[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 6 (Friday, January 9, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1430-1434]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-485]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-201-504]


Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware From Mexico: Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

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

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

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

SUMMARY: In response to a request by the petitioner, General Housewares 
Corporation, the Department of Commerce is conducting an administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on porcelain-on-steel cookware 
from Mexico. This review covers Cinsa, S.A. de C.V. and Esmaltaciones 
de Norte America, S.A. de C.V., manufacturers/exporters of the subject 
merchandise to the United States. The period of review is December 1, 
1995, through November 30, 1996.
    We preliminarily determine that sales have been made below normal 
value. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of 
administrative review, we will instruct the Customs Service to assess 
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results. Parties who submit arguments in this proceeding should also 
submit with the argument: (1) a statement of the issue, and (2) a brief 
summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 9, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kate Johnson/Dorlores Peck or Mary Jenkins, Office 5, AD/CVD 
Enforcement Group II, Import Administration--Room B099, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
4929 or 482-1756, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Applicable Statute

    Unless otherwise indicated, 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, as amended (the 
Act), by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless 
otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department of Commerce's (the 
Department's) regulations are to the provisions codified at 19 CFR part 
353 (April 1997). Where we cite to the Department's new regulations (19 
CFR part 351, 62 FR 27926 (May 19, 1997) (New Regulations)) as an 
indication of current Department practice, we have so stated.

Background

    On October 10, 1986, the Department published in the Federal 
Register (51 FR 36435) the final affirmative antidumping duty 
determination on certain porcelain-on-steel cookware from Mexico. We 
published an antidumping duty order on December 2, 1986 (51 FR 43415).
    On December 3, 1996, the Department published in the Federal 
Register a notice advising of the opportunity to request an 
administrative review of this order for the period December 1, 1995, 
through November 30, 1996 (the POR) (61 FR 64050). The Department 
received a request for an administrative review of Cinsa, S.A. de C.V. 
(Cinsa) and Esmaltaciones de Norte America, S.A. de C.V. (ENASA) from 
General Housewares Corporation, the petitioner. We published a notice 
of initiation of the review on January 17, 1997 (62 FR 2647). On June 
10, 1997, the petitioner made an allegation that Cinsa and ENASA were 
reimbursing the affiliated U.S. importer, Cinsa International 
Corporation (CIC), for antidumping deposits and assessment liabilities 
during the POR.
    During the period June 23 through June 27, 1997, we conducted 
verifications of Cinsa and ENASA, as well as CIC.
    On August 19, 1997, the Department extended the time limit for the 
preliminary results in this case until December 31, 1997. See Extension 
of Time Limit for Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 44108, 
August 17, 1997.
    The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section 
751(a) of the Act.

Scope of the Review

    The products covered by this review are porcelain-on-steel 
cookware, including tea kettles, which do not have self-contained 
electric heating elements. All of the foregoing are constructed of 
steel and are enameled or glazed with vitreous glasses. This 
merchandise is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule 
of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 7323.94.00. Kitchenware 
currently classifiable under HTSUS subheading 7323.94.00.30 is not 
subject to the order. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for 
convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope 
of this proceeding is dispositive.

Verification

    As provided in Section 782(i) of the Act, we conducted 
verifications of Cinsa, ENASA and CIC from June 23 through June 27, 
1997. We conducted the verifications using standard verification 
procedures including on-site inspection of the manufacturers' 
facilities, the examination of relevant accounting, sales, and other 
financial records, and selection of original documentation containing 
relevant information. Our verification results are outlined in the 
public version of the verification report which is on file in the 
Central Records Unit (CRU) in room B-099 of the Main Commerce Building.
    Based on verification, we made certain changes to data in the sales 
listing submitted by Cinsa and ENASA used to calculate the preliminary 
margins (See Memorandum to the File dated December 30, 1997).

Affiliated Parties

    Cinsa and ENASA are both wholly-owned subsidiaries of ISLO S.A. de 
C.V., which in turn is wholly-owned by the Grupo Saltillo, S.A. de C.V. 
Because Cinsa and ENASA are controlled by the same parent, they are 
affiliated within the meaning of section 771(3)(F) of the Act.
    Since Cinsa and ENASA are affiliated producers of subject 
merchandise, we analyzed whether the two producers should be treated as 
a single entity for the purpose of assigning an antidumping margin 
using the Department's standard ``collapsing`` test. See reference to 
19 CFR 351.401(f) on page two. During the course of this review, we 
verified that the manufacturing facilities of ENASA are separate from 
those of Cinsa, and that the machinery Cinsa used to produce ``ranch 
style'' cookware cannot be used to make the ENASA ``euro-style'' 
cookware, and vice versa, without fundamental and expensive retooling. 
Accordingly, because we have determined that the production facilities 
of Cinsa and ENASA would require substantial retooling in order to 
produce similar or identical products, as in prior reviews, we are not 
treating these firms

[[Page 1431]]

as a single entity for the purposes of assigning and antidumping 
margin.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all 
products produced by Cinsa and ENASA covered by the description in the 
``Scope of the Review'' section, above, and sold in the home market 
during the POR 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. 
In making the product comparisons, we matched foreign like products 
based on the physical characteristics reported by the respondents in 
the following order: quality, gauge, cookware category, model, shape, 
wall shape, diameter, width, capacity, weight, interior coating, 
exterior coating, grade of frit (a material component of enamel), 
color, decoration, and cover, if any. With regard to sets, where there 
were no sales of identical merchandise in the home market to compare to 
U.S. sales of subject merchandise sold in sets, we compared U.S. sales 
of sets to the constructed value (CV) of the set.
    Cinsa did not report all of the required physical characteristic 
data for one U.S. product. Accordingly, we were unable to identify the 
most similar home market sales to that product. As facts available, we 
compare U.S. sales of this product to CV.
    In addition, Cinsa and ENASA did not report cost information for 
all sales made during the POR. Accordingly, we must apply facts 
available to these sales. However, given the level of cooperation of 
the two respondents, we have no basis to apply adverse facts available 
in this instance. Therefore, we have used the average of all positive 
margins for those sales without reported costs.
    As in our final results of review for the period December 1, 1994, 
through November 30, 1995, (Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware from Mexico: 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 42496, 
August 7, 1997 (POS9 Final)), we have rejected Cinsa's argument that 
heavy gauge (HG) and medium gauge (MG) euro-style cookware manufactured 
by ENASA and light gauge (LG) ranch-style cookware manufactured by 
Cinsa constitute distinct ``classes or kinds'' of merchandise and, 
therefore, require the Department to calculate one margin for HG and MG 
cookware and a separate margin for LG cookware. The scope of the order 
constitutes a single class or kind of merchandise, i.e. the ``subject 
merchandise.''
    Consistent with our practice (see, e.g., Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Cold-rolled Carbon Steel Flat 
Products from the Netherlands, 61 FR 48465, (September 13, 1996)), we 
compared prime quality models sold in the United States to identical 
prime quality models sold in the home market. Where no home market 
sales of identical prime quality models existed, we compared the U.S. 
sales of prime quality models to the most similar home market prime 
quality model. There were no U.S. sales of second quality models.

Allegation of Reimbursement

    The Department examined at verification the issue of whether, as 
the petitioner alleged, CIC was reimbursed for antidumping duties. With 
respect to capital contributions made by GISSA Holding USA to CIC 
during the POR, we found that since its inception in early January of 
1995, the affiliated importer, CIC, has received two cash transfers in 
the form of capital contributions. The first transfer constituted 
start-up funds and was not tied to antidumping duty deposits or 
assessments. In a public submission on the record of the tenth review 
(1995-1996), the respondents Cinsa and ENASA specifically stated that a 
second capital contribution made in April 1997 by CIC's affiliate, 
GISSA Holding USA, was provided to ensure that CIC would have enough 
funds to cover anticipated antidumping duties and assessment liability 
subsequent to the liquidation of fifth (1990-1991) and seventh (1992-
1993) POR entries during the tenth (1995-1996) POR. Because GISSA 
Holding, USA is not a producer or exporter of the subject merchandise, 
we cannot, ipso facto, conclude that a producer or exporter paid for, 
or reimbursed to, the importer antidumping duties. Thus, we preliminary 
do not find reimbursement within the meaning of 19 CFR 353.26(a). 
However, we will continue to examine this issue in light of comments by 
the parties and may, if warranted, seek additional information.

Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of porcelain-on-steel cookware by Cinsa 
and ENASA to the United States were made at less than normal value 
(NV), we compared export price (EP) or constructed export price (CEP) 
to the NV, as described in the ``Export Price and Constructed Export 
Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice.
    Mexico experienced significant inflation during the POR, as 
measured by the producer price index issued by the Bank of Mexico. 
Accordingly, to avoid the distortions caused by the effects of this 
level of inflation on prices, we limited our comparisons to sales in 
the same month and did not apply the Department's 90/60 rule, whereby 
the Department may use as NV comparison market prices from the three 
months prior to and the two months after the month in which the U.S. 
sale was made. See e.g., Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware from Mexico: Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 42496 (August 
7, 1997).

Export Price and Constructed Export Price

    For certain sales made by Cinsa and ENASA, we calculated EP in 
accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because the subject 
merchandise was sold directly to the first unaffiliated purchaser in 
the United States prior to importation and because CEP methodology was 
not otherwise indicated. We based EP on packed prices to unaffiliated 
purchasers in the United States. We made deductions from the starting 
price, where appropriate, for U.S. and foreign inland freight, U.S. and 
Mexican brokerage and handling expenses, U.S. duty and rebates.
    For the remaining sales made by Cinsa and ENASA during the POR, we 
calculated CEP in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, because 
the subject merchandise was sold by CIC after having been imported into 
the United States. We based CEP on packed prices to unaffiliated 
purchasers in the United States. We made deductions from the starting 
price, where appropriate, for U.S. and foreign inland freight, U.S. and 
Mexican brokerage and handling expenses, U.S. duty and rebates.
    We made further deductions, where appropriate, for credit, 
commissions, and indirect selling expenses that were associated with 
economic activities occurring in the United States. Finally, we made an 
adjustment for profit in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act.

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, we based NV 
on either (1) the price (exclusive of value-added tax) at which the 
foreign like

[[Page 1432]]

product was first sold for consumption in the home market, in 
accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act or (2) CV, in 
accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, as noted in the ``Price 
to Price Comparisons'' and ``Price to CV Comparisons'' sections of this 
notice.

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 this review, Cinsa and ENASA reported three channels of 
distribution in the home market: (1) direct sales to customers from the 
Saltillo plant, (2) sales shipped from their Mexico city warehouse, and 
(3) sales shipped from their Guadalajara warehouse. In analyzing the 
data in the home market sales listing by distribution channel and sales 
function, we found that the three home market channels did not differ 
significantly with respect to selling activities. Similar services, 
such as freight and delivery services and inventory maintenance, were 
offered to all or some portion of customers in each channel. Based on 
this analysis, we find that the three home market channels of 
distribution comprise a single level of trade.
    Cinsa and ENASA reported both EP and CEP sales in the U.S. market. 
The EP sales were made by the exporter to the unaffiliated customer, 
who received the merchandise at the border between Mexico and the 
United States (FOB Laredo, Texas). We noted that EP sales involved 
basically the same selling functions associated with the home market 
level of trade described above. Therefore, based upon this information, 
we have determined that the level of trade for all EP sales is the same 
as that in the home market.
    The CEP sales were based on sales made by the exporter to CIC, the 
U.S. affiliated reseller, who then sold the merchandise directly to 
unaffiliated purchasers in the United States from its San Antonio 
warehouse. Based on our analysis, after the section 772(d) deductions, 
there are two selling activities associated with Cinsa's and ENASA's 
sales to CIC reflected in the CEP: (1) freight and other movement 
expenses from the plant to the affiliated reseller's San Antonio 
warehouse, and (2) freight and delivery services (excluding actual 
freight charges), and inventory maintenance, and other support services 
(such as sales personnel, order processing personnel, and billing 
personnel), which are the same functions found in the home market. 
Therefore, we determine that Cinsa's and ENASA's CEP sales and their 
home market sales are made at the same level of trade. Accordingly, 
because we find the U.S. sales and home market sales to be at the same 
level of trade, no level of trade adjustments under section 
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act are warranted.

CEP Offset

    Section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act provides for an adjustment to NV 
when NV is based on a level of trade different from that of the CEP if 
the NV level is more remote from the factory than the CEP and if we are 
unable to determine whether the difference in levels of trade between 
CEP and NV affects the comparability of their prices. This latter 
situation can occur where there is no home market level of trade 
equivalent to the U.S. sales level or where there is a different home 
market level of trade but the data are insufficient to support a 
conclusion on price effect. This adjustment, the CEP offset, is 
identified in section 773(a)(7)(B) and is the lesser of the following:
    The indirect selling expenses on the home market sale, or
    The indirect selling expenses from the starting price in 
calculating CEP.
    The CEP offset is not automatic each time we use CEP.
    In their questionnaire responses, Cinsa and ENASA claimed that the 
sales support activities (such as freight and delivery services, 
excluding actual freight charges, and inventory maintenance), and other 
support services (such as sales personnel, order processing personnel, 
and billing personnel) provided to home market and to U.S. customers 
are generally the same. The respondents nevertheless requested an 
adjustment to NV when NV is compared to U.S. CEP sales because they 
claim that home market sales are made at a more advanced level of trade 
than CEP sales because the NV sales price includes indirect selling 
expenses attributable to sales support activities and other support 
services noted above, while the CEP sales price is exclusive of all 
indirect selling expenses and the selling functions attributable 
thereto.
    However, as discussed above, we find that the selling functions 
performed at the CEP level are essentially the same as those performed 
in the home market. Accordingly, we consider the home market and CEP 
levels of trade comparable. We disagree with respondents' assertion 
that differences in indirect selling expenses reflect a difference in 
level of trade. Because we find the CEP and home market levels of trade 
are the same, an adjustment to NV is not warranted.

Cost of Production Analysis

    The Department disregarded certain sales made by Cinsa for the 
period December 1, 1994, through November 30, 1995, (the most recently 
completed review of Cinsa) pursuant to a finding in that review that 
sales were made below cost. Thus, in accordance with section 
773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, there are reasonable grounds to believe or 
suspect that the respondent Cinsa made sales in the home market at 
prices below the cost of producing the merchandise in the current 
review period. As a result, the Department initiated an investigation 
to determine whether the respondent made home market sales during the 
POR at prices below its cost of production (COP) within the meaning of 
section 773(b) of the Act.
    The petitioner alleged that there are reasonable grounds to believe 
or suspect that ENASA made home market sales during the POR at prices 
that were less than its COP. On May 15, 1997, the Department initiated 
a sales below cost investigation to determine whether ENASA made home 
market sales during

[[Page 1433]]

the POR at prices below its COP within the meaning of section 773(b) of 
the Act.

A. Calculation of COP

    We calculated the COP based on the sum of Cinsa's and ENASA's cost 
of materials and fabrication costs for the foreign like product, plus 
amounts for home market SG&A and packing costs in accordance with 
section 773(b)(3) of the Act.
    As noted above in the ``Product Comparisons'' section, the Mexican 
economy experienced significant inflation during the POR. Therefore, in 
order to avoid the distortive effect of inflation on our comparisons of 
costs and prices, we requested that the respondents submit monthly, 
model-specific production costs for each month of the POR. We 
calculated a model-specific total and variable cost of manufacturing 
(COM) during the POR. Using the producer price index for Mexico 
maintained by the Bank of Mexico, we indexed the total and variable POR 
model-specific costs to a common point, i.e., November 1996, the month 
of the POR. We then divided the sum of the total POR model-specific 
costs by the total model-specific production quantity to obtain a 
model-specific POR weighted-average cost corresponding to the November 
1996 reference point. The weighted-average COM was then restated based 
on the currency value in each respective month and used to calculate a 
month COP for each product.
    We relied on COP information submitted by Cinsa and ENASA, except 
in the following instances where it was not appropriately quantified or 
valued: (1) frit prices from an affiliated supplier did not approximate 
fair market value prices; therefore, we increased direct materials by 
the percentage required to adjust the reported cost of frit to reflect 
fair market prices; (2) we added profit sharing expenses to the 
variable cost of manufacture because they relate to the compensation of 
direct labor; and (3) we revised Cinsa's submitted interest costs to 
exclude the calculation of negative interest expense.

B. Test of Home Market Prices

    We compared the monthly weight-averaged per unit COP figures, 
indexed to account for the effects of inflation as noted above, 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 were made 
at prices below the COP. 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 a 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, less any 
applicable movement charges, rebates, discounts, and direct and 
indirect selling expenses.

C. Results of COP Test

    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C), where less than 20 percent of the 
respondent's sales of a given product were at prices less than the COP, 
we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because we 
determined that the below-cost sales were not made in ``substantial 
quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a 
given product during the POR were at prices less than the COP, we 
disregarded the below-cost sales were such sales were found to be made 
at prices which would not permit the recovery of all costs within a 
reasonable period of time (in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of 
the Act). Where all comparison sales of a specific product were 
disregarded based on the COP test, we calculated NV based on CV, in 
accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the act.

D. Calculation of CV

    In accordance with section 773(e)(1) of the Act, we calculated a CV 
based on the sum of the respondents' cost of materials, fabrication, 
SG&A, and U.S. Packing costs as reported in the U.S. sales listing. We 
calculated CV based on the methodology described in the calculation of 
COP above.
    In accordance with section 773(e)(2)A), we based SG&A and profit on 
the actual amounts incurred and realized by Cinsa and ENASA 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 
expense. Where we compared EP to CV, we deducted from CV the weighted-
average home market direct selling expenses and added the U.S. direct 
selling expenses, in accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act and 
section 353.56(a)(2) of the Department's regulations.

E. Price to Price Comparisons

    For those comparison products for which there were sales at prices 
above the COP, we based the respondents' NV on home market prices. For 
both of the respondents, we calculated NV based on the VA-exclusive 
gross unit price and deducted, where appropriate, inland freight, 
rebates, and early payment discounts.
    For comparisons in Cinsa and ENASA's EP sales, we made a 
circumstance-of-sale adjustment, where appropriate, for differences in 
credit expenses. For comparisons to Cinsa's and ENASA's CEP sales, we 
also deducted credit expenses and commissions from NV (no commissions 
were incurred on EP sales). We made adjustments for differences in 
packing expenses for both Cinsa and ENASA. We also made adjustments to 
NV, where appropriate, for differences in costs attributable to 
differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise, pursuant to 
section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act.
    In order to make appropriate adjustment for physical differences 
between the products compared, and to account for the effects of 
inflation, all costs were expressed in currency values corresponding to 
November 1996, the last month of the POR. Using these November-based 
costs, we then calculated a per-unit model-specific weighted-average 
variable and total COM. These weighted-average costs were then indexed 
to the currency value of the month of the comparison U.S. sale. The 
adjusted monthly variable costs of manufacturing for U.S. and home 
market products were then compared to arrive at the difference in 
merchandise adjustment.

F. Price to CV

    Where we compared EP or CEP to CV, we made circumstance-of-sale 
adjustments by deducting from CV the weighted-average home market 
direct selling expenses and adding the United States direct selling 
expenses.

Currency Conversion

    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. The benchmark 
is defined as the rolling average of rates for the past 40 business 
days. When we determine a fluctuation existed, we substitute the 
benchmark for the daily rate.

[[Page 1434]]

Preliminary Results of the Review

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Manufacturer/ exporter                  Period        Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cinsa........................................  12/1/95-11/30/96    15.94
ENASA........................................  12/1/95-11/30/96    63.76
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parties to the proceeding may request disclosure within five days 
of the date 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 business day thereafter.
    Issues raised in hearings will be limited to those raised in the 
respective case briefs and rebuttal briefs. Case briefs from interested 
parties and rebuttal briefs, limited to the issues raised in the 
respective case briefs, may be submitted not later than 30 days and 37 
days, respectively, from the date of publication of these preliminary 
results. Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this 
proceeding are requested to submit with each argument (1) a statement 
of the issue and (2) a brief summary of the argument.
    The Department will subsequently issue the final results of this 
administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues 
raised in any such written briefs or at the hearing, if held, not later 
than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice.
    The Department shall determine and the Customs Service shall assess 
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department will 
issue appropriate appraisement instructions directly to the Customs 
Service upon completion of this review.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective 
upon publication of the final results of this antidumping duty review 
for all shipments of porcelain-on-steel cookware 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 rates for the reviewed companies will be those 
established in the final results of review; (2) for exporters not 
covered in this review, but covered in the LTFV investigation or prior 
reviews, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific 
rate from the LTFV investigation or the prior review; (3) if the 
exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the 
original LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit 
rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the 
manufacturer of the merchandise; (4) the cash deposit rate for all 
other manufactures or exporters will continue to be 29.52 percent, the 
``All Others'' rate made effective by the LTFV investigation. These 
requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of 
the final results of the next administrative review.
    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 31, 1997.
Richard W. Moreland,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-485 Filed 1-8-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M