to Use Best Information 
Available for Husky Oil Ltd. and Mobil Oil Canada, Ltd. in the 1993/
1994 Administrative Review of Elemental Sulphur from Canada,'' which 
are on file in the Central Records Unit (room B-099 of the Main 
Commerce Building) (BIA memoranda). Accordingly, the rate assigned to 
Mobil for the 1992/1993 administrative review is 42.80 percent, the 
rate for Husky from that administrative review. The rate assigned to 
Mobil for the 1993/1994 administrative review is 11.79 percent, the 
rate for Husky from that administrative review. For purposes of the 
final results of review for the 1993/1994 period, we will consider 
final rates in the 1992/1993 administrative review in determining BIA 
for Mobil.

B. Petrosul

    Petrosul, a reseller of elemental sulphur, reported third-country 
sales in the 1992/1993 administrative review and home-market sales in 
the 1993/1994 administrative review. In both reviews, Pennzoil alleged 
that Petrosul made sales in the comparison market at prices below the 
COP. Based on these allegations, the Department found reasonable 
grounds to believe or suspect that Petrosul's sales were below cost, 
and initiated a cost investigation pursuant to section 773(b) of the 
Act in each review. The statute is concerned specifically with the COP 
of the merchandise, and Petrosul does not itself produce the elemental 
sulphur it sells. Department practice in such situations is to compare 
the production costs of the producer (Petrosul's suppliers/producers), 
plus the producer's selling, general, and administrative (SG&A) 
expenses, plus the SG&A expenses of the seller (Petrosul), to the 
seller's home-market/third-country sales to determine whether sales in 
the comparison market were made below the COP. See Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Fresh and Chilled Atlantic Salmon 
from Norway (56 FR 7661, February 25, 1991) and Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews: Oil Country Tubular Goods from 
Canada (56 FR 38408, August 13, 1991). Therefore, in each 
administrative review, the Department requested that Petrosul provide 
certain cost information, i.e., information regarding its own selling, 
general, and administrative expenses and profit, and a list of its 
suppliers of elemental sulphur.
    In the 1992/1993 administrative review, Petrosul did not respond to 
our request for its own cost data. In the 1993/1994 administrative 
review, Petrosul did not respond to our requests for its own cost data 
or for a list of its suppliers of elemental sulphur. We have thus 
preliminarily determined that Petrosul has not cooperated with the 
Department in its requests for information, and have determined to 
apply first-tier BIA as described above to Petrosul for the preliminary 
results of each review. Accordingly, the rate assigned to Petrosul for 
the 1992/1993 administrative review is 42.80 percent, the rate for 
Husky from that administrative review. The rate assigned to Petrosul 
for the 1993/1994 administrative review is 28.90 percent, the highest 
final rate applicable to any company in this case, Timshel's rate from 
the 1986/1987 review of this finding. See Elemental Sulphur from 
Canada; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and 
Revocation in Part (55 FR 13179, April 9, 1990). For purposes of the 
final results of review for the 1993/1994 period, we will consider 
final rates in the 1992/1993 administrative review in determining BIA 
for Petrosul.

C. Norcen

    In the course of the 1992/1993 administrative review, Norcen 
responded that its related company sold sulphur to a U.S. customer, but 
that the related company did not know whether the sulphur picked up by 
the U.S. customer at the plant gate in Canada ever entered the United 
States. Norcen further stated that the related company was never paid 
for the merchandise. The Department requested that Norcen respond to 
the questionnaire since the information on the record of the review 
indicates that these sales may constitute U.S. sales. Norcen responded 
that it declined to answer the questionnaire. Therefore, we have 
determined that Norcen has been uncooperative, and have assigned to 
Norcen the first-tier BIA rate of 42.80 percent, the rate for Husky 
from that administrative review and the highest rate applicable to any 
company in this case.

D. Allied, Brimstone, Burza, Fanchem, and Sulbow

    In the 1992/1993 administrative review, Allied, Brimstone, Burza, 
Fanchem, and Sulbow did not respond to the questionnaire. Therefore, we 
have determined that these companies have been uncooperative, and have 
assigned to them the first-tier BIA rate of 42.80 percent, the rate for 
Husky from that administrative review and the highest rate applicable 
to any company in this case.

E. Husky

    We have determined that the use of partial BIA is appropriate for 
Husky for the 1992/1993 and the 1993/1994 administrative reviews (see 
BIA

[[Page 45939]]

memoranda). As discussed in the BIA memoranda, in addition to other 
deficiencies in its responses, Husky did not comply with the 
Department's request that it report costs for all facilities accounting 
for at least 90 percent of its production volume in either review, and, 
in the 1992/1993 review, did not report cost-of-manufacturing data for 
its U.S. sales of powdered sulphur, as requested. However, since we are 
able to calculate a margin for Husky in each review using data which 
Husky has provided, we have determined that partial BIA is appropriate. 
Accordingly, we have used Husky data as partial BIA for the missing 
data. For the facility for which no sulphur costs were reported, we 
used the highest cost of manufacturing calculated for any facility for 
which costs were reported and the production volume of the facility for 
which costs were not reported to calculate the weighted-average cost of 
manufacturing. We have assigned, as BIA for each of Husky's sales of 
powdered sulphur in the 1992/1993 review, the highest weighted-average 
margin in that review, calculated on the basis of Husky's sales of 
liquid and formed sulphur.

United States Price

    For both administrative reviews, the Department has based USP for 
Husky on purchase price, in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, 
because the merchandise was sold to unrelated U.S. purchasers prior to 
importation. We calculated purchase price based on f.o.b. plant or 
delivered prices to unrelated customers. We made adjustments, where 
applicable, for discounts, brokerage and handling, foreign inland 
freight, tank car expenses, and U.S. duties, in accordance with section 
772(d)(2) of the Act. In addition, when U.S. sales were compared to 
home-market sales, we adjusted USP for the Canadian Goods and Services 
Tax (GST), in accordance with our practice outlined in the following 
section on Value Added Tax. No other adjustments were claimed or 
allowed.

Value Added Tax

    In light of the Federal Circuit's decision in Federal Mogul v. 
United States, CAFC No. 94-1097, the Department has changed its 
treatment of home market consumption taxes. Where merchandise exported 
to the United States is exempt from the consumption tax, the Department 
will add to USP the absolute amount of such taxes charged on the 
comparison sales in the home market. This is the same methodology that 
the Department adopted following the decision of the Federal Circuit in 
Zenith v. United States, 988 F. 2d 1573, 1582 (1993), and which was 
suggested by that court in footnote 4 of its decision. The Court of 
International Trade (CIT) overturned this methodology in Federal Mogul 
v. United States, 834 F. Supp. 1391 (1993), and the Department 
acquiesced in the CIT's decision. The Department then followed the 
CIT's preferred methodology, which was to calculate the tax to be added 
to USP by multiplying the adjusted USP by the foreign market tax rate; 
the Department made adjustments to this amount so that the tax 
adjustment would not alter a ``zero'' pre-tax dumping assessment.
    The foreign exporters in the Federal Mogul case, however, appealed 
that decision to the Federal Circuit, which reversed the CIT and held 
that the statute did not preclude the Department from using the 
``Zenith footnote 4'' methodology to calculate tax-neutral dumping 
assessments (i.e., assessments that are unaffected by the existence or 
amount of home market consumption taxes). Moreover, the Federal Circuit 
recognized that certain international agreements of the United States, 
in particular the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the 
Tokyo Round Antidumping Code, required the calculation of tax-neutral 
dumping assessments. The Federal Circuit remanded the case to the CIT 
with instructions to direct the Department to determine which tax 
methodology it will employ.
    The Department has determined that the ``Zenith footnote 4'' 
methodology should be used. First, as the Department has explained in 
numerous administrative determinations and court filings over the past 
decade, and as the Federal Circuit has now recognized, Article VI of 
the GATT and Article 2 of the Tokyo Round Antidumping Code required 
that dumping assessments be tax-neutral. This requirement continues 
under the new Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General 
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Second, the URAA explicitly amended the 
antidumping law to remove consumption taxes from the home market price 
and to eliminate the addition of taxes to USP, so that no consumption 
tax is included in the price in either market. The Statement of 
Administrative Action (p. 159) explicitly states that this change was 
intended to result in tax neutrality.
    While the ``Zenith footnote 4'' methodology is slightly different 
from the URAA methodology, in that section 772(d)(1)(C) of the pre-URAA 
law required that the tax be added to USP rather than subtracted from 
home-market price, it does result in tax-neutral duty assessments. In 
sum, the Department has elected to treat consumption taxes in a manner 
consistent with its longstanding policy of tax-neutrality and with the 
GATT.

Foreign Market Value

    Based on a comparison of the volume of home-market sales to third-
country sales, we determined that Husky's home market was viable during 
each period of review. Therefore, in accordance with section 
773(a)(1)(A) of the Act, we based FMV on f.o.b. plant and delivered 
prices to unrelated purchasers in the home market.
    During the course of each administrative review, Pennzoil alleged 
that Husky made home-market sales of elemental sulphur at prices below 
its COP. Based on these allegations, the Department determined that it 
had reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that Husky had sold the 
subject merchandise in the home market at prices below the COP. We 
therefore initiated cost investigations in each administrative review, 
in accordance with section 773(b) of the Act, and investigated whether 
Husky sold such or similar merchandise in the home market at prices 
below the COP. In accordance with 19 CFR 353.51(c), we calculated COP 
for Husky as the sum of costs of materials, labor, factory overhead, 
and general expenses, and compared COP to home-market prices net of 
movement expenses.
    In accordance with section 773(b) of the Act, in determining 
whether to disregard home-market sales made at prices below the COP, we 
examined whether such sales were made in substantial quantities over an 
extended period of time, and whether such sales were made at prices 
which permitted recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of 
time in the normal course of trade. To satisfy the requirement of 
section 773(b)(1) that below-cost sales be disregarded only if made in 
substantial quantities, we applied the following methodology. For each 
model for which less than 10 percent, by quantity, of the home-market 
sales during the period of review were made at prices below the COP, we 
included all sales of that model in the computation of FMV. For each 
model for which 10 percent or more, but less than 90 percent, of the 
home-market sales during the period of review were priced below the COP 
of the merchandise, we excluded from the calculation of FMV those home-
market sales which were priced below the COP, provided that they were 
made over an extended period of time. For each model

[[Page 45940]]

for which 90 percent or more of the home-market sales during the period 
of review were priced below the COP and were made over an extended 
period of time, we disregarded all sales of that model in our 
calculation and, in accordance with section 773(b) of the Act, we used 
the constructed value (CV) of those models, as described below. See, 
e.g., Mechanical Transfer Presses from Japan; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review (59 FR 9958, March 2, 1994).
    In accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act, to determine 
whether sales below cost had been made over an extended period of time, 
we compared the number of months in which sales below cost occurred for 
a particular model to the number of months in which that model was 
sold. If the model was sold in fewer than three months, we did not 
disregard below-cost sales unless there were below-cost sales of that 
model in each month sold. If a model was sold in three or more months, 
we did not disregard below-cost sales unless there were sales below 
cost in at least three of the months in which the model was sold. We 
used CV as the basis for FMV when an insufficient number of home-market 
sales were made at prices above COP. See Tapered Roller Bearings and 
Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from Japan and Tapered Roller 
Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components 
Thereof, from Japan; Final results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Reviews (58 FR 64720, December 8, 1993).
    Because Husky provided no indication that its below-cost sales of 
models within the ``greater than 90 percent'' and the ``between 10 and 
90 percent'' categories were at prices that would permit recovery of 
all costs within a reasonable period of time and in the normal course 
of trade, we disregarded those sales within the ``10 to 90 percent'' 
category which were made below cost over an extended period of time. In 
addition, as a result of our COP test for home-market sales of models 
within the ``greater than 90 percent'' category, we based FMV on CV for 
all U.S. sales for which there were insufficient sales of the 
comparison home-market model at or above COP. Finally, where we found, 
for certain of Husky's models, home-market sales for which less than 10 
percent were made below COP, we used all home-market sales of those 
models in our comparisons.
    In accordance with section 773 of the Act, for those U.S. models 
for which we were able to find a home-market such or similar match that 
had sufficient above-cost sales, we calculated FMV based on f.o.b. or 
delivered prices to unrelated purchasers in the home market. We made 
adjustments, where applicable, for inland freight, tank car expenses, 
credit expenses, royalty expenses, Canadian GST, differences in the 
physical characteristics of the merchandise, and differences in 
packing. We also added to FMV U.S. credit expenses and royalty 
expenses, as appropriate.
    In accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, CV includes the costs 
of materials and fabrication, general expenses, profit, and, where 
relevant, packing for shipment to the United States. We used Husky's 
home-market selling expenses pursuant to section 773(e)(1)(B) of the 
Act. We used Husky's actual general expenses as they were greater than 
the statutory minimum of ten percent of COM but applied the statutory 
eight percent for profit. Where appropriate, we made circumstance-of-
sale adjustments for differences in credit and royalty expenses. No 
other adjustments were claimed or allowed.

Non-Shippers

    Based on the information on the record, the Department has 
determined that Alberta and Saratoga had no shipments to the United 
States during the period December 1, 1992 through November 30, 1993, 
and that Alberta and Norcen had no shipments to the United States 
during the period December 1, 1993 through November 30, 1994. As a 
result, the rates assigned to these companies for these review periods 
are their rates from the immediately preceding administrative review. 
Therefore, for Alberta, which had no shipments during the 
administrative review covering the period December 1, 1991 through 
November 30, 1992 and which has no individual rate from any segment of 
the case, the rate for both of these reviews continues to be the ``All 
Others'' rate of 5.56 percent, the ``new shipper'' rate established in 
the first review conducted by the Department in which a ``new shipper'' 
rate was established (see Elemental Sulphur from Canada; Final Results 
of Antidumping Finding Administrative Review (61 FR 8239, March 4, 
1996) (Sulphur Final)). For Norcen, whose rate for the 1991/1992 
administrative review was the ``All Others'' rate of 5.56 percent (see 
Sulphur Final), the rate for the 1993/1994 review is 5.56 percent, its 
rate from the 1991/1992 review. For purposes of the final results of 
review for the 1993/1994 period, we will consider Norcen's final rate 
in the 1992/1993 administrative review in determining the appropriate 
rate for Norcen. For Saratoga, whose most recent rate was determined in 
the 1991/1992 administrative review (see Sulphur Final), the rate for 
the 1992/1993 review is 28.90 percent, which is its rate from the 1991/
1992 review.

Preliminary Results of the Reviews

    As a result of our reviews, we preliminarily determine that the 
following margins exist for the periods December 1, 1992 through 
November 30, 1993, and December 1, 1993 through November 30, 1994:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Margin \5\
         Manufacturer/exporter               Time period      (percent) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alberta Energy Co., Ltd................    12/1/92-11/30/93     \1\ 5.56
                                           12/1/93-11/30/94     \1\ 5.56
Allied-Signal Inc......................    12/1/92-11/30/93    \2\ 42.80
Brimstone Export.......................    12/1/92-11/30/93    \2\ 42.80
Burza Resources........................    12/1/92-11/30/93    \2\ 42.80
Fanchem................................    12/1/92-11/30/93    \2\ 42.80
Husky Oil Ltd..........................    12/1/92-11/30/93        42.80
                                           12/1/93-11/30/94        11.79
Mobil Oil Canada, Ltd..................    12/1/92-11/30/93    \3\ 42.80
                                           12/1/93-11/30/94    \3\ 11.79
Norcen Energy Resources................    12/1/92-11/30/93    \2\ 42.80
                                           12/1/93-11/30/94     \4\ 5.56
Petrosul International.................    12/1/92-11/30/93    \2\ 42.80
                                           12/1/93-11/30/94    \2\ 28.90
Saratoga Processing Co., Ltd...........    12/1/92-11/30/93    \4\ 28.90

[[Page 45941]]

                                                                        
Sulbow Minerals........................    12/1/92-11/30/93    \2\ 42.80
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ No shipments or sales subject to this review. The firm has no       
  individual rate from any segment of this proceeding. As a result, the 
  firm will be subject to the ``all others'' rate.                      
\2\ Non-cooperative total BIA rate.                                     
\3\ Cooperative total BIA rate.                                         
\4\ No shipments to the United States during the period of review. Rate 
  is the rate established during the immediately preceding              
  administrative review.                                                
\5\ Both the cooperative and the non-cooperative BIA rates may change   
  for the final review results, if Husky's rates change for the final   
  results.                                                              

    Parties to these reviews may request disclosure within 5 days of 
the date of publication of this notice. Interested parties may request 
a hearing within 10 ten days of the date of publication. Any hearing, 
if requested, will be held not later than 44 days after the date of 
publication or the first workday thereafter. Case briefs from 
interested parties may be submitted not later than 30 days after the 
date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, which must be 
limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later 
than 37 days after the date of publication of this notice. The 
Department will publish the final results of these administrative 
reviews, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any 
such written comments.
    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 percentages stated 
above. Upon completion of the reviews, the Department will issue 
appraisement instructions directly to the U.S. Customs Service.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective 
for all shipments of elemental sulphur, entered or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the 
final results of these administrative reviews, as provided by section 
751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for the reviewed 
companies will be those rates established in the final results of the 
most recent review in which the company was involved; (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 either of these reviews, 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) if neither the exporter nor the 
manufacturer is a firm covered in these or any previous review, or the 
LTFV investigation, the cash deposit rate will be the ``new shipper'' 
rate of 5.56 percent established in the first review conducted by the 
Department in which a ``new shipper'' rate was established (see Sulphur 
Final). These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in 
effect until publication of the final results of the next 
administrative review.
    This notice also serves as a preliminary 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.
    These administrative reviews and notice are in accordance with 
section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 353.22.

    Dated: August 22, 1996.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-22237 Filed 8-29-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P