[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 26 (Monday, February 9, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6519-6524]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-3200]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-122-601]


Brass Sheet and Strip from Canada: Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Intent To Revoke 
Order in Part

agency: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Commerce.

action: Notice of preliminary results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and Notice of Intent to Revoke Order in Part.

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

summary: In response to a request by the respondent, the Department of 
Commerce is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty 
order on brass sheet and strip from Canada. The review covers one 
manufacturer/exporter of this merchandise to the United States, 
Wolverine Tube (Canada), Inc. The period covered is January 1, 1996 
through December 31, 1996. As a result of the review, the Department 
has preliminarily determined that no dumping margins exist for this 
respondent. We intend to revoke the order with respect to brass sheet 
and strip from Canada manufactured by Wolverine, based on our 
preliminary determination that Wolverine has sold the merchandise at 
not less than fair value for a period of three consecutive years and 
that it is not likely that Wolverine will sell this product to the 
United States at less than normal value in the future.
    We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary 
results. Parties who submit argument in this proceeding are requested 
to submit with the argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a 
brief summary of the argument.

effective date: February 9, 1998.

for further information contact: Paul Stolz or Tom Futtner, Office of 
Antidumping/Countervailing Duty Enforcement, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

[[Page 6520]]

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 
(202) 482-4474 or 482-3814, respectively.

Applicable Statute and Regulations

    Unless otherwise stated, 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 regulation are to 19 CFR 
part 353 (April 1, 1997).

supplementary information:

Background

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) published an 
antidumping duty order on brass sheet and strip from Canada on January 
12, 1987 (52 FR 1217). On January 14, 1997, the Department published a 
notice of ``Opportunity to Request an Administrative Review'' of the 
antidumping duty order on brass sheet and strip from Canada (62 FR 
1874). On January 31, 1997, a manufacturer/exporter, Wolverine Tube 
(Canada), Inc. (Wolverine) requested an administrative review of its 
exports of the subject merchandise to the United States for the period 
of review January 1, 1996, through December 31, 1996. In accordance 
with 19 CFR 353.22(c), we initiated the review on March 3, 1997 (62 FR 
9413). The Department is now conducting this administrative review in 
accordance with section 751 of the Act.

Scope of Review

    Imports covered by this review are shipments of brass sheet and 
strip (BSS), other than leaded and tinned BSS. The chemical composition 
of the covered products is currently defined in the Copper Development 
Association (C.D.A.) 200 Series or the Unified Numbering System 
(U.N.S.) C2000. This review does not cover products the chemical 
compositions of which are defined by other C.D.A. or U.N.S. series. In 
physical dimensions, the products covered by this review have a solid 
rectangular cross section over 0.006 inches (0.15 millimeters) through 
0.188 inches (4.8 millimeters) in finished thickness or gauge, 
regardless of width. Coiled, wound-on-reels (traverse wound), and cut-
to-length products are included. The merchandise is currently 
classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) item numbers 
7409.21.00 and 7409.29.00. Although the HTS item numbers are provided 
for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the 
scope of this order remains dispositive. Pursuant to the final 
affirmative determination of circumvention of the antidumping duty 
order, covering the period September 1, 1990, through September 30, 
1991, we determined that brass plate used in the production of BSS 
falls within the scope of the antidumping duty order on BSS from 
Canada. See Brass Sheet and Strip from Canada: Final Affirmative 
Determination of Circumvention of Antidumping Duty Order, 58 FR 33610 
(June 18, 1993).
    The review period (POR) is January 1, 1996 through December 31, 
1996. The review involves one manufacturer/exporter, Wolverine.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified information 
provided by the respondent, Wolverine, by using our standard 
verification procedures, including the examination of relevant sales 
and financial records and selection or original documentation 
containing relevant information. Our verification results are outlined 
in the public version of the verification report--``Sales and Cost 
Verification Report, Wolverine Tube (Canada), Inc.''.

United States Price (USP)

    In calculating USP for Wolverine, we used export price (EP), as 
defined in section 772 of the Act, because the merchandise was sold to 
unaffiliated U.S. purchasers prior to the date of importation and 
because no other circumstances indicated that constructed export price 
was appropriate. We calculated EP based on prices that were delivered 
to the customers' premises. In accordance with section 772(c)(1) of the 
Act, we adjusted USP for brokerage and handling, foreign and U.S. 
inland freight, and customs duty. No other adjustments to EP were 
claimed or allowed.

Normal Value

A. Viability

    In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of 
sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, 
we compared Wolverine's volume of home market sales of the foreign like 
product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in 
accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act. Because Wolverine's 
aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product was 
greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales of the 
subject merchandise, we determined that the home market provides a 
viable basis for calculating NV for Wolverine.

B. Below Cost of Production Test

    Because we disregarded sales below the cost of production in the 
1995 POR, the most-recently completed segment of these proceedings, we 
have reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of the foreign 
like product under consideration for determining NV in this review may 
have been at prices below the cost of production (COP), as provided in 
section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Tariff Act. Therefore, pursuant to 
section 773(b)(1) of the Tariff Act, we initiated a COP investigation 
of sales by Wolverine (see Memorandum to the File, dated March 20, 
1997, available in Room B-099 of the Main Commerce Building). In 
accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Tariff Act, we calculated COP 
based on the sum of materials and fabrication employed in producing the 
foreign like product, plus selling, general, and administrative 
expenses (SG&A) and the cost of all expenses incidental to placing the 
foreign like product in condition packed ready for shipment. We relied 
on the home market sales and COP information Wolverine provided in its 
questionnaire responses. After calculating COP, we tested whether home 
market sales of subject BSS were made at prices below COP within an 
extended period of time in substantial quantities, and whether such 
prices permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period 
of time. We compared model-specific COPs to the reported home market 
prices less any applicable movement charges.
    For purposes of the below cost of production test conducted for 
home market comparison sales we allocated a portion of selling, general 
and administrative (SG&A) expenses for the corporate headquarters in 
Huntsville/Decatur, Alabama to Wolverine's cost of production (COP). 
This additional allocation was based on SG&A and cost of sales 
information taken from Wolverine's financial statements. In its 
questionnaire response, Wolverine did not allocate SG&A for its 
Huntsville/Decatur corporate headquarters although it did allocate SG&A 
for its London, Ontario corporate offices. At verification, however, 
discussions with company officials and a review of company 
correspondence revealed that the Fergus, Ontario facility was subject 
to significant guidance and control by corporate headquarters in 
Huntsville/Decatur during the POR. (See the analysis memorandum dated 
January 20, 1998 for details.)
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Tariff Act, where less than 
twenty percent of Wolverine's home market sales for a model were at 
prices less

[[Page 6521]]

than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that model 
because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made within an 
extended period of time in ``substantial quantities.'' Where twenty 
percent or more of Wolverine's home market sales were at prices less 
than the COP, we determined that such sales were made within an 
extended period of time in substantial quantities in accordance with 
section 773(b)(2) (B) and (C) of the Tariff Act. To determine whether 
such sales were at prices which would not permit the full recovery of 
all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with 
section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Tariff Act, we compared home market prices 
to the weighted-average COPs for the POR. The results of our cost test 
for Wolverine indicated that for certain home market models less than 
twenty percent of the sales of the model were at prices below COP. We 
therefore retained all sales of these models in our analysis and used 
them as the basis for determining NV. Our cost test for Wolverine also 
indicated that for certain other home market models more than twenty 
percent of the home market sales within an extended period of time were 
at prices below COP and would not permit the full recovery of all costs 
within a reasonable period of time. In accordance with section 
773(b)(1) of the Tariff Act, we therefore excluded the below-cost sales 
of these models from our analysis and used the remaining above-cost 
sales as the basis for determining NV.

C. Model-Matching

    We calculated NV using prices of BSS products having the same 
characteristics as to form, temper, gauge, width, and alloy. We used 
the same gauge and width groupings and the same model-match methodology 
in this review as in the last completed administrative review (1995). 
As in the 1995 review, we disregarded ``source'' designations in the 
product codes for model matching purposes since the ``sources'', i.e., 
whether reroll or nonreroll brass is used to make the product, does not 
appear to describe physical characteristics of the resulting subject 
merchandise itself. Wolverine claimed in its response that the grain 
density of the reroll material obtained from outside suppliers was 
higher than that of its own cast material. Although this may be the 
case, respondent's claim has not been substantiated on the record of 
this review. Moreover, we requested in our supplemental questionnaire 
that respondent submit product codes accounting for physical 
characteristics only, including grain density, but excluding source. In 
its response, respondent did not then report grain density in place of 
source. Furthermore, we determined at verification that reporting grain 
density would not have caused any hardship for the respondent. The 
factory lab was outfitted with equipment capable of accurately 
determining grain size/density and other product characteristics such 
as purity levels. In addition, we determined that grain density was 
routinely monitored throughout the product process. Therefore, since 
``source'' does not describe a physical product characteristic, and 
since the respondent did not report grain density as we requested, we 
are not including ``source'' as a product matching characteristic. 
Moreover, the absence of grain density information does not favor 
Wolverine. Purchased re-roll material, presumably of higher quality and 
higher cost materials, was sold during the period of review only in the 
home market. Thus, those sales were matched with Wolverine's own cast 
materials, sold in the U.S. market, thereby increasing the likelihood 
and magnitude of dumping margins.

D. Level of Trade

    In our supplemental questionnaire we specifically asked the 
respondent to describe its reasons for claiming there were different 
terms of sale or selling prices to different classes of customer. 
Respondent described three distinct customer categories in the home 
market and one in the U.S. market, but did not explain how Wolverine's 
selling functions varied for each customer category.
    As documentation to support its level of trade (LOT) claim, the 
respondent supplied price lists, but these lists do not show any 
differences in selling functions or illustrate the source of price 
differences for different customer categories. The respondent did not 
provide any other information to document, justify, or quantify its 
reported differences in selling functions in order to establish the 
claimed three different LOTs in the home market. Further, at 
verification we discussed the process by which customers were placed in 
a particular category. We noted no indication of different selling 
functions corresponding to various customers on the basis of customer 
category or otherwise.
    Upon review of the case record, we have determined that although 
distinct customer categories existed, there is no evidence on the 
record, in terms of selling functions performed by Wolverine, 
correlating them to levels of trade. Thus, although customer categories 
may exist, they are distinct from any level of trade designations which 
we may consider in calculating dumping margins for Wolverine. Because 
the record does not show that Wolverine performed different selling 
functions with respect to different channels of distribution, we 
determined that there is only one LOT in the home market. See 
Ferrosilicon from Brazil: Notice of Partial Termination and Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR 2661 (January 
16, 1998). Furthermore, since we noted no different selling functions 
in the U.S. market, no LOT adjustment is necessary.

E. Price-to-Price Comparisons

    We calculated NV using monthly weighted-average prices of BBS 
having the same characteristics as to form, temper, gauge, width, and 
alloy. We based NV on the price at which the foreign like product is 
first sold for consumption in the exporting country, in the usual 
commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, and at the 
same level of trade as the export price, as defined by section 
773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act.
    We reduced NV for home market credit and warranty expenses, and 
increased NV for U.S. credit expenses in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(C)(iii), due to differences in circumstances of sale. We 
reduced NV for home market movement expenses, in accordance with 
section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii); and for packing costs incurred in the home 
market, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B)(i); and increased NV to 
account for U.S. packing expenses. No other adjustments to NV were 
claimed or allowed.

Revocation

    On January 31, 1997, Wolverine submitted its request for an 
administrative review covering the 1996 POR and, pursuant to 19 CFR 
353.25(b), requested revocation of the antidumping duty order with 
respect to Wolverine. In its request, Wolverine stated that it expected 
to received a de minims margin in the 1996 POR. Wolverine noted that 
this would be the third consecutive de minimis margin received, and 
thus Wolverine would be eligible for revocation. In accordance with 19 
CFR 353.25(a)(2)(iii), this request was accompanied by certifications 
from the firm that it had not the relevant class or kind of merchandise 
at less than normal valve (NV) for a three-year period including this 
review period, and would not do so in the future. Wolverine also agreed 
to its immediate reinstatement in the

[[Page 6522]]

relevant antidumping duty order, as long as any firm is subject to this 
order, if the Department concludes under 19 CFR 353.22(f) that, 
subsequent to revocation, it sold the subject merchandise at less than 
NV. On August 1, 1997, the petitioner submitted a request that the 
deadline for the preliminary results in this review be fully extended 
by 120 days in order to develop the administrative record with respect 
to revocation. In addition, the petitioner claimed that the burden for 
demonstrating ``no likelihood'' of future dumping as stipulated under 
19 CFR 353.25(a)(2) was on the respondent, and that the respondent 
should be required to place on the record historical data covering its 
operations over the preceding five years. In addition, the petitioner 
requested that the Department require the respondent to submit specific 
planning data regarding future production of subject and non-subject 
merchandise.
    On September 15, 1997, the Department extended the deadline for the 
preliminary determination. However, the Department did not find 
compelling cause to request respondent to produce the extensive 
historical and planning data which the petitioner proposed was 
necessary to determine whether future dumping was ``not likely.'' On 
October 16, 1997, the Department informed interested parties that the 
administrative record would be re-opened for submission of comments and 
rebuttal comments pertaining to the issue of likelihood of future 
dumping. Both respondent and petitioner submitted comments and rebuttal 
comments in a timely manner.

Interested Party Comments on Whether Future Dumping is Likely

    On November 10, 1997, Wolverine and petitioner submitted comments 
on the issue of whether or not it is likely that Wolverine would resume 
dumping if the Department granted revocation as to that firm. First, 
the respondent noted that it received two consecutive zero or de 
minimis margins and is committed to refrain from dumping in the future 
and has made certifications to this effect as stipulated under the 
Department's regulations. The petitioner has not challenged these facts 
or the adequacy of the certifications.
    Second, Wolverine states that dumping is unlikely to resume given 
the similar nature of price, supply, and demand patterns common to both 
the Canadian and U.S. markets. Wolverine asserts that this limits the 
potential for price differences in each market. Petitioner states that 
Wolverine's claim that North America is a unified market for BSS is 
unsubstantiated by specific company information.
    Third, Wolverine cites favorable market conditions which it claims 
render future dumping unlikely. In its November 10, 1997, submission of 
comments regarding the likelihood of future dumping, Wolverine included 
as exhibits market reports and articles from American Metal Market and 
Purchasing which characterize the market for copper, copper alloys and 
brass as strong and steady. The articles and reports cite increasing 
lead times, low inventories, rising prices and strong demand as factors 
contributing to an environment in which dumping is not likely. In 
addition, respondent cites expanded applications of brass mill 
products, such as used in construction of ship hulls and electric 
vehicles, which may result in increased demand.
    Fourth, Wolverine notes that it lacks both the means and the 
incentive to abuse revocation. Respondent notes that it competes 
largely by servicing established home market customers with a 
diversified product range. Since its customers require a diversified 
product range, its brass production capacity is limited and although 
its brass business is profitable, if it received an order for its other 
more profitable products it would choose the latter. Therefore, 
according to Wolverine, the potential impact of its brass sales on the 
U.S. market would be miniscule in any case. Petitioner claims that 
respondent did not substantiate its claims that it had no economic 
incentive to devote its entire capacity to production for the U.S. 
market. In addition, petitioner notes that Wolverine's statements 
regarding its minimal potential impact on the U.S. market are 
irrelevant and do not support a finding that it is not likely that 
Wolverine will dump in the future.
    Petitioner's comments cited its August 1, 1997, letter in which it 
requested five-year historical data and background/planning information 
and reiterated its request that the Department require that Wolverine 
(or the Department) place this information on the record of this 
proceeding. Petitioner has stated that much of this information was 
placed on the records of prior proceedings. Petitioner reiterated its 
view that the burden of showing that Wolverine is not likely to resume 
dumping following revocation rests on the respondent. In this respect, 
petitioner argues that five-year historical data on many aspects of 
Wolverine's trade with the United States is necessary to establish 
sales trends in order to determine the likelihood of future dumping, 
and claims that much of the requested information is already on the 
record of prior proceedings and would not be difficult to collect. 
Petitioner claims that respondent's sales of subject merchandise in the 
United States have declined since imposition of the antidumping duty 
order. Petitioner also claims that the loss of certain business by 
respondent in the home market would dispose respondent to future 
dumping. Finally, respondent asserted that the petitioner's comments 
contained no factual evidence on the subject of revocation and that 
petitioner's actual purpose in requesting additional time to develop 
the record with respect to revocation was part of a strategy to delay 
the conclusion of this review and to deny respondent revocation.

Department Analysis

    Petitioner has not shown that the additional data it requested the 
Department gather is necessary to resolve whether it is not likely that 
Wolverine would dump subject merchandise were the order revoked as to 
that company. Furthermore, we note that much of the data requested by 
petitioner is not on the record of prior reviews and collecting it 
would impose a considerable administrative burden on the Department. In 
view of the fact that each administrative review is conducted as a 
separate segment of the proceeding pursuant to the Department's 
regulations, the burden of gathering additional information, and the 
failure of petitioner to demonstrate any compelling need for the 
Department to consider the requested information in determining whether 
it should revoke the order as to Wolverine, the Department has declined 
to gather (and include) further information in the administrative 
record of this review. On this issue, the Department has a considerable 
factual record before it. At the request of the parties, the Department 
established a process for the submission of factual information on the 
issue of whether it is not likely that dumping would resume in the 
future. As discussed above, both the petitioner and the respondent made 
submissions of information relevant to this issue. Accordingly, the 
Department has an adequate record before it on which to make a 
determination on the revocation issue.
    Under the Department's regulations, the Department may revoke an 
order in part if the Secretary concludes that: (1) ``one or more 
producers or resellers covered by the order have sold the merchandise 
at not less than fair value for a period of at least three consecutive 
years''; (2) ``[i]t is not likely that those persons will in the future 
sell the

[[Page 6523]]

merchandise at less than fair value * * *''; and (3) ``the producers or 
resellers agree in writing to the immediate reinstatement of the order 
as long as any producer or reseller is subject to the order, if the 
Secretary concludes that the producer or reseller, subsequent to the 
revocation, sold the merchandise at less than fair value.'' See 19 CFR 
353.25(a)(2).
    Upon review of the three criteria described above, and of the 
comments and rebuttal comments, and on the basis of all of the evidence 
on the record, we have preliminarily determined that the Department's 
requirements for revocation have been met. The Department found that 
Wolverine's sales reviewed during the eighth (1994) and ninth (1995) 
reviews under this order were made at not less than NV. Also, in this 
tenth review, we have preliminarily determined that Wolverine's sales 
were made at not less than NV. Further, Wolverine has certified its 
consent to immediate reinstatement of the order should the situation 
described in the third criterion noted above occur.
    With respect to the second criterion, the Department stated, in 
Brass Sheet and Strip from Germany, Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and Determination Not to Revoke in Part, 61 FR 
49728 (9/23/96): ``[i]n prior cases where revocation was under 
consideration and the likelihood of resumption of dumped sales was at 
issue, the Department has considered, in addition to the respondent's 
prices and margins in the preceding periods, such other factors as 
conditions and trends in the domestic and home market industries, 
currency movements, and the ability of the foreign entity to compete in 
the U.S. marketplace without LTFV sales.'' 61 FR at 49731. In this 
proceeding, the information submitted by the parties, and the comments 
received, centered upon three main conditions: (1) Supply and demand 
for BSS, (2) the quantitative trend of respondent's sales in the U.S. 
market since respondent received its first zero margin (as a measure of 
its ability to sell commercial quantities at fair market value), and 
(3) the effects of currency movements with respect to price comparisons 
between the home market and the U.S. market.
    First, as noted by respondents, demand for subject merchandise in 
the U.S. and Canadian markets remains strong and conditions are 
favorable to a positive market environment for subject merchandise. 
Strong, profitable markets tend not to precipitate dumping. The reports 
and articles supplied by respondent in its November 10, 1997, 
submission contain factual information and forecasts by industry 
analysts which characterize market condition for BSS products as 
positive with evidence indicating the likelihood of continued growth 
and positive performance. No evidence was placed on the record 
characterizing the market otherwise.
    We note, however, that Wolverine's argument that dumping would be 
precluded because market conditions for BSS products are similar in the 
Canadian and U.S. markets is not substantiated by evidence on the 
record.
    With respect to the question of whether Wolverine would have an 
economic incentive to devote its entire capacity to production for the 
U.S. market, it is evident, based on information reviewed at 
verification and a review of sales of subject and non-subject 
merchandise, that Wolverine does provide a mix of products to a variety 
of U.S. and home market customers. We also noted at verification that 
there are indications that there may be some strategic and physical 
limitations in capacity with respect to production of BSS at the Fergus 
plant. This does not preclude future expansion of capacity, however, 
under proper market conditions. In addition, we note that, as 
petitioner points out, the potential impact of a foreign exporter's 
sales on the U.S. market is not relevant in determining whether dumping 
is currently taking place or whether it is likely to resume in the 
future.
    With respect to petitioner's claim that, despite the generally 
strong market for BSS, loss of certain business would dispose Wolverine 
to future dumping, we noted at verification that this respondent had 
taken significant steps and devoted significant resources to restoring/
replacing the business in question, and to developing alternative non-
subject products to make up for lost business. Furthermore, it is not 
clear that diminished capacity utilization, even should it occur, would 
necessarily contribute to the likelihood of future dumping.
    Second, unlike the facts underlying our determination in Brass 
Sheet and Strip from Germany, in which we determined not to revoke the 
order as to a requesting respondent, this review covers multiple 
shipments of subject merchandise to the U.S. market. In Brass Sheet and 
Strip from Germany, the respondent in question had made only a single 
shipment during the review at issue.
    Third, exchange rate data taken from the Import Administration's 
currency database indicate that from January of 1996 through September 
of 1997, the Canadian dollar-U.S. dollar exchange rate remained stable. 
There is no indication that the Canadian dollar might drastically 
appreciate, precipitating the potential for disparities in Canadian and 
U.S. selling prices of subject merchandise which would make dumping 
margins more likely. In fact, the Canadian dollar has actually 
depreciated slightly against the U.S. dollar.
    Thus, the Department preliminarily determines that this criterion 
for revocation has been met.

Preliminary Results of the Review

    As a result of our comparison of EP to NV, we preliminarily 
determine that a de minimis dumping margin (0.42 percent) exists for 
Wolverine for the period January 1, 1996 through December 31, 1996, and 
we determine, preliminarily, to revoke partially the antidumping duty 
order with respect to imports of subject merchandise from Wolverine.
    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 of this notice. Any 
hearing will be held 44 days after the date of publication or the first 
workday thereafter. Interested parties may submit case briefs within 30 
days of the publication date of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited 
to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than 37 
days after the date of publication. The Department will publish a 
notice of the final results of this administrative review, which will 
include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such case 
briefs or at a hearing, within 120 days from publication of these 
preliminary results. The following deposit requirements will be 
effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise that are 
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the 
publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as 
provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for 
Wolverine will be the rate established in the final results of this 
review; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not 
listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-
specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter 
is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original 
less-than-fair-value (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) if neither the 
manufacturer nor the exporter is a firm

[[Page 6524]]

covered in this or any previous review, the cash deposit rate will be 
8.10 percent, the ``all others'' rate established in the LTFV 
investigation. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain 
in effect until publication of the final results of the next 
administrative review. Furthermore, The Department shall determine, and 
the Customs Service shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate 
entries. 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 this notice are in accordance with 
section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 353.22.

    Dated: February 2, 1998.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary, Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-3200 Filed 2-6-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M