[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 58 (Wednesday, March 26, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14399-14403]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-7591]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-433-807]
Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Open-End Spun Rayon
Singles Yarn From Austria
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATES: March 26, 1997.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Copyak or Russell Morris,
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2786.
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 open-end spun rayon singles yarn
from Austria is being, or is 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 of sales at LTFV are shown in the ``Suspension of
Liquidation'' section of this notice.
Case History
Since the initiation of this investigation (Notice of Initiation of
Antidumping Duty Investigations: Open-End Spun Rayon Singles Yarn from
Austria (61 FR 48472, September 13, 1996)), the following events have
occurred. On October 4, 1996, the United States International Trade
Commission (``ITC'') issued an affirmative preliminary injury
determination in this case (see ITC Investigation No. 731-TA-751; 61 FR
53760, October 15, 1996).
On October 4, 1996, the Department issued an antidumping duty
questionnaire to the following companies identified by petitioners as
possible exporters of the subject merchandise: Linz Textil GmbH (Linz)
and G. Borckenstein und Sohn A.G. (Borckenstein). 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 D
requests information on the cost of production (``COP'') of the foreign
like product and constructed value (``CV'') of the subject merchandise.
Borckenstein submitted its response to section A of the
questionnaire on November 8, 1996 and to sections B and C on December
3, 1996. As a result of our analysis of Borckenstein's submissions to
our original questionnaire, we determined that we required additional
information as well as clarification of the information submitted in
the responses, and thus we issued a supplemental request for
information on December 19, 1996, and requests for additional
supplemental information on January 29, 1997. We received the responses
to these requests on January 9, 1997, and February 6, 1997
respectively.
Linz submitted its questionnaire response to section A on October
25, 1996 and sections B and C on November 26, 1996. As a result of our
analysis of Linz's response to our original questionnaire, we
determined that we required additional information as well as
clarification of the information submitted in the responses. We issued
a supplemental request for information on December 12, 1996 and
requests for additional supplemental information on January 29, 1997
and February 10, 1997. We received responses to these requests on
January 6, 1997, and February 6 and 24, 1997, respectively.
Pursuant to section 733(c)(1)(B) of the Act, as amended, we
postponed the date of the preliminary determination of whether sales of
open-end spun rayon singles yarn from Austria have been made at less
than fair value until not later than March 18, 1997 (see 62 FR 3003,
January 21, 1997). We postponed the preliminary determination because
this investigation is extraordinarily complicated, and because of the
novel legal and methodological issues in this investigation.
In their questionnaire responses to Section A, both respondents
argued that particular market conditions of this case render the home
market non-viable as a comparison market. Borckenstein argued that
because there is no demand in the home market for all the same yarn
counts which it sells in the United States, a third country market,
Italy, is a more appropriate comparison market. Borckenstein also
argued that a majority of its sales in the home market were of black
rayon yarn which is generally a higher-cost, higher-priced product
compared to the raw white product sold in the United States. Linz also
argued that because there is no demand in the home market for the same
yarn counts that Linz sells in the United States, a third country
market, France, is the more appropriate comparison market. Linz also
noted that French sales are more appropriate as the comparison market
for U.S. sales because the customers are similar, the yarns are used in
a similar fashion, there are similar quantities of sales, and similar
channels and methods of distribution.
On November 14, 1996, we determined that the home market was viable
for each of the respondents. Under section 773(a)(1) of the Act, the
Department normally considers sales in the home market to be of
sufficient quantity if they represent five percent of the aggregate
quantity of sales of the subject merchandise in the United States. Both
the home market sales of Borckenstein and Linz met that requirement. If
the sales in the home market met the five percent requirement, the
Department will only resort to a third country market when unusual
situations renders the home market inappropriate. The fact that the
home market may not have identical sales to compare to the sales of the
subject merchandise in the United States is not an unusual situation
and thus does not render the home market inappropriate. (For further
explanation, see the memoranda from Barbara E. Tillman, Director,
Office of CVD/AD Enforcement VI, Import Administration dated November
14, 1996, (public version) on file in the Central Records Unit, Room B-
099 of the Department of Commerce.)
On December 10, 1996, petitioner objected to the use of date of
invoice as the date of sale. Petitioner argued that given the actual
sales processes of both respondents, the appropriate date of sale is
the date of contract and not the date on which the sale is invoiced.
Petitioner noted that there are no changes in the basic terms of each
sale after the negotiation of the sales contract, and there is a
significant lag time between the date of the sales contract and the
date of the invoice. After a careful review of the petitioner's
comments and the method by which sales are made in
[[Page 14400]]
both the home market and U.S. market by both Borckenstein and Linz, we
determined that the date of invoice is the appropriate date of sale in
this investigation.
In the proposed regulations (61 FR 7308), section 351.401(i) states
that the Department will normally use the date of invoice, as recorded
in the exporter's or producer's records kept in the ordinary course of
business, as the date of sale. On March 29, 1996, the change in the
date of sale methodology specified in the proposed regulations was
implemented as policy by the Department for all investigations
initiated after February 1, 1996, and for all reviews initiated after
April 1, 1996. Therefore, for purposes of deciding the appropriate date
of sale for this investigation, the new date of invoice policy is to be
used.
This new policy still provides the Department with flexibility in
situations involving certain long-term contracts or situations in which
there is an exceptionally long lag time between date of invoice and
date of shipment. Our review of the sales processes of both
Borckenstein and Linz indicate that sales are made using short-term
contracts. We also found that there is little lag time between the date
of shipment and the date of invoice. Also, there is no other
circumstance present to warrant making an exception to the general rule
of using date of invoice as the date of sale for both companies for
purposes of this investigation. Therefore, we determined that the date
of invoice used by both Borckenstein and Linz is the appropriate date
of sale for both companies. (For further information, see the memoranda
from Barbara E. Tillman dated February 24, 1996, (public versions) on
file in the Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the Department of
Commerce.)
On December 12, 1996, the petitioner alleged that both Borckenstein
and Linz had made sales in the home market at prices that were below
the cost of production, pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act. After
analyzing the petitioner's allegation, the Department determined that
there were reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that home market
sales had been made by Linz at prices below Linz's cost of production.
Therefore, on January 17, 1997, the Department initiated a cost of
production (COP) investigation of Linz for sales-below-cost. (See,
memorandum from Barbara E. Tillman dated January 17, 1997, (public
version) on file in the Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the
Department of Commerce.) The Department declined to initiate a cost of
production investigation of Borckenstein. See, Id.
On January 23, 1997, petitioner submitted comments stating that the
Department made clerical errors in its determination that there was no
reason to believe or suspect that Borckenstein made sales in the home
market below COP. We reviewed petitioner's comments and determined that
additional adjustments were warranted. Based on these additional
adjustments, we determined that there were reasonable grounds to
believe or suspect that home market sales had been made by Borckenstein
at prices below Borckenstein's COP. Therefore, on March 12, 1997, we
initiated a COP investigation of Borckenstein. (See, memorandum from
Barbara E. Tillman dated March 12, 1997, (public version) on file in
the Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the Department of Commerce.)
Our final determination will include a COP analysis of Borckenstein's
home market sales.
As a result of the Department's cost of production investigation,
the Department requested that Linz answer Section D of the original
questionnaire; Linz submitted its response to section D of the
questionnaire on February 18, 1997. We determined that we required
additional information as well as clarification of the information
provided in this response, and thus we issued a supplemental
questionnaire on February 24, 1997. We received a response to this
request on March 3, 1997. This preliminary determination includes a COP
analysis of Linz's home market sales.
Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional
Measures
Pursuant to section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act, on March 14 and 17,
1997, Linz and Borckenstein requested that 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 an affirmative preliminary determination
in the Federal Register. In accordance with 19 CFR 353.20(b) (1995),
inasmuch as our preliminary determination is affirmative, Borckenstein
and Linz 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 this request, we are granting the request and
postponing the final determination. Suspension of liquidation will be
extended accordingly. See, Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Large Newspaper Printing Presses and Components
Thereof, Whether Assembled or Unassembled from Japan, 61 FR 8029 (March
1, 1996).
Scope of Investigation
The product covered by this investigation is open-end spun singles
yarn containing 85% or more rayon staple fiber. Such yarn is classified
under subheading 5510.11.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for
convenience and for Customs purposes, our written description of the
scope of this investigation is dispositive.
Period of Investigation
The period of investigation (POI) is July 1, 1995 through June 30,
1996.
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether sales of the subject merchandise by
respondents to the United States were made at less than fair value, we
compared the Export Price (EP) to the Normal Value (NV), described in
the ``Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of notice. In
accordance with section 777A(d)(1)(A)(i), we compared the weighted
average EPs to weighted-average NVs during the POI. In determining
averaging groups for comparison purposes, we considered the
appropriateness of such factors as physical characteristics and level
of trade.
(i) Physical Characteristics
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, produced in Austria by the respondents and sold
in the home 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 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): weight, percentage of rayon fiber, color, denier, finish,
and luster. All comparisons were based on the same grade of yarn. (For
further explanation, see the memorandum from Barbara E. Tillman dated
September 23, 1996, on file in the Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of
the Department of Commerce.)
[[Page 14401]]
(ii) Level of Trade
Neither Borckenstein nor Linz claimed a difference in level of
trade. Based upon our review of the responses submitted by each of the
companies, we determine that each company performed essentially the
same selling activities for all reported home market and U.S. sales.
Accordingly, we find that no level of trade differences exist between
any sales in either the home market or U.S. market for either company.
Therefore, all price comparisons are at the same level of trade and an
adjustment pursuant to section 773(a)(7)(A) is unwarranted.
Export Price
We calculated EP, in accordance with subsections 772(a) and (c) of
the Act, for each of the respondents, where the subject merchandise was
sold directly to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States
prior to importation and use of constructed export price (CEP) was not
otherwise warranted based on the facts of record.
We made company-specific adjustments as follows:
1. Borckenstein
For Borckenstein, we calculated EP based on packed, CIF, U.S. port
prices to an unaffiliated customer in the United States. Where
appropriate, we made deductions from the starting price (gross unit
price) for international freight (which included freight from the plant
to port of export and ocean freight) and marine insurance, in
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A). We also made a deduction, where
appropriate, for rebates that had been reported as commissions by the
respondent. We reclassified the commissions as rebates because the
commission agent is affiliated with the U.S. customer.
We have preliminarily rejected petitioner's request to use CEP
because we do not find the record to indicate that the sole U.S.
importer and Borckenstein are affiliated parties. The petitioner
alleged Borckenstein and its U.S. importer were related because both
parties had entered into a joint venture to establish a production
facility in the United States and because of a close supplier
relationship. Pursuant to section 771(33) of the Act, we reviewed
Borckenstein's relationship with its U.S. importer and have determined,
subject to verification, that petitioner's claim is unwarranted. There
is no joint venture between Borckenstein and its U.S. importer. In
addition, the evidence indicates that there is no affiliation between
the two companies.
With respect to petitioner's claim of a close supplier
relationship, section 771(33)(G) of the Act provides, inter alia, that
parties will be considered affiliated when one controls the other. A
person controls another person ``if the person is legally or
operationally in a position to exercise restraint or direction over the
other person.'' The SAA further states that a company may be in a
position to exercise restraint or direction through, among other
things, ``close supplier relationships in which the supplier or buyer
becomes reliant upon the other.'' SAA at 838. However, we find no close
supplier relationship to exist between Borckenstein and its U.S.
importer. Borckenstein reported in its supplemental response that it
negotiated prices with the importer, that the importer is free to
purchase rayon yarn from sources other than Borckenstein, that
Borckenstein is free to sell to any customer in the United States, and
that Borckenstein's sales to its U.S. importer constitute a small
percentage of its overall sales. Borckenstein has also stated that
there is no exclusive long-term sales contract between itself and its
U.S. importer.
In sum, Borckenstein and the U.S. importer have not entered into a
joint venture nor does a close supplier relationship exist between the
two parties. Therefore, we preliminarily determine the companies are
not affiliated. (For further explanation, see the memorandum from
Barbara E. Tillman dated March 17, 1997, (public version) on file in
the Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the Department of Commerce.)
2. Linz
We calculated EP based on packed, delivered/duty paid and f.o.b.
prices to unaffiliated customers in the United States. Where
appropriate, we made deductions from the starting price (gross unit
price) for the following charges: Austrian inland freight (which
included brokerage), insurance (which included inland and marine
insurance), ocean freight, U.S. duty, clearing charges, bond expenses,
and U.S. freight, in accordance with section 772(c)(2).
Linz reported that it did not borrow in U.S. dollars during the
POI. In accordance with the Department's policy (see, e.g., Notice of
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Cut-
to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Sweden, (61 FR 15780, April 9,
1996)), we recalculated the U.S. imputed credit expense using the
average short-term lending rates published by the Federal Reserve as
surrogate U.S. interest rates, for purposes of making the circumstance
of sale adjustment for this expense.
Normal Value
1. Borckenstein
We calculated NV based on packed, delivered prices to unaffiliated
customers. Where appropriate, we made deductions from the starting
price (gross unit price) for foreign inland freight in accordance with
section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act and early payment discounts. We
also adjusted for differences in circumstances of sale for credit
expenses and export credit insurance pursuant to section
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. We made adjustments, where appropriate,
for physical differences in the merchandise in accordance with section
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. In no cases did the difference in
merchandise adjustment for the comparison product exceed 20 percent of
the U.S. product's cost of manufacturing. In addition, in accordance
with section 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act, we deducted home market
packing costs and added U.S. packing costs.
Borckenstein also reported an amount upon which to base an
adjustment for differences in quantities sold in the U.S. and Austrian
markets, pursuant to 19 CFR 353.55(a). Although Borckenstein claimed
that it incurred differing manufacturing costs based on quantities
produced, it was unable to demonstrate, based on information on the
record, that pricing differences were related to quantity. Our review
of the submitted prices indicated that prices did not vary based upon
the quantity sold. Accordingly, we have not made the requested
adjustment.
As noted in the ``Case History'' section of this notice, we
initiated a COP investigation of Borckenstein on March 12, 1997.
Because the COP investigation was just recently initiated, we are
unable to include a COP analysis of Borckenstein's home market sales in
this preliminary determination, however, the final determination will
include a COP analysis of Borckenstein's home market sales.
2. Linz
a. Cost of Production Analysis
As noted in the ``Case History'' section above, based on the
petitioner's allegations, the Department found reasonable grounds to
believe or suspect that Linz made sales in the home market at prices
below the cost of producing the merchandise. As a result, the
Department initiated an investigation to determine whether Linz made
home market sales during the POI at prices below the COP in accordance
with section 773(b)(1) of the Act.
[[Page 14402]]
Before making any fair value comparisons, we conducted the COP
analysis described below.
Calculation of COP
We calculated the COP based on the sum of Linz's reported cost of
materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts
for home market general and administrative expenses (``G&A'') and
packing costs in accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act. Indirect
selling expenses are included in the reported G&A expenses.
Test of Home Market Prices
We used the respondent's adjusted weighted-average COP for the POI.
We compared the weighted-average COP figures to home market sales of
the foreign like product as required under section 773(b) of the Act,
in order to determine whether these sales had been made at below-cost
prices within an extended period of time in substantial quantities, and
whether the below-cost prices would permit recovery of all costs within
a reasonable period of time. On a product-specific basis, we compared
the COP to the home market prices, less any applicable movement charges
and direct selling expenses.
Results of COP Test
In determining whether to disregard home-market sales made at
prices below COP, we examine: (1) Whether, within an extended period of
time, such sales were made in substantial quantities, and (2) whether
such sales were made at prices which permitted the recovery of all
costs within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of trade.
Where less than 20 percent (by quantity) of a respondent's sales of a
given product were at prices less than the COP, we do not disregard any
below-cost sales of that product. Where 20 percent (by quantity) or
more of a respondent's sales of a given product during the POI were at
prices less than the COP, we determine such sales to have been made in
substantial quantities within an extended period; where we determine
that such sales were also not made at prices that permit recovery of
cost within a reasonable period, we disregard the below-cost sales.
Based on our COP test, we found that less than 20 percent (by
quantity) of Linz's sales of a given product were at prices less than
COP. Thus, we did not disregard any below-cost sales. Therefore for
matching purposes, export prices were compared to home market prices
for all comparisons, and constructed value (CV) was not required.
b. Adjustments to Prices
We calculated NV based on packed, delivered prices to unaffiliated
customers and prices to affiliated customers where the sales were made
at arm's length. Where appropriate, we made deductions from the
starting price (gross unit price) for foreign inland freight and inland
insurance, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B). In addition, where
appropriate, we adjusted for differences in circumstances of sale for
credit expenses, post-sale warehousing, and commissions, in accordance
with section 773(a)(6)(C). Linz did not report home market indirect
selling expenses, therefore, we were unable to offset commissions paid
in the U.S. with home market indirect selling expenses.
We made adjustments, where appropriate, for physical differences in
the merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act.
In no case did the difference in merchandise adjustment for the
comparison product exceed 20 percent of the U.S. product's cost of
manufacturing. In addition, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A) and
(B), we deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing
costs.
Linz also reported for purposes of the difference in merchandise
adjustment, different manufacturing cost for identical yarns based on
the machine which produced the yarn. We have recalculated this
adjustment based on the weighted-average cost for manufacturing
identical yarns for the POI.
Linz also reported an amount upon which to base an adjustment for
differences in quantities sold in the U.S. and Austrian markets.
Although Linz claimed that it incurred differing costs based on
quantities produced, it also stated in its January 6, 1997 supplemental
response that the application of its small quantity price adjustment is
flexible, made on a case-by-case basis, and is meant only as a
guideline. Therefore, Linz was unable to demonstrate, based on
information on the record, that pricing differences were related to
quantity. Accordingly, we have not made the requested adjustment.
Linz was instructed to provide sales made to affiliated weaving
mills in Austria. Sales not made at arm's-length were excluded from our
LTFV analysis. To test whether these sales were made at arm's length,
we compared the starting prices of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated
customers net of all movement charges, direct selling expenses, and
packing. We utilized the 99.5 percent benchmark ratio used in the 1993
carbon steel investigations (see below). Where no related customer
price ratio could be constructed because identical merchandise was not
sold to unrelated customers, we were unable to determine that these
sales were made at arm's-length and, therefore, excluded them from our
LTFV analysis. See, Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Argentina
(58 FR 37062, 37077 (July 9, 1993.))
Currency Conversion
We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars based on the
official exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales. The
official rates are based on rates certified by the Federal Reserve
Bank.
Section 773A(a) of the Act directs the Department to convert
foreign currencies based on the dollar exchange rate in effect on the
date of sale of the subject merchandise, except if it is established
that a currency transaction on forward markets is directly linked to an
export sale. When a company demonstrates that a sale on forward markets
is directly linked to a particular export sale in order to minimize its
exposure to exchange rate losses, the Department will use the rate of
exchange in the forward currency sale agreement.
Section 773A(a) also directs the Department to use a daily exchange
rate in order to convert foreign currencies into U.S. dollars unless
the daily rate involves a fluctuation. It is the Department's practice
to find that a fluctuation exists when the daily exchange rate differs
from the benchmark rate by 2.25 percent. The benchmark is defined as
the moving average of rates for the past 40 business days. When we
determine a fluctuation exists, we substitute the benchmark rate for
the daily rate, in accordance with established practice. Further,
section 773A(b) directs the Department to allow a 60-day adjustment
period when a currency has undergone a sustained movement. A sustained
movement has occurred when the weekly average of actual daily rates
exceeds the weekly average of benchmark rates by more than five percent
for eight consecutive weeks. (For an explanation of this method, see
Policy Bulletin 96-1: Currency Conversions (61 FR 9434, March 8,
1996.)) Such an adjustment period is required only when a foreign
currency is appreciating against the U.S. dollar. The use of an
adjustment period was not warranted in this case because the Austrian
schilling did not undergo a sustained appreciation.
[[Page 14403]]
Verification
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we will verify all
information determined to be acceptable for use 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 imports of subject
merchandise that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register. We will instruct the Customs Service to require a
cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average
amount by which the NV exceeds the export price, as indicated in the
chart below. These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain
in effect until further notice.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
average
Exporter/Manufacturer margin
percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
G. Borckenstein und Sohn................................... 4.77
Linz Textil GmbH........................................... 10.83
All Others................................................. 7.93
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
threatening material injury to, the U.S. industry.
Public Comment
Case briefs or other written comments in at least ten copies must
be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration no
later than June 16, 1997, and rebuttal briefs no later than June 23,
1997. A list of authorities used and an executive summary of issues
should accompany any briefs submitted to the Department. Such summary
should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. In
accordance with section 774 of the Act, we will hold a public hearing,
if requested, to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on
arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs. Tentatively, the hearing
will be held on June 26, 1997, at 2:00 p.m. in room 1414 at the U.S.
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 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
1870, 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. Oral presentations will be limited to issues raised in the
briefs. If this investigation proceeds normally, we will make our final
determination no later than 135 days after the publication of this
notice in the Federal Register.
This determination is published pursuant to section 733(f) of the
Act.
Dated: March 18, 1997.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-7591 Filed 3-25-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P