[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 235 (Monday, December 8, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64564-64568]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-32064]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-201-805]


Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe and Tube From Mexico: 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and 
Partial Termination of Review

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

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of antidumping duty 
administrative review and partial termination of review.

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

SUMMARY: In response to requests from two respondents, the Department 
of Commerce (``the Department'') is conducting an administrative review 
of the antidumping duty order on circular welded non-alloy steel pipe 
and tube from Mexico. This review covers two manufacturers and 
exporters of the subject merchandise. The period of review (``POR'') is 
November 1, 1995, through October 31, 1996.
    With respect to Tuberia Nacional, S.A. de C.V. (``TUNA''), this 
review has now been terminated as a result of the withdrawal request 
for administrative review by TUNA, the interested party that requested 
review of TUNA. We preliminarily determine the dumping margin for Hylsa 
S.A. de C.V. (``Hylsa'') to be 7.90 percent during the POR. Interested 
parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. Parties 
who submit arguments in this proceeding should also submit with their 
arguments (1) A statement of the issues, and (2) a brief summary of the 
arguments.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 8, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ilissa Kabak or Linda Ludwig, 
Enforcement Group III--Office 8, Import Administration, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Room 7866, Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone 
(202) 482-0182 (Kabak), or (202) 482-3833 (Ludwig).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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 Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless 
otherwise indicated, all references to the Department's regulations are 
to 19 C.F.R. Part 353 (April 1, 1997). Where appropriate, we have cited 
the Department's new regulations, codified at 19 C.F.R. Part 351 (62 
Fed. Reg. 27296, May 19, 1997). While not binding on this review, the 
new regulations serve as a restatement of the Department's policies.

Background

    The Department published an antidumping duty order on circular 
welded non-alloy steel pipe and tube from Mexico on November 2, 1992 
(57 FR 49453). The Department published a notice of ``Opportunity to 
Request an Administrative Review'' of the antidumping duty order for 
the 1995/96 review period on November 4, 1996 (61 FR 56663). On 
November 27, 1996, respondents Hylsa and TUNA requested that the 
Department conduct an administrative review of the antidumping duty 
order on circular welded non-alloy steel pipe and tube from Mexico. We 
initiated this review on December 16, 1996. See 61 FR 66017 (December 
16, 1996). On February 4, 1997, TUNA requested a withdrawal from the 
proceeding.
    Pursuant to 19 CFR 353.22(a)(5) of the Department's regulations, 
the Department may allow a party that requests an administrative review 
to withdraw such request not later than 90 days after the date of 
publication of the notice of initiation of the administrative review. 
TUNA's request for withdrawal was timely and there were no requests for 
review from other interested parties. Therefore, the Department is 
terminating this review with respect to TUNA. This notice is in 
accordance with section 353.22(a)(5) of the Department's regulations 
(19 CFR 353.22(a)(5)).
    Under section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department may extend 
the deadline for issuing a preliminary determination in an 
administrative review if it determines that it is not practicable to 
complete the preliminary review within the statutory time limit of 245 
days. On June 16, 1997, the Department published a notice of extension 
of the time limit for the preliminary results in this case to December 
2, 1997. See Extension of Time Limit for Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Reviews, 62 FR 36488 (July 8, 1997).
    The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section 
751(a) of the Act.

Scope of the Review

    The products covered by these orders are circular welded non-alloy 
steel pipes and tubes, of circular cross-section, not more than 406.4 
millimeters (16 inches) in outside diameter, regardless of wall 
thickness, surface finish (black, galvanized, or painted), or end 
finish (plain end, beveled end, threaded, or threaded and coupled). 
These pipes and tubes are generally known as standard pipes and tubes 
and are intended for the low pressure conveyance of water, steam, 
natural gas, and other liquids and gases in plumbing and heating 
systems, air conditioning units, automatic sprinkler systems, and other 
related uses, and generally meet ASTM A-53 specifications. Standard 
pipe may also be used for light load-bearing applications, such as for 
fence tubing, and as structural pipe tubing used for framing and 
support members for reconstruction or load-bearing purposes in the 
construction, shipbuilding, trucking, farm equipment, and related 
industries. Unfinished conduit pipe is also included in these orders.
    All carbon steel pipes and tubes within the physical description 
outlined above are included within the scope of these orders, except 
line pipe, oil country tubular goods, boiler tubing,

[[Page 64565]]

mechanical tubing, pipe and tube hollows for redraws, finished 
scaffolding, and finished conduit. Standard pipe that is dual or triple 
certified/stenciled that enters the U.S. as line pipe of a kind used 
for oil or gas pipelines is also not included in these orders.
    Imports of the products covered by these orders are currently 
classifiable under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) 
subheadings: 7306.30.10.00, 7306.30.50.25, 7306.30.50.32, 
7306.30.50.40, 7306.30.50.55, 7306.30.50.85, and 7306.30.50.90.
    Although the HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and 
customs purposes, our written description of the scope of these 
proceedings is dispositive.
    The POR is November 1, 1995 through October 31, 1996. This review 
covers sales of circular welded non-alloy steel pipe and tube by Hylsa.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified information 
provided by the respondent by using standard verification procedures, 
including on-site inspection of the manufacturing facilities of Hylsa, 
the examination of relevant sales and financial records, and selection 
of original documentation containing relevant information. Our 
verification results are outlined in the verification reports, the 
public versions of which are available at the Department of Commerce, 
in the Central Records Unit (CRU), Room B099.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered each 
circular welded non-alloy steel pipe and tube product produced by the 
respondents, covered by the descriptions in the ``Scope of the Review'' 
section of this notice, supra, and sold in the home market during the 
POR, to be a foreign like product for purposes of determining 
appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales of circular welded non-
alloy steel pipe and tube. Where there were no sales of identical 
merchandise in the home market to compare to U.S. sales, we compared 
U.S. sales to the next most similar foreign like product on the basis 
of the characteristics listed in Appendix VI of the Department's 
December 23, 1996, antidumping questionnaire. In making the product 
comparisons, we matched each foreign like product based on the physical 
characteristics reported by the respondent and verified by the 
Department.
    The Department's practice is to use a methodology which avoids 
distortions due to high inflation in instances where high inflation 
existed during the period of review. See, e.g., Notice of Final Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Certain Welded Carbon Steel 
Pipe and Tube from Turkey 62 Fed. Feg. 61629 (October 2, 1997). In this 
case, consistent with our prior practice, we determined that high 
inflation existed during the period of review. See Letter to Shearman & 
Sterling from the Department (May 7, 1997). In order to take into 
account the rate of inflation in Mexico during the POR, we compared 
each U.S. sale to sales of the foreign like product in the same month. 
Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the home market 
to compare to U.S. sales within the same month, we compared U.S. sales 
to the next most similar foreign like product which was sold in the 
same month. See Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe and Tube from 
Mexico: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 
61 FR 68708 (December 30, 1996). See also Circular Welded Non-Alloy 
Steel Pipe and Tube from Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review 62 FR 32014 (July 10, 1997) (in which the 
Department continued to compare foreign like products and subject 
merchandise in this manner).

Fair-Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of circular welded non-alloy steel pipe 
by Hylsa to the United States were made at less than fair value, we 
compared the EP to the NV, as described in the ``Export Price'' and 
``Normal Value'' sections of this notice. In accordance with section 
777A (d)(2) of the Act, we calculated monthly weighted-average prices 
for NV and compared these to individual U.S. transactions.

Date of Sale

    Hylsa reported the date of the invoice as the date of sale for all 
home market and U.S. sales. For the home market co-export rebate sales 
with two reported invoice dates (original invoice issue date and 
revised invoice issue date), Hylsa reported the revised invoice date as 
the date of sale.

Export Price

    We used EP as defined in section 772(a) of the Act. We calculated 
EP based on prices to unaffiliated customers in the United States. 
Where appropriate, we made deductions from the starting price for 
foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling, U.S. brokerage 
and handling and U.S. customs duties.
    Section 776 (a) (2) of the Act provides that ``if an interested 
party or any other person--(A) withholds information that has been 
requested by the administering authority; (B) fails to provide such 
information by the deadlines for the submission of the information or 
in the form and manner requested, subject to subsections (c) (1) and 
(e) of section 782; (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under this 
title; or (D) provides such information but the information cannot be 
verified as provided in section 782 (i), the administering authority * 
* * shall, subject to section 782 (d), use the facts otherwise 
available in reaching the applicable determination under this title.''
    In addition, section 776 (b) of the Act provides that, if the 
Department finds that an interested party ``has failed to cooperate by 
not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for 
information,'' the Department may use information that is adverse to 
the interests of the party as the facts otherwise available. The 
statute also provides that such an adverse inference may be based on 
secondary information, including information drawn from the petition.
    In this case, the Department has applied partial facts available 
for various expenses and adjustments. Based on our verification of 
Hylsa's sales responses, we rejected as unverifiable additional foreign 
inland freight, additional foreign brokerage fees and additional U.S. 
brokerage fees. Although information was provided to the Department, 
and the Department attempted to verify this information at the 
verification of Hylsa (see Sales Verification Report), the information 
could not be verified as provided in section 782(i) of the Act. By not 
providing verifiable information for foreign inland freight, foreign 
brokerage and U.S. brokerage expenses when such information was 
available to Hylsa, we have determined that Hylsa failed to cooperate 
by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for 
information. Consequently, the use of adverse partial facts available 
under section 776(b) of the Act is warranted. We deducted the reported 
foreign inland freight, which was paid by the customer and included in 
the reported gross unit price. Rather than use reported additional 
foreign inland freight, as facts available we further deducted the 
highest calculated differential between reported and actual foreign 
inland freight charges incurred for five sales reviewed at 
verification, (see Analysis Memo). We deducted the reported foreign and 
U.S. brokerage charges, which were paid by the

[[Page 64566]]

customer and included in the reported gross unit price. Rather than use 
reported additional foreign and U.S. brokerage charges, as facts 
available we further deducted the highest calculated differential 
between reported and actual foreign and U.S. brokerage charges incurred 
for five sales reviewed at verification (see Analysis Memo).
    Hylsa acts as importer of record on its U.S. sales and thereby pays 
all antidumping duty deposits. During the course of this proceeding, 
petitioners requested that the Department examine the issue of 
reimbursement where the producer/exporter is the importer of record. 
Section 353.26 of the Department's regulations states that ``[i]n 
calculating the United States price, the Secretary will deduct the 
amount of any antidumping duty which the producer or reseller: (i) 
[p]aid directly on behalf of the importer; or (ii) [r]eimbursed to the 
importer.'' 19 CFR 353.26(a)(1). It has been our practice that separate 
corporate entities must exist as producer/reseller and importer in 
order to invoke the regulation. In the present case, the U.S. importer 
of record, Hylsa, is also the same corporate entity that produces and 
exports the subject merchandise. In such a case, there is no separate 
company or separate U.S. subsidiary, wholly owned or otherwise, that 
acts as the importer of record. Rather, the importer and exporter are 
one and the same corporate entity. In this case, there can be no 
payment made to, or on behalf of, the importer within the meaning of 
the regulation. In accordance with our practice, the Department 
interprets its reimbursement regulation as inapplicable in this case. 
However, we will consider this issue further for the final results, and 
we invite comments on this issue.

Normal Value

    Based on a comparison of the aggregate quantity of home-market and 
U.S. sales, we determined that the quantity of the foreign like product 
sold in the exporting country was sufficient to permit a proper 
comparison with the sales of the subject merchandise to the United 
States, pursuant to section 773(a) of the Act. Therefore, in accordance 
with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based NV on the price at 
which the foreign like product was first sold for consumption in the 
home market, in the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary 
course of trade, including sales that benefitted from co-export rebates 
and short-length discounts.
    Sales to affiliated customers in the home market which were 
determined not to be at arm's-length were excluded from our analysis. 
To test whether these sales were made at arm's-length, we compared the 
starting prices of sales of comparison products to affiliated and 
unaffiliated customers, net of all movement charges, direct selling 
expenses, discounts, and packing. Pursuant to 19 CFR 353.45(a) and in 
accordance with our practice, where the prices to the affiliated party 
were on average less than 99.5 percent of the prices to unaffiliated 
parties, we determined that the sales made to the affiliated party were 
not at arm's-length. See Notice of Final Results and Partial Recission 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Roller Chain, Other Than 
Bicycle, From Japan 62 FR 60472 (November 10, 1997). We included those 
sales that passed the arm's length test in our analysis (see 19 CFR 
353.45(a)).
    Where appropriate, in accordance with 773(a)(6)(A) of the Act, we 
deducted credit expenses, warranties, advertising, insurance, packing, 
and certain discounts, and we added interest revenue. The Department 
discovered certain discrepancies and inconsistencies with Hylsa's 
freight data which rendered the data unverifiable or unreliable within 
the meaning of section 782(e) of the Act. At verification, the 
Department examined additional inland freight reported by Hylsa. 
Despite the Department's efforts, the data provided by Hylsa could not 
be verified. In accordance with section 782(e) of the Act, we rejected 
as unverifiable additional inland freight (see Sales Verification 
Report). Therefore, we denied adjustment for reported additional inland 
freight. Furthermore, due to discrepancies found as a result of 
verification and in accordance with section 782(e) of the Act, we 
disallowed deduction of inland freight expenses reported for co-export 
rebate sales made during 1996. The Department also found 
inconsistencies concerning the allocation of both early payment 
discounts and interest revenue for late payments (see Sales 
Verification Report). Therefore, consistent with section 782 (e) of the 
Act, we denied deductions from the reported price for early payment 
discounts allocated to sales to which interest revenue was also 
allocated.
    We increased NV by U.S. packing costs in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(A) of the Act and decreased NV by home market packing costs 
in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. We made adjustments 
to NV for differences in cost attributable to differences in physical 
characteristics of the merchandise, pursuant to section 
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act.

Level of Trade

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent 
practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at 
the same level of trade (``LOT'') as the EP or CEP transaction. The NV 
LOT is that of the starting-price sales in the comparison market or, 
when NV is based on constructed value (``CV''), that of the sales from 
which we derive selling, general and administrative (``SG&A'') expenses 
and profit. For EP, the U.S. LOT is also the level of the starting-
price sale, which is usually from exporter to importer. For CEP, it is 
the level of the constructed sale from the exporter to the importer.
    To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP or 
CEP, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions 
along the chain of distribution between the producer and the 
unaffiliated customer. If the comparison-market sales are at a 
different LOT, and the difference affects price comparability, as 
manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the 
sales on which NV is based and comparison-market sales at the LOT of 
the export transaction, we make an LOT adjustment under section 
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, for CEP sales, if the NV level is 
more remote from the factory than the CEP level and there is no basis 
for determining whether the difference in the levels between NV and CEP 
affects price comparability, we adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of 
the Act (the CEP offset provision). See Notice of Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel 
Plate from South Africa, 62 FR 61731 (November 19, 1997).
    In its questionnaire responses, Hylsa stated that there were no 
differences in its selling activities by customer categories within 
each market. In order to confirm independently the absence of separate 
levels of trade within or between the U.S. and home markets, we 
examined Hylsa's questionnaire responses for indications that Hylsa's 
functions as a seller differed qualitatively or quantitatively among 
customer categories. Where possible, we further examined whether each 
selling function was performed on a substantial portion of sales.
    Hylsa sold to end-users in the U.S. market. In the home market, 
Hylsa sold to local distributors and end-users. Hylsa performed 
essentially the same selling functions for sales to all its home-market 
customers, as well as to U.S. customers. Thus, our analysis of the 
questionnaire response leads us to

[[Page 64567]]

conclude that sales within or between each market are not made at 
different levels of trade. Accordingly, we preliminarily find that all 
sales in the home market and the U.S. market were made at the same 
level of trade. Therefore, we have not made a level of trade adjustment 
because all price comparisons are at the same level of trade and an 
adjustment pursuant to section 773(a)(7)(A) is not appropriate.

Cost-of-Production Analysis

    Petitioners alleged, on April 4, 1997, that Hylsa sold circular 
welded non-alloy steel pipes and tubes in the home market at prices 
below COP. Based on these allegations, in accordance with 773(b) of the 
Act, the Department determined, on May 6, 1997, that it had reasonable 
grounds to believe or suspect that Hylsa had sold the subject 
merchandise in the home market at prices below the COP. See Letter to 
Shearman and Sterling (May 7, 1997) and Decision Memorandum (May 6, 
1997). We therefore initiated a cost investigation with regard to Hylsa 
in order to determine whether the respondent made home-market sales 
during the POR at prices below their COP within the meaning of section 
773(b) of the Act. Before making any fair-value comparisons, we 
conducted the COP analysis described below.

A. Calculation of COP

    We calculated the COP based on the sum of Hylsa's cost of materials 
and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for home-
market selling, general, and administrative expenses (``SG&A''), and 
packing costs in accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act. Based on 
our verification of the cost response submitted by Hylsa, we adjusted 
the reported COP to reflect certain adjustments to the cost of 
manufacturing and general and administrative expenses (see Analysis 
Memo).

B. Test of Home-Market Prices

    We used the respondent's weighted-average COP, as adjusted (see 
above), for the period August 1, 1995, through November 30, 1996. 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 
determining whether to disregard home-market sales made at prices below 
the COP, we examined whether (1) within an extended period of time, 
such sales were made in substantial quantities, and (2) such sales were 
made at prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a 
reasonable period of time. On a product-specific basis, we compared the 
COP to the home-market prices (not including VAT), less any applicable 
movement charges, discounts, and rebates.

C. Results of COP Test

    In accordance with section 773(b)(2)(C), where less than 20 percent 
of Hylsa's sales of a given product were at prices less than the COP, 
we do not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because we 
determine that the below-cost sales were not made in ``substantial 
quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of a Hylsa's sales during the 
POR were at prices less than the COP, we determine such sales to have 
been made in ``substantial quantities'' within an extended period of 
time in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(B) of the Act, and not at 
prices which would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable 
period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. 
Therefore, we disregarded such below-cost sales of Hylsa. Where all 
contemporaneous sales of a comparison product were disregarded, we 
calculated NV based on CV.

D. Calculation of CV

    In accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, we calculated CV 
based on the sum of Hylsa's cost of materials, fabrication, SG&A, U.S. 
packing costs, interest expenses as reported in the U.S. sales database 
and profit. As noted above, we recalculated Hylsa's COM and general and 
administrative expenses based on our verification results. In 
accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based SG&A and 
profit on the amounts incurred and realized by the respondent in 
connection with the production and sale of the foreign like product in 
the ordinary course of trade, for consumption in the foreign country. 
For selling expenses, we used the weighted-average home market selling 
expenses. Where we compared CV to EP, we added the lesser of home 
market commissions or U.S. indirect selling expenses to CV.

Currency Conversion

    For purposes of the preliminary results, we made currency 
conversions based on the official exchange rates in effect on the dates 
of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. 
Section 773A(a) of the Act 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.'' In accordance with 
the Department's practice, we have determined as a general matter that 
a fluctuation exists when the daily exchange rate differs from a 
benchmark by 2.25 percent. See Cut-to-Length Steel Plate from Belgium: 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 
48213 (citing Certain Stainless Steel Wire Rods from France: 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 
8915 (March 6, 1996)). The benchmark is defined as the rolling average 
of rates for the past 40 business days. When we determine a fluctuation 
exists, we substitute the benchmark for the daily rate.

Preliminary Results of the Review

    As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the 
following weighted-average dumping margin exists:

             Circular welded non-alloy steel pipes and tubes            
Producer/Manufacturer/Exporter................................     Hylsa
Weighted-Average Margin.......................................     7.90%
                                                                        

    Parties to this proceeding may request disclosure within five days 
of publication of this notice. Any interested party may request a 
hearing within 10 days of publication. Any hearing, if requested, will 
be held 44 days after the date of publication, or the first working day 
thereafter. Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written 
comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication. Rebuttal 
briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in 
such briefs or comments, may be filed no later than 37 days after the 
date of publication of this notice. The Department will publish a 
notice of the final results of the administrative review, including its 
analysis of issues raised in any written comments or at a hearing, not 
later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice.
    The following deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of the final results of this antidumping duty review for 
all shipments of circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from Mexico, 
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the 
publication date, as provided by section 751(a) of the Tariff Act: (1) 
The cash deposit rate for the reviewed company will be that established 
in the final results of review; (2) for exporters not covered in this 
review, but covered in the LTFV investigation or previous review, the 
cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate from 
the LTFV investigation or the most recent previous review; (3) if the 
exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a previous review, or 
the

[[Page 64568]]

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; (4) the cash deposit rate for all 
other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 36.62 percent, the 
``All Others'' rate in the LTFV investigation. These requirements, when 
imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results 
of the next administrative review.
    We will calculate importer-specific duty assessment rates as a per 
ton unit value for EP sales. To calculate the per ton unit value for 
assessment, we summed the margins on U.S. sales with positive margins, 
and then divided this sum by the total entered tonnage of all U.S. 
sales.
    This notice 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.
    This administrative review and notice are published in accordance 
with section 751(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 353.22.
    Dated: December 2, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-32064 Filed 12-5-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P