[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 35 (Monday, February 23, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8953-8957]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-4541]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-428-822]


Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Steel Wire Rod From Germany

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 23, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Judith Wey Rudman or John Brinkmann, 
Office of AD/CVD Enforcement II, Import Administration, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
0192 or (202) 482-5288.

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 citations to the Department's 
regulations are references to the provisions codified at 19 CFR Part 
353 (April 1997). Although the Department's new regulations, codified 
at 19 CFR 351 (62 FR 27296; May 19, 1997), do not govern these 
proceedings, citations to those regulations are provided, where 
appropriate, to explain current departmental practice.

Final Determination

    We determine that steel wire rod from Germany is being sold in the 
United States at less than fair value (``LTFV''), as provided in 
section 735 of the Act. The estimated margins of sales at LTFV are 
shown in the ``Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation'' section of 
this notice.

Case History

    Since the preliminary determination in this investigation on 
September 24, 1997, (62 FR 51577, October 1, 1997) (``Notice of 
Preliminary Determination''), the following events have occurred:
    On September 29, 1997, we issued a second supplemental request for 
information covering all sections of the questionnaire to Ispat 
Hamburger Stahlwerke GmbH (``IHSW''), the only company to respond to 
the Department's original antidumping duty questionnaire. IHSW 
submitted its response to this supplemental questionnaire, including 
revised United States, home market, cost of production (COP), and 
constructed value (CV) databases, on October 14, 1997. At the 
Department's request, IHSW submitted clarifications of its response on 
October 23 and 24, 1997.
    On October 14, 1997, Connecticut Steel Group, Co-Steel Raritan, GS 
Industries, Inc., Keystone Steel & Wire Co., North Star Steel Texas, 
Inc., and Northwestern Steel & Wire Co. (collectively ``petitioners'') 
informed the Department that IHSW's parent company had purchased two 
units of Thyssen Stahl AG (``Thyssen'') and requested that the 
Department collapse IHSW and Thyssen when determining the dumping 
margins for these companies (see Comment 3 below).
    The Department conducted verifications of IHSW's cost and sales 
information in November 1997, in Hamburg, Germany. The Department 
issued the sales and cost verification reports on December 16 and 18, 
1997, respectively, citing numerous deficiencies in IHSW's cost and 
sales information. Because it seemed at the time that the deficiencies 
could be corrected and that we would be able to confirm that 
corrections made to the databases were done completely and accurately, 
the Department allowed IHSW a final opportunity to submit revised cost 
and sales databases. On December 19, 1997, the Department transmitted 
to IHSW a list of specific revisions to be made to its databases (see 
December 19, 1997, Memorandum to Gary Taverman). IHSW submitted its 
revised response on January 9, 1998. On

[[Page 8954]]

January 12, 1998, IHSW notified the Department that there were certain 
errors in the January 9 submission.
    Petitioners, IHSW, and Saarstahl AG (``Saarstahl'') submitted case 
briefs on January 15, 1998. Petitioners and IHSW submitted rebuttal 
briefs on January 21, 1998.

Scope of Investigation

    The products covered by this investigation are certain hot-rolled 
carbon steel and alloy steel products, in coils, of approximately round 
cross section, between 5.00 mm (0.20 inch) and 19.0 mm (0.75 inch), 
inclusive, in solid cross-sectional diameter. Specifically excluded are 
steel products possessing the above noted physical characteristics and 
meeting the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) 
definitions for (a) stainless steel; (b) tool steel; (c) high nickel 
steel; (d) ball bearing steel; (e) free machining steel that contains 
by weight 0.03 percent or more of lead, 0.05 percent or more of 
bismuth, 0.08 percent or more of sulfur, more than 0.4 percent of 
phosphorus, more than 0.05 percent of selenium, and/or more than 0.01 
percent of tellurium; or (f) concrete reinforcing bars and rods.
    The following products are also excluded from the scope of this 
investigation:
     Coiled products 5.50 mm or less in true diameter with an 
average partial decarburization per coil of no more than 70 microns in 
depth, no inclusions greater than 20 microns, containing by weight the 
following: carbon greater than or equal to 0.68 percent; aluminum less 
than or equal to 0.005 percent; phosphorous plus sulfur less than or 
equal to 0.040 percent; maximum combined copper, nickel and chromium 
content of 0.13 percent; and nitrogen less than or equal to 0.006 
percent. This product is commonly referred to as ``Tire Cord Wire 
Rod.''
     Coiled products 7.9 to 18 mm in diameter, with a partial 
decarburization of 75 microns or less in depth and seams no more than 
75 microns in depth, containing 0.48 to 0.73 percent carbon by weight. 
This product is commonly referred to as ``Valve Spring Quality Wire 
Rod.''
     Coiled products 11 mm to 12.5 mm in diameter, with an 
average partial decarburization per coil of no more than 70 microns in 
depth, no inclusions greater than 20 microns, containing by weight the 
following: carbon greater than or equal to 0.72 percent; manganese 
0.50-1.10 percent; phosphorus less than or equal to 0.030 percent; 
sulfur less than or equal to 0.035 percent; and silicon 0.10-0.35 
percent. This product is free of injurious piping and undue 
segregation. The use of this excluded product is to fulfill contracts 
for the sale of Class III pipe wrap wire in conformity with ASTM 
specification A648-95 and imports of this product must be accompanied 
by such a declaration on the mill certificate and/or sales invoice. 
This excluded product is commonly referred to as ``Semifinished Class 
III Pipe Wrap Wire.''
    The products under investigation are currently classifiable under 
subheadings 7213.91.3000, 7213.91.4500, 7213.91.6000, 7213.99.0030, 
7213.99.0090, 7227.20.0000, and 7227.90.6050 of the HTSUS. Although the 
HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, 
our written description of the scope of this investigation is 
dispositive.

Exclusion of Pipe Wrap Wire

    As stated in the Notice of Preliminary Determination, North 
American Wire Products Corporation (NAW), an importer of the subject 
merchandise from Germany, requested that the Department exclude steel 
wire rod used to manufacture Class III pipe wrapping wire from the 
scope of the investigations of steel wire rod from Canada, Germany, 
Trinidad and Tobago, and Venezuela. On December 22, 1997, NAW submitted 
to the Department a proposed exclusion definition. On December 30, 1997 
and January 7, 1998, petitioners submitted letters concurring with the 
definition of the scope exclusion and agreeing to the exclusion of this 
product from the scope of the investigation. We have reviewed NAW's 
request and petitioners' comments and have excluded steel wire rod for 
manufacturing Class III pipe wrapping wire from the scope of the four 
concurrent investigations (see Memorandum to Richard W. Moreland dated 
January 9, 1998).

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation (``POI'') is January 1 through December 
31, 1996.

Facts Available

    At the preliminary determination, the Department found that 
Brandenburg Elektrostahlwerk GmbH (``Brandenburg''), Saarstahl, and 
Thyssen ``have clearly failed to cooperate to the best of their ability 
in this investigation, as they have not responded to the Department's 
antidumping questionnaire.'' See Notice of Preliminary Determination. 
Accordingly, the Department based the antidumping rate for these 
companies on facts otherwise available and assigned them the highest 
margin from the petition (as adjusted by the Department), 153.10 
percent.
    With regard to IHSW, the Department found that ``despite the 
detailed requests for supplemental information issued by the Department 
and the extension of time granted to IHSW to file its responses, IHSW's 
questionnaire responses remained seriously deficient.'' See Notice of 
Preliminary Determination. In particular, IHSW's home market sales data 
and cost of production information were so deficient as to render them 
unreliable for conducting a proper LTFV analysis and sales-below-cost 
test. Because of these deficiencies, the Department was unable to use 
IHSW's responses to calculate a margin for the preliminary 
determination of sales at less than fair value and therefore relied on 
facts otherwise available. The Department stated that it would proceed 
with the investigation and verify IHSW's information if IHSW cooperated 
and provided ``complete and accurate'' information in response to a 
supplemental questionnaire. We further stated that ``{i}f IHSW's 
reported information verified, we will use such information in making 
the final determination.''
    As stated in the ``Case History'' section above, the Department 
issued a second supplemental questionnaire to IHSW following the 
preliminary determination and conducted verification of IHSW's revised 
cost and sales information. During these verifications, numerous 
inconsistencies were found when we compared IHSW's reported cost and 
sales data to the company's records, as noted in the verification 
reports (see the December 16 sales verification report, the December 18 
cost verification report, and the Memorandum to Gary Taverman dated 
December 19, 1997). After the verifications, the Department granted 
IHSW a final opportunity to correct the deficiencies in its cost and 
sales databases.
    Despite allowing IHSW numerous opportunities to correct its 
questionnaire responses, the cost and sales information submitted by 
IHSW remains seriously deficient and unusable. The significant 
deficiencies in the information submitted by IHSW include: (1) Failure 
to calculate COP and CV in accordance with the Department's instruction 
with respect to the weighting factor; (2) the multiple counting of 
production quantities in deriving per unit COP; (3) failure to make 
specific changes to identified errors in the coding of reported product 
characteristics, resulting in the incorrect assignment of product 
control numbers;

[[Page 8955]]

the impact is particularly significant in the U.S. sales database where 
correcting the control numbers would affect 72 percent of the volume of 
reported U.S. sales; and (4) numerous errors and inconsistencies in 
IHSW's sales database which call into question the integrity of the 
entire response. (For a more detailed discussion of the deficiencies in 
the information IHSW has provided, see the February 13, 1998, 
Memorandum to Richard W. Moreland.) Despite specific instructions from 
the Department detailing what corrections should be made, IHSW's 
January 9 response contained numerous errors in the COP and CV 
databases. Without accurate COP and CV databases, we cannot perform a 
reliable sales-below-cost test and LTFV analysis. Further, given IHSW's 
repeated failure throughout the investigation to correct its 
deficiencies and its failure to submit an accurate response on January 
9, we cannot be certain that the problems with IHSW's responses are 
limited to only those uncovered in our analysis of the January 9 
submission.
    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that if an interested party 
(1) withholds information that has been requested by the Department, 
(2) fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form 
or manner requested, (3) significantly impedes a determination under 
the antidumping statute, or (4) provides such information but the 
information cannot be verified, the Department shall use facts 
otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination (subject 
to subsections 782(d) and (e)). As detailed below, the Department has 
determined that all four respondents have failed to cooperate to the 
best of their ability in this investigation as defined under 776(a)(2) 
and that the use of facts otherwise available is applicable.
    IHSW's questionnaire responses constituted deficient submissions 
within the meaning of section 782(d). Under these circumstances, 
section 776(a) directs the Department to use facts available subject to 
section 782(e). Section 782(e) provides that the Department shall not 
decline to consider information that is submitted by an interested 
party and is necessary to the determination, but does not meet all the 
applicable requirements established by the Department, if--
    (1) The information is submitted by the deadline established for 
its submission,
    (2) The information can be verified,
    (3) The information is not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a 
reliable basis for reaching the applicable determination,
    (4) The interested party has demonstrated that it acted to the best 
of its ability in providing the information and meeting the 
requirements established by the Department with respect to the 
information, and
    (5) The information can be used without undue difficulties.
    Thus, if any one of these criteria is not met, the Department may 
decline to consider the information at issue in making its 
determination. IHSW's information has arguably satisfied the first two 
criteria. However, regarding the third criterion, whether the 
information may serve as a ``reliable basis'' for the Department's 
determination, as detailed above, IHSW's sales data and cost of 
production information is so deficient as to render it unusable. In 
particular, IHSW's failure to: (a) Correct those items on the December 
19 list of required revisions completely and accurately; (b) submit the 
accurate revised cost and sales databases in proper SAS format; and (c) 
properly change the sales databases to reflect changes in the cost 
database, calls into question the integrity of the entire January 9 
submission. As to criterion (4), IHSW has not demonstrated that it 
acted to the best of its ability in providing the requested information 
because IHSW failed to comply with the Department's specific 
instructions in the requests for information. Finally, as to criterion 
(5), while the Department may be able to correct some of the errors in 
IHSW's responses, this would be a difficult task involving significant 
changes to IHSW's information, including the restructuring of many of 
IHSW's product control numbers. To attempt to correct all of the errors 
in IHSW's responses would be burdensome. Moreover, even if the 
Department attempted to correct the responses, given the numerous 
errors in IHSW's information on the record, we cannot be certain that 
an accurate analysis could be conducted.
    IHSW has failed to provide its sales and cost information in the 
form and manner requested under the terms of sections 782(d) and (e) of 
the Act. The information provided by IHSW is unreliable and inadequate 
for the purpose of calculating a LTFV margin. Section 776(a) thus 
requires the Department to use facts otherwise available in making its 
final determination with respect to IHSW.
    Section 776(b) provides that adverse inferences may be used for a 
party that has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its 
ability to comply with requests for information (see also the Statement 
of Administrative Action (``SAA''), accompanying the URAA, H.R. Rep. 
No. 316, 103rd Cong., 2d Sess. 870). As discussed above, Brandenburg, 
IHSW, Saarstahl, and Thyssen have failed to act to the best of their 
ability to comply with requests for information and, therefore, adverse 
inferences are warranted with respect to all four companies. Consistent 
with Department practice in cases where respondents refuse to 
participate or provide seriously deficient information that precludes 
the Department from conducting its LTFV analysis, as facts otherwise 
available, we are basing their margins for the final determination on 
information in the petition. As facts otherwise available, the 
Department is continuing to assign to Brandenburg, Saarstahl, and 
Thyssen, the companies that did not respond at all to the Department's 
requests for information, the highest margin from the petition (as 
adjusted by the Department), 153.10 percent. Since IHSW made some 
effort to comply with the Department's requests for information, we are 
continuing to assign IHSW a facts available margin based on a simple 
average of the margins in the petition (as adjusted by the Department), 
72.51 percent.
    Section 776(c) provides that when the Department relies on 
secondary information (e.g., the petition) as the facts otherwise 
available, it must, to the extent practicable, corroborate that 
information from independent sources that are reasonably at its 
disposal. The Department reviewed the adequacy and accuracy of the 
secondary information in the petition from which the margins were 
calculated during our pre-initiation analysis of the petition, to the 
extent appropriate information was available for this purpose, (e.g., 
import statistics, independent trade data, U.S. Bureau of Labor 
Statistics, International Energy Agency). (See Notice of Preliminary 
Determination and September 24, 1997, Memorandum to Richard W. 
Moreland).
    At the preliminary determination, the Department reexamined the 
price information provided in the petition and found it to be of 
probative value (see the September 24, 1997, Memorandum to Richard W. 
Moreland). The parties did not comment on this issue. For purposes of 
the final determination, absent information to the contrary, we find 
that the information in the petition continues to be of probative 
value.
    All foreign manufacturers/exporters in this investigation are being 
assigned dumping margins on the basis of facts otherwise available. 
Section 735(c)(5) of the Act provides that where the dumping margins 
established for all exporters and producers individually

[[Page 8956]]

investigated are determined entirely under section 776, the Department 
``* * * may use any reasonable method to establish the estimated all-
others rate for exporters and producers not individually investigated, 
including averaging the estimated weighted average dumping margins 
determined for the exporters and producers individually investigated.'' 
This provision contemplates that we weight average the facts-available 
margins to establish the all-others rate. Where the data is not 
available to weight average the facts available rates, the SAA, at 873, 
provides that we may use other reasonable methods. Inasmuch as we do 
not have the data necessary to weight average the respondents' facts 
available margins, we are continuing to base the all-others rate on a 
simple average of the margins in the petition (as adjusted by the 
Department), 72.51 percent.

Interested Party Comments

Comment 1. The Application of Facts Available to Saarstahl
    Saarstahl contends that the Department should not use an adverse 
inference in determining its antidumping margin. Saarstahl argues that 
it has acted to the best of its ability to respond to the Department's 
questionnaire, but that its financial situation has precluded it from 
participating in this proceeding. Even if an adverse inference is made 
in setting its margin, Saarstahl argues that the Department should use 
the Saarstahl-specific lower margin information contained in the 
petition rather than the 153.10% margin used in the preliminary 
determination.
    Petitioners contend that Saarstahl's argument that the Department 
may not use the highest dumping margin alleged in the petition as 
adverse facts available is directly contradicted by the statute and 
Department precedent. Further, petitioners claim that factors such as 
Saarstahl's financial condition are immaterial to the issue of whether 
Saarstahl cooperated in this investigation (see, e.g., Final 
Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Large Newspaper 
Printing Presses and Components Thereof, Whether Assembled or 
Unassembled from Germany, 61 FR 38166, 38179 (July 23, 1996)). 
Petitioners insist that the Department acted appropriately in assigning 
the highest margin alleged in the petition to Saarstahl for the 
preliminary determination and should use the same rate for the final 
determination.
    DOC Position. We disagree with Saarstahl's contention that it acted 
to the best of its ability, given its financial hardship, to comply 
with the Department's information requests. Under limited 
circumstances, such as where a company immediately informs the 
Department that it cannot comply with the Department's information 
requests due to the liquidation of its assets, it may be appropriate 
not to assign adverse facts available. However, where a respondent 
continues to produce the subject merchandise but fails altogether to 
provide information, we find that it has failed to act to the best of 
its ability. As we explained in Certain Fresh Cut Flowers From 
Colombia: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 16772, 16775 (April 8, 1997), an 
adverse inference is warranted where a respondent states merely ``that 
it was on the verge of bankruptcy'' but provides no further 
information.
    Section 782(c)(1) requires that the Department consider modifying 
its reporting requirements where a respondent promptly notifies the 
Department that it cannot submit information in the ``requested form 
and manner'' and suggests ``alternative forms'' in which to submit the 
requested information. Saarstahl made no such suggestions; it only 
informed the Department that it would supply the requested information 
in a letter dated June 11, 1997. Under these circumstances, we continue 
to find that Saarstahl failed to act to the best of its ability, and 
that an adverse inference is warranted.
    Furthermore, we agree with petitioners that the continued use of 
the highest margin in the petition as adverse facts available for 
Saarstahl is warranted given Saarstahl's failure to supply the 
Department with any of the requested information. The use of the 
highest calculated rate in the petition as adverse facts available for 
Saarstahl is consistent with both the Act and Department practice. 
Section 776(b) of the Act explicitly states that the Department may 
rely upon information contained in the petition when making adverse 
inferences. See also SAA at 870. Recently, the Department employed this 
approach in Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Collated Roofing Nails from Taiwan, 62 FR 51427, 51428 (October 
1, 1997).
Comment 2. The Application of Facts Available to IHSW
    Petitioners argue that IHSW's January 9 post-verification 
submission constitutes substantial new information and should be 
rejected by the Department in favor of facts available. Even if the 
Department accepts IHSW's January 9 submission, petitioners contend 
that the information submitted by IHSW remains incomplete and 
unreliable, and therefore, the Department must use facts available for 
the final determination.
    IHSW argues that it has been cooperative with the Department to the 
best of its ability throughout the investigation and, as such, the 
Department has no basis to use an adverse facts available rate for the 
final determination. IHSW concedes that it encountered some 
difficulties in responding to the questionnaires, but claims that its 
difficulties in reporting information were not the result of IHSW 
failing to act to the best of its ability, but rather the result of 
clerical errors or how IHSW maintains its business records. Concerning 
the submission of data post-verification, IHSW asserts that the 
Department was properly within its discretion to request revised cost 
and sales databases from IHSW and that the January 9 submission did not 
constitute new information. Further, IHSW addresses the specific errors 
cited in petitioners' case brief, arguing that its January 9 submission 
is ``sufficiently complete'' to serve as the basis for calculating an 
antidumping margin. Finally, IHSW contends that the information in its 
January 9 submission has been verified and can be easily used by the 
Department.
    DOC Position. In allowing IHSW to file its post-verification 
submission, the Department was not permitting the submission of new 
information, but rather permitting corrections to the information 
already on the record, based on the findings at verification. Further, 
the Department may request the submission of factual information at any 
time during the proceeding, as provided for at 19 CFR 353.31(b)(1). We 
have analyzed all of IHSW's information on the record for purposes of 
the final determination. However, as discussed in detail in the ``Facts 
Available'' section above, the Department has determined that: (1) IHSW 
has failed to act to the best of its ability to provide information; 
and (2) the information provided by IHSW remains unreliable and 
unusable for purposes of conducting an accurate cost of production or 
LTFV analysis (see also the February 13, 1998, Memorandum to Richard W. 
Moreland). Therefore, we are basing our final determination margin for 
IHSW on facts available.

[[Page 8957]]

Comment 3. Whether To Collapse IHSW and Thyssen and Assign Them a 
Single Margin Rate
    IHSW argues that the Department should not consider collapsing IHSW 
with Thyssen, as alleged in petitioners' October 14, 1997, submission. 
IHSW asserts that petitioners' contention is unfounded because: (1) 
IHSW and Thyssen were completely unrelated during the POI and this 
issue would be more appropriately considered, if at all, in an 
administrative review; (2) the acquisition occurred after the POI and 
therefore, neither company could have exercised control over the other 
during the POI; and (3) there is no verified information on the record 
to determine whether the potential for shifting of production between 
IHSW and Thyssen exists.
    Petitioners rebut IHSW's argument, stating that, for the reasons 
detailed in their October 14, 1997, submission, the Department should 
collapse IHSW and Thyssen and calculate a single margin rate for the 
two companies. Petitioners contend that the relationship between IHSW 
and Thyssen is such that it meets the criteria for collapsing the 
companies (i.e., the producers are affiliated; the producers have 
similar manufacturing facilities such that production can be shifted 
between the two; and ``there is significant potential for manipulation 
of price or production'').
    DOC Position. We disagree with petitioners. IHSW purchased 
Thyssen's steel wire rod-producing subsidiary six months or more after 
the POI. There is no evidence of any affiliation between these 
companies during the POI. Further, the limited evidence concerning this 
transaction is insufficient to determine that it established any 
affiliation between IHSW or Thyssen or, if they are affiliated, to 
determine that collapsing is warranted. Therefore, we have assigned the 
companies separate cash deposit rates in this final determination. The 
merits of petitioners' collapsing argument may be explored in the 
context of an administrative review, if an antidumping order is issued 
and a review requested, for the period during which the acquisition of 
Thyssen's rod-producing subsidiary took place.

Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 735(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we are 
directing the Customs Service to continue to suspend liquidation of all 
entries of steel wire rod from Germany, as defined in the ``Scope of 
Investigation'' section of this notice, that are entered, or withdrawn 
from warehouse, for consumption on or after October 1, 1997, the date 
of publication of our preliminary determination in the Federal 
Register. For these entries, the Customs Service will require a cash 
deposit or posting of a bond equal to the estimated amount by which the 
normal value exceeds the export price as shown below. This suspension 
of liquidation will remain in effect until further notice.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin  
                   MFR/producer/exporter                      percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brandenburg Elektrostahlwerk GmbH..........................       153.10
Ispat Hamburger Stahlwerke GmbH............................        72.51
Saarstahl AG...............................................       153.10
Thyssen Stahl AG...........................................       153.10
All-Others.................................................        72.51
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The all-others rate applies to all entries of subject merchandise 
except for the entries of merchandise produced by the exporters/
manufacturers listed above.

ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the 
ITC of our determination. As our final determination is affirmative, 
the ITC will determine whether these imports are causing material 
injury, or threat of material injury, to the industry within 45 days of 
its receipt of this notification.
    If the ITC determines that material injury, or threat of material 
injury, does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and all 
securities posted will be refunded or canceled. If the ITC determines 
that such injury does exist, the Department will issue an antidumping 
duty order directing Customs officials to assess antidumping duties on 
all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the 
suspension of liquidation.
    This determination is published pursuant to section 735(d) of the 
Act.

    Dated: February 13, 1998.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-4541 Filed 2-20-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P