[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 222 (Friday, November 15, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58519-58523]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-29243]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-570-808]


Chrome-Plated Lug Nuts From the People's Republic of China; Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

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

ACTION: Notice of final results of antidumping administrative review.

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

SUMMARY: On July 9, 1996, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published in the Federal Register the preliminary results of its 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on chrome-plated 
lug nuts (lug nuts) from the People's Republic of China (PRC) (61 FR 
36025). This review covers shipments of this merchandise to the United 
States during the period September 1, 1994 through August 31, 1995. We 
gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on our preliminary 
results. Based upon our analysis of the comments received we have 
changed the results from those presented in the preliminary results of 
review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 15, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tamara Underwood (202-482-0197), 
Elisabeth Urfer (202-482-4052), or Maureen Flannery (202-482-4733), 
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20230.

Applicable Statute and Regulations

    Unless otherwise stated, all citations to the statute are 
references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective 
date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act) by the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise 
stated, all citations to the Department's regulations are references to 
the regulations as amended by the interim regulations published in the 
Federal Register on May 11, 1995 (60 FR 25130).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Department published in the Federal Register an antidumping 
duty order on lug nuts from the PRC on April 24, 1992 (57 FR 15052). On 
September 12, 1995, the Department published in the Federal Register 
(60 FR 47349) a notice of opportunity to request an administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on lug nuts from the PRC covering 
the period September 1, 1994, through August 31, 1995.
    On September 28, 1995, in accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(a), 
Consolidated International Automotive Inc. (Consolidated) requested 
that we conduct an administrative review of China National Automotive 
Industry I/E Corp. (China National); China National Machinery & 
Equipment Import and Export Corporation, Jiangsu Co., Ltd. (Jiangsu); 
Jiangsu Rudong Grease Gun Factory (Rudong); China National Automotive 
Industry I/E Corp., Nantong Branch (Nantong); China National Automotive 
Industry Shanghai Automobile Import & Export Corp. (Shanghai 
Automobile); Tianjin Automotive Import & Export Co. (Tianjin); China 
National Automobile Import and Export Corp., Yangzhou Branch 
(Yangzhou); and Ningbo Knives

[[Page 58520]]

& Scissors Factory (Ningbo). We published a notice of initiation of 
this antidumping duty administrative review on October 12, 1995 (60 FR 
53165).
    On July 9, 1996, the Department published in the Federal Register 
the preliminary results of its administrative review of the antidumping 
duty order on lug nuts from the PRC (61 FR 36025). There was no request 
for a hearing. The Department has now completed this review in 
accordance with section 751 of the Act.

Scope of Review

    On April 19, 1994, the Department issued its ``Final Scope 
Clarifications on Chrome-Plated Lug Nuts from Taiwan and the PRC.'' The 
scope, as clarified, is described in the subsequent paragraph. All lug 
nuts covered by this review conform to the April 19, 1994 scope 
clarification.
    Imports covered by this review are one-piece and two-piece chrome-
plated lug nuts, finished or unfinished. The subject merchandise 
includes chrome-plated lug nuts, finished or unfinished, which are more 
than \11/16\ inches (17.45 millimeters) in height and which have a 
hexagonal (hx) size of at least \3/4\ inches (19.05 millimeters) but 
not over one inch (25.4 millimeters), plus or minus \1/16\ of an inch 
(1.59 millimeters). The term ``unfinished'' refers to unplated and/or 
unassembled chrome-plated lug nuts. The subject merchandise is used for 
securing wheels to cars, vans, trucks, utility vehicles, and trailers. 
Zinc-plated lug nuts, finished or unfinished, and stainless-steel 
capped lug nuts are not included in the scope of this review. Chrome-
plated lock nuts are also not subject to this review.
    Chrome-plated lug nuts are currently classified under subheadings 
7318.16.00.15, 7318.16.00.45, and 7318.16.00.80 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule (HTS). Although the HTS subheading is provided for 
convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope 
of this proceeding is dispositive.
    This review covers the period September 1, 1994 through August 31, 
1995.

Analysis of Comments Received

    We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the 
preliminary results. We received case briefs from petitioner and 
Rudong. We received a rebuttal brief from Rudong.
    Comment 1: Petitioner concurs with the Department's decision to use 
facts available (FA) for firms that refused to cooperate in the review. 
Petitioner argues that, where the Department must base the entire 
dumping margin for a respondent in an administrative review on the 
facts available for failure to cooperate, section 776(b) of the Act 
authorizes the Department to use an inference adverse to the interests 
of the respondent in choosing FA.
    For the seven non-responding firms, petitioner contends that the 
Department should continue to apply the highest antidumping duty rate 
from any prior segment of the proceeding, 44.99 percent, based upon the 
final results of the second administrative review (1992-1993).
    Department's Position: We agree with petitioner. In accordance with 
Section 776 of the Act, we have for these final results continued to 
use FA for Nantong, Yangzhou, Ningbo, Jiangsu, China National, Tianjin, 
and Shanghai Automobile. These firms did not respond to the 
Department's antidumping questionnaire. (See Chrome-Plated Lug Nuts 
From The People's Republic of China; Preliminary Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, July 9, 1996 (61 FR 36025).) Accordingly, 
we have continued to use adverse FA for these firms for the final 
results.
    Comment 2: Petitioner asserts that the Department appropriately 
determined that the PRC lug nut industry was not a market-oriented 
industry (MOI) and properly applied factors of production to determine 
Rudong's normal value (NV). Petitioner contends that, although the 
Department assigned Rudong a separate rate based on lack of government 
control of its operations, this does not mean that the entire PRC lug 
nut industry is market-oriented. Petitioner cites the criteria applied 
in the Department's determination in Sulfur Dyes from China, Final 
Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value (58 FR 7537) (February 
8, 1993):

    (1) There must be virtually no involvement by the government in 
setting prices or amounts to be produced of the merchandise under 
investigation.
    (2) The industry producing the merchandise under investigation 
should be characterized by private or collective ownership. There 
may be state-owned enterprises in the industry, but substantial 
state ownership weighs against a finding of market-oriented 
industry.
    (3) Market-determined prices must be paid for all significant 
inputs, whether material or non-material, and for an all but 
insignificant portion of all the inputs accounting for the total 
value of the merchandise under investigation.

    Petitioner maintains that, although Rudong asserts that it is the 
only PRC producer of lug nuts, it failed to provide objective 
corroboration of this claim. Petitioner further maintains that the 
Department's attempts to obtain further information on this point have 
been frustrated by lack of response from both the PRC government and 
the Chinese Chamber of Commerce for Imports & Exports of Machinery & 
Electronics (China Chamber). Petitioner claims that, in spite of its 
efforts, the Department has been unable to determine whether there are 
additional PRC producers of lug nuts. Petitioner argues that it is 
insufficient for the Department to rely upon Rudong's response alone to 
determine that it is an MOI. Petitioner contends that the Department 
must be certain that it has obtained responses from all PRC producers 
before determining whether the PRC industry is market-oriented.
    Petitioner further argues that, before an industry is considered 
``market oriented,'' it must demonstrate that it pays market-determined 
prices for all significant inputs and for all but an insignificant 
portion of all the inputs accounting for the total value of the 
merchandise under review. Petitioner states that, although Rudong 
claims its suppliers pay market-determined prices for all inputs, 
Rudong failed to produce information that would allow evaluation of 
this claim. Petitioner also contends that statements from Rudong's 
suppliers regarding the absence of government control over their 
industry are unsupported and unverified. Petitioner maintains that the 
suppliers of water and electricity to Rudong are ``All People-owned'' 
and the information supplied by Rudong on vendor ownership is 
contradictory.
    Petitioner contends that Rudong's submission does not address the 
overarching question of the status of the Chinese steel and chemical 
industries. Petitioner argues that, regardless of purported 
``independence'' of Rudong's suppliers, the Department properly 
recognized that the industries supplying materials must be market-
driven. Petitioner further argues that Rudong has not provided any 
information concerning the steel and chemical industries nor evidence 
that costs for raw materials are not distorted by government control in 
the steel and chemical industries.
    Rudong disagrees with petitioner regarding Rudong's MOI claim. 
Rudong argues that petitioner's argument ignores Rudong's repeated 
statements, certified and on the record, that, to its knowledge, it is 
the only producer of lug nuts in the PRC. Rudong asserts that the 
Chinese government would be able to certify this only if the government 
controlled the lug nut industry. Rudong maintains that the Department 
incorrectly presumes that other

[[Page 58521]]

producers exist because Rudong supplied no evidence to the contrary. 
Rudong argues that the petitioner failed to produce evidence that any 
other lug nut producers exist in the PRC.
    Rudong argues that statements, certified and on record, from its 
suppliers corroborate the absence of government control and provide 
varying input prices that are sufficient evidence that Rudong purchases 
its inputs at market prices. Rudong claims that input prices vary from 
order to order and from supplier to supplier and that it has put on the 
record certified statements from suppliers that they are free from 
government control and interference. Rudong asserts that only unrelated 
sectors of the steel industry are government controlled. Rudong 
contends that it does not know what else it can provide to prove the 
negative.
    Department's Position: Rudong submitted with its January 25, 1996 
questionnaire response a request that we treat the lug nuts industry as 
an MOI. Rudong claims that it acquires material inputs at market prices 
and that, accordingly, we should find that the Chinese lug nuts 
industry is an MOI and use Rudong's home market sales and/or costs as 
the basis of NV.
    Rudong's support of this argument is focused narrowly on 
certificates provided by its suppliers stating that they are free of 
government control; however, even if Rudong's suppliers are free of 
government control, this would not prove absence of government control 
in the suppliers' industries. We concluded in the Amendment to Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Amendment to 
Antidumping Duty Order: Chrome-plated Lug Nuts from the People's 
Republic of China, 57 FR 15052 (April 24, 1992) (Amended Final) that 
such a narrow focus on Rudong's suppliers is not sufficient for 
determining that an industry was an MOI. We stated:

    The absence of explicit government involvement in these 
transactions is not sufficient to warrant the conclusion that the 
prices for these inputs are market-driven. Instead, it is necessary 
to examine whether market forces are at work in determining the 
steel and chemical prices in general within the PRC. For example, it 
may be the case that the state purchases large quantities of the 
input in question. Where this is so, it is reasonable to assume that 
the state's purchases affect the quantity available to non-state 
consumers and the prices they would pay. Also, where the state owns 
many of the input producers and where the input is an important 
commodity fundamental to the operation of the larger economy, it is 
not at all clear that the pricing and production of those input 
producers would mirror those of privately-owned, profit maximizing 
enterprises.
    For the [sic] reasons, it is necessary to look beyond direct 
state involvement in the specific transactions between the 
manufacturer under investigation and its suppliers to ascertain 
whether market forces are actually at work in determining the input 
prices.

Amended Final, 15053. For this administrative review, Rudong has not 
demonstrated that there have been any changes to the industries from 
which it sources its materials that would compel us to reconsider the 
determination we made in the Amended Final. In addition, Rudong has 
argued that there have been only small quantities of government 
purchases in unrelated sectors of the steel industry, but has not put 
any information on the record to support this point.
    We agree with petitioner's contention that the record lacks 
objective corroboration of Rudong's claim that it is the only PRC 
producer of lug nuts. We disagree with Rudong's deduction that the lack 
of response from the PRC government is indicative of the lack of 
government control in the industry. We do not know why the government 
failed to respond to our request for information.
    Based on the foregoing, we determine the lug nuts industry in the 
PRC is not an MOI for this review.
    Comment 3: Petitioner supports the Department's use of India as the 
surrogate market economy country to determine valuation in the factors 
of production. Petitioner submits that India meets both statutory 
criteria: India is at a level of economic development comparable to 
that of the PRC, and India has significant production of lug nuts. 
Petitioner also supports the use of India as the surrogate country 
because there is a full set of surrogate data available to value 
factors of production. This eliminates the need to obtain and use 
valuation data from multiple surrogate countries.
    Department's Position: Except for our valuation of the steel wire 
rod (see Comment 4 below), we have continued to rely on India as a 
surrogate country for factor valuation because India is at a level of 
economic development comparable to that of the PRC and has significant 
production of lug nuts.
    Comment 4: Rudong objects to the Department's use of steel prices 
from the Government of India import statistics, stating that these 
prices are more than twice as high as all other available data, 
especially in light of the requirements for corroboration in the URAA, 
and that they should be changed for the final results.
    Rudong alleges that the factor value for steel should be based on 
Indian market prices for steel wire rod published in Steel Scenario. 
Rudong contends that Steel Scenario is a reputable professional journal 
which publishes actual market prices in India. Rudong argues that 
prices from Steel Scenario are corroborated by their general agreement 
with the prices listed in other sources, while the surrogate prices 
chosen by the Department are completely out of line with any other 
source. Rudong maintains that prices from Steel Scenario are for a 
period contemporaneous to the period of review (POR), whereas 
Government of India import statistics are from a different period, and 
must be adjusted by a potentially distortive inflation factor. 
Additionally, Rudong states that Steel Scenario reports prices for the 
same input product as Rudong uses to produce lug nuts, whereas the 
import statistics are for a ``basket'' category. Rudong asserts that 
Steel Scenario reports actual market data collected by professionals 
knowledgeable in the industry and in the market; import statistics, 
Rudong claims, depend upon product classifications by the importer who 
may be guided more by the import duty level than the product 
characteristics. Finally, Rudong argues that Steel Scenario prices are 
the best information regarding such factors in the market economy 
country because they are actual market values in India, while, by 
contrast, import statistics reflect the customs value of imported 
merchandise.
    Rudong asserts that the Department's choice of import statistics 
results in landed, duty-paid steel prices in India--a relatively poor 
developing country--that are not only over 100% higher than the free-
market prices paid by Rudong, but also over 100% higher than the 
corresponding prices in the United States, a wealthy developed country. 
Rudong claims that there is no other available steel price anywhere 
that approaches the extraordinarily inflated surrogate prices imputed 
by the Department. Rudong suggests the Department use the Indian market 
prices listed in Steel Scenario because the prices are in the same 
range as those prices paid by Rudong and reflect the prevailing market 
prices for the exact months of the period under review.
    Rudong states that the Department's surrogate number does not agree 
with any of the other available data by a wide margin. Rudong contends 
that this may be because the Department incorrectly used surrogate 
steel prices from a somewhat arbitrary ``basket'' HTS category 
comprising ``other'' bars and rods. Rudong argues that the steel 
included in this basket may be a special

[[Page 58522]]

and more expensive type used for particular purposes and not relevant 
to this case. Also, Rudong contends, the Department's surrogate prices 
may not agree with other available data due to simple misclassification 
under the HTS. Rudong argues that, in significant part, import 
statistics measure only the HTS category chosen by importers to 
classify merchandise and are therefore, not a precise measure. Rudong 
argues that, whatever the source of distortion, the import statistics 
are not an appropriate measure of the price of steel used by Rudong, 
and should not be used by the Department in the final results.
    Rudong contends that the only potential distortion risked by using 
Steel Scenario is that prices therein include excise and sales taxes, 
and therefore may be overstated. Rudong argues that this distortion can 
be adjusted for by adjusting the price downwards. Rudong argues that 
the Department routinely adjusts for this tax factor when it uses 
prices published in Chemical Weekly, and cites, as an example, a 
memorandum to the file from the ``Bicycles Team'': ``Final 
Determination in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Bicycles from 
the People's Republic of China: Factors Valuation'' (initialed April 
22, 1996). Rudong maintains that even using unadjusted, overvalued 
steel prices from Steel Scenario would be more reasonable than using 
Indian import statistics.
    Petitioner contends that the Department should rely on the same 
surrogate values from Indian import statistics for valuing raw 
materials and packing costs that were used in the preliminary results. 
Petitioner states that the tariff descriptions provide narrow coverage 
for nearly all raw materials and packing materials used by the Chinese 
producer, which avoids the problem of over inclusiveness.
    Petitioner argues that the Department should continue to use Indian 
import statistics for steel valuation. Petitioner states that these 
data include material from which Rudong produced lug nuts during the 
period of review, and therefore are the most accurate information on 
this issue.
    Petitioner argues that the Department should continue to decline 
use of steel price data submitted by Rudong as the Department did in 
the preliminary results, because they are for rounds and not steel wire 
rod. Petitioner asserts that steel rounds are not the raw material used 
in lug nut production. Petitioner contends that applying such data 
would distort the value of steel. Petitioner submits that the use of 
steel wire rods in the production of lug nuts was verified by the 
Department.
    Additionally, petitioner asserts that the steel prices submitted by 
Rudong represent sales prices in two Indian cities and may not be 
representative of steel prices in India generally. Petitioner claims 
that the Indian import statistics provide nationwide average prices for 
steel in India.
    Petitioner further contends that the steel scrap data used by the 
Department reflect that the production process of lug nuts begins with 
the steel wire rod, not the further-fabricated steel rounds. Petitioner 
notes that the respondent failed to point out that the Department would 
have to adjust the scrap calculations to eliminate scrap accounted for 
by the production of rounds from rod. Petitioner claims that other 
adjustments--to energy and labor--would also be necessary to pretend 
that the production process starts with rounds, instead of rod.
    Rudong contends that petitioner's assertions are wrong, and that, 
even under petitioner's analysis, the Department should use the 
surrogate prices submitted by Rudong. Rudong states that it submitted 
prices for both wire rod and rounds because it is unclear why steel 
wire rod data is preferable to steel rounds data. In addition, Rudong 
contends that, although the broad category of product reported in 
Rudong's submission was for ``iron and steel,'' it is apparent that the 
category ``wire rod'' consists of steel and not iron.
    Department's Position: We agree with Rudong, in part. We agree with 
Rudong that the information in Steel Scenario is more contemporaneous 
with the POR; however, the data submitted by Rudong do not indicate the 
grade and specifications of the metal. We noted in Chrome-Plated Lug 
Nuts From the People's Republic of China; Final Results of Antidumping 
Administrative Review, 60 FR 48687 (September 20, 1995), covering the 
1991-1992 and 1992-1993 administrative review periods that the Indian 
import statistics are more specific in that they indicate the carbon 
content of the steel, whereas by contrast, Steel Scenario does not 
specify either the carbon content of the steel or other chemicals 
present in the steel. Carbon level is a more important determinant of 
price than size. We further note that Steel Scenario prices include 
taxes and levies, without indicating the amount of taxes and levies 
included. Our objective is to value steel at prices at which it is 
available in the surrogate country. Furthermore, we are not convinced 
that the prices shown in Steel Scenario are more representative of 
prices available in India than are import statistics. While Rudong has 
put on the record of this review data that would allow us to adjust for 
taxes, it has not assuaged our other concerns regarding the use of 
Steel Scenario.
    However, in reviewing the Indian import data for steel wire rod, in 
comparison with prices of steel wire rod imported into other countries, 
we found that Indian import prices were significantly higher than 
prices of imports into other countries we examined. We compared the 
same ``basket'' HTS number for the United States, the European Union, 
Canada, and Indonesia and found that steel wire rod import prices to be 
relatively the same in these areas, and significantly lower than Indian 
steel wire rod import prices. Indonesia is also comparable to the PRC 
in terms of level of economic development and Indonesia has some lug 
nut production, albeit not as great as India. (See Memorandum to Laurie 
Parkhill from David Mueller, dated March 15, 1996, ``Chrome-Plated Lug 
Nuts from the People's Republic of China: Non-market Economy Status and 
Surrogate Country Selection,'' and Memorandum to the File from 
Elisabeth Urfer, dated June 14, 1996, ``India: Significant Production 
of Comparable Merchandise,'' which are on file in the Central Records 
Unit (room B099 of the Main Commerce Building).) Therefore, for these 
final results we have used Indonesian steel wire rod import prices. 
These import prices are also for a basket category of steel wire rod 
imports, as are the Indian import prices, but are consistent with steel 
wire rod prices in other countries. They also do not include taxes. 
(See memorandum to the file from Tamara Underwood, ``Comparison of 
Steel Prices in the 1994-1995 Administrative Review on Lug Nuts from 
the PRC'' dated October 30, 1996.)
    Comment 5: Petitioner submits that the Department should continue 
to use as the surrogate labor rate data from the Economist Intelligence 
Unit's Investing, Licensing, and Trading Conditions Abroad (IL&T), as 
the Department did for the preliminary results.
    Department's Position: We disagree with petitioner with regard to 
the use of the IL&T data. For the final results, we have recalculated 
the labor rates, using data from the Yearbook of Labor Statistics 
(YLS). As we stated in the Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value: Bicycles From the People's Republic of China, 61 
FR 19026, April 30, 1996, the IL&T reports estimates based not on 
actual wage rates, but on rates stipulated in various

[[Page 58523]]

Indian laws. See Memorandum to the File From Tamara Underwood, ``Labor 
Valuation Changes in Lug Nuts Final Calculation'', dated November 6, 
1996. Therefore, we have not used IL&T data for the final results. The 
YLS provides wage rates on an industry-specific basis. We used the 
daily wage rate specified for SIC code 381, ``manufacture of fabricated 
metal products, except machinery and equipment,'' because the 
description of the various industries this category covers was the best 
match for the lug nut industry. Having found the IL&T data to be an 
inappropriate source for wage rates, it would be inappropriate to use 
the IL&T data to differentiate among skill levels. Because the YLS 
provides wage rates from 1990, we inflated the data for the review 
period, using the consumer price index, published in the International 
Monetary Fund's International Financial Statistics.

Final Results of Review

    As a result of the comments received, we have changed the results 
from those presented in our preliminary results of review. Therefore, 
we determine that the following margins exist as a result of our 
review:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Margin 
           Manufacturer/exporter               Time period     (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jiangsu Rudong Grease Gun Factory, also                                 
 known as China Nantong HuangHai Auto                                   
 Parts Group Co., Ltd.....................  09/01/94-08/31/95       2.70
China National Machinery & Equipment                                    
 Import & Export Corp., Nantong Branch....  09/01/93-08/31/94      44.99
PRC rate..................................  09/01/94-08/31/95      44.99
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual 
differences between United States price and NV may vary from the 
percentages stated above. The Department will issue appraisement 
instructions directly to the Customs Service.
    Furthermore, the following deposit rates will be effective upon 
publication of these final results for all shipments of lug nuts from 
the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or 
after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the 
Act: (1) For Rudong and Nantong, which have separate rates, the cash 
deposit rates will be the company-specific rates stated above; (2) for 
the companies named above which did not respond to our questionnaire 
(China National, Jiangsu, Yangzhou, Ningbo, Shanghai Automobile, and 
Tianjin), and for all other PRC exporters, the cash deposit rate will 
be the PRC rate stated above; (3) for non-PRC exporters of subject 
merchandise from the PRC, the cash deposit rate will be the rate 
applicable to the PRC supplier of that exporter.
    These deposit rates shall remain in effect until publication of the 
final results of the next administrative review.
    This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26 to file a certificate regarding the 
reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the 
relevant entries during 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.
    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective orders (APOs) of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(d)(1). Timely written notification 
of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial 
protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the 
regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
    This administrative review 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: November 6, 1996.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-29243 Filed 11-14-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P