[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 70 (Monday, April 13, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17986-17990]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-9688]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-580-811]
Steel Wire Rope From the Republic of Korea; Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Revocation in Part of
Antidumping Duty Order
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of final results of antidumping duty administrative
review and revocation in part of antidumping duty order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On December 5, 1997, the Department of Commerce (the
Department) published the preliminary results of its 1996-97
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on steel wire rope
from the Republic of Korea and intent to revoke in part (62 FR 64354)
(Preliminary Results). The review covers 15 manufacturers/exporters for
the period March 1, 1996, through February 28, 1997 (the POR). We have
analyzed the comments received on our preliminary results and no
changes in the calculated margin are required. However, we have changed
the adverse facts available rate. The final weighted-average dumping
margins for each of the reviewed firms are listed in the section
entitled ``Final Results of Review.''
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 13, 1998.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Brinkmann at (202) 482-5288 or
James Kemp at (202) 482-0116; Import Administration, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, Washington, D.C. 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Applicable Statute and Regulations
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
to the regulations at 19 CFR Part 353 (1997).
Background
On December 5, 1997, the Department published in the Federal
Register the preliminary results of its 1996-97 administrative review
of the antidumping duty order on steel wire rope from the Republic of
Korea and intent to revoke in part. We gave interested parties an
opportunity to comment on our preliminary results. A case brief was
filed by the petitioner, the Committee of Domestic Steel Wire Rope and
Specialty Cable Manufacturers (the Committee); rebuttal briefs were
filed by four respondents-Chung-Woo Rope Co., Ltd. (Chung Woo), Kumho
Wire Rope Manufacturing Co., Ltd (Kumho), Ssang Yong Cable
Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (Ssang Yong), and Sung Jin Company (Sung Jin).
There was no request for a hearing.
We have conducted this administrative review in accordance with
section 751 of the Act.
Revocation In Part
Chung Woo, Ssang Yong and Sung Jin have sold the subject
merchandise at not less than normal value (NV) for four consecutive
review periods,\1\ including this review.\2\ They have also submitted
certifications that they will not sell at less than NV in the future,
along with an agreement for immediate reinstatement of the order if
such sales occur. Further, on the basis of no sales at less than NV for
these periods and the lack of any indication that such sales are likely
in the future, we have determined that Chung Woo, Ssang Yong and Sung
Jin are not likely to sell the merchandise at less than NV in the
future. Accordingly, we are revoking the order for Chung Woo, Ssang
Yong and Sung Jin. Also, see our discussion in response to Comment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Section 353.25(a)(2) of the Department's regulations
provides that a respondent may be eligible for revocation after a
period of three years with no sales at less than fair value.
However, Chung Woo, Ssang Yong and Sung Jin did not request
revocation until the fourth review.
\2\ Kumho also requested revocation, but later withdrew the
request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scope of Review
The product covered by this review is steel wire rope. Steel wire
rope encompasses ropes, cables, and cordage of iron or carbon steel,
other than stranded wire, not fitted with fittings or made up into
articles, and not made up of brass-plated wire. Imports of these
products are currently classifiable under the following Harmonized
Tariff Schedule (HTS) subheadings: 7312.10.9030, 7312.10.9060, and
7312.10.9090. Excluded from this review is stainless steel wire rope,
i.e., ropes, cables and cordage other than stranded wire, of stainless
steel, not fitted with fittings or made up into articles, which is
classifiable under HTS subheading 7312.10.6000. Although HTS
subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes, the
written description of the scope of this review is dispositive.
Use of Facts Otherwise Available
In the preliminary results of this review, we determined, in
accordance with section 776(a) of the Act, that the use of adverse
facts available is appropriate for Boo Kook Corporation, Dong-Il Steel
Manufacturing Co., Ltd., Jinyang Wire Rope Inc., and Yeon Sin Metal
because they did not respond to our antidumping questionnaire. None of
these parties commented on this preliminary determination, nor have any
arguments been presented which would cause us to reconsider the
appropriateness of assigning margins based on adverse facts available
in the final results.
In the April 9, 1997, final results of the last review (See Steel
Wire Rope From the Republic of Korea; Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty Order,
62 FR 17171, 1997) and in the preliminary results of the review, we
stated our intent to reconsider the appropriateness of the facts
available rate (1.51 percent) used in prior reviews.
Over the course of this proceeding, the Department has faced a
pattern of continuous noncompliance on the part of a number of
uncooperative respondents \3\ that received facts available. Therefore,
we have concluded that the magnitude of the rate in place for the three
prior reviews does not offer the adequate sanction to induce the
respondents to cooperate in the
[[Page 17987]]
proceeding. Moreover, if and when an interested party requests a review
of Korean steel wire rope companies not previously reviewed, the
Department needs to have in place a potential facts available rate that
is sufficiently adverse to induce the cooperation of these companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3 \We have applied facts available to seven companies in the
first review, five companies in the second review, three companies
in the third review and four companies in the instant review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) recognizes the
importance of facts available as an investigative tool in antidumping
duty proceedings. The Department's potential use of facts available
provides the only incentive to foreign exporters and producers to
respond to the Department's questionnaires. See SAA at 868. Section
776(b) of the Act states that the Department may draw an adverse
inference where the party has not acted to the best of its ability to
comply with the requests for necessary information. The Department
applies adverse inferences to ensure that the party does not obtain a
more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated
fully. One factor the Department considers in applying facts available
is the extent to which a party may benefit from its own lack of
participation. See SAA at 870.
We invited interested parties to supply specific data that the
Department could consider in the event that we chose to establish a
facts available rate that would be more appropriate to this segment of
the proceeding. In response to this request for information, the
Committee, in its case brief, requested that we use the simple average
of the dumping margins from the petition (136.72) as adverse facts
available. The respondents did not comment on this issue.
In order to consider fully this issue, we placed a copy of the
petition on the record of this administrative review. In our analysis
of the petition, we re-examined the bases for the initial dumping
allegation. Based on this re-examination, we determined that the price-
to-price sales used in the petition calculation are, with one
adjustment, appropriate for use as adverse facts available in this
review. The information we obtained during the current review indicates
that Korean producers manufacture steel wire rope known as ``commercial
grade cable'' or ``aircraft grade cable,'' which differs from steel
wire rope built to more demanding Military Specification (Mil Spec).
Additionally, company officials interviewed during verification stated
that they were not aware of any Korean steel wire rope manufacturers
that have been certified to sell Mil Spec. steel wire rope in the
United States. See Memo to the File, April 2, 1998. Information in the
petition, however, indicates that some of the price-to-price
comparisons, involved Mil Spec sales. Accordingly, we adjusted the
petition margin by excluding those sales, and calculated a simple
average margin equal to 13.79 percent.
Section 776(c) of the Act provides that the Department shall in
using facts otherwise available, to the extent practicable, corroborate
secondary information from independent sources reasonably at its
disposal. The SAA provides that ``corroborate'' means that the
Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be
used has probative value. See H.R. Doc. 316, Vol. 1, 103d Cong., 2d
sess. 870 (1994). To corroborate secondary information, the Department
will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance
of the information to be used. However, where corroboration is not
practicable, the Department may use uncorroborated information. See
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain
Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From The People's Republic of China,
62 FR 31972 (1997).
To corroborate the export prices in the petition, we compared them
to U.S. Customs (Customs) import statistics from 1991 for the HTS
subheadings 7312.10.9030, 7312.10.9060, and 7312.10.9090. However, we
concluded that the Customs data was not comparable to the prices in the
petition, because the Customs data encompasses a wide range of steel
wire rope products, while the sales in the petition consist of a small
number of specific product types. See Memo to the File, April 6, 1998.
With regard to the normal values used in the petition's margin
calculation, we were provided with no useful information by interested
parties, and are aware of no other independent sources of information,
which would assist us in this aspect of the corroboration process.
Notwithstanding the difficulties encountered in our attempts to
corroborate the information from the petition, the Department has no
evidence that suggests the petition does not have probative value.
Accordingly, we determine that the information from the petition is the
most appropriate basis for facts available. We note that the SAA
specifically states that ``the fact that corroboration may not be
practicable in a given circumstance will not prevent the agencies from
applying an adverse inference under subsection (b).'' See SAA at 870.
Moreover, the SAA emphasizes that the Department need not prove that
the facts available are the best alternative information. SAA at 869.
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether sales of steel wire rope to the United States
were made at less than fair value for Chung Woo, Kumho, Ssang Yong and
Sung Jin, we compared the export price to the normal value, as
described in the preliminary results of this review.
Analysis of Comments Received
Comment 1: The Committee contends that Chung Woo, Ssang Yong and
Sung Jin failed to establish the second of three requisite regulatory
criteria for revocation of an antidumping duty order. Specifically, the
Committee argues that the burden is on the respondent requesting
revocation to demonstrate, by placing substantial evidence on the
record, that there is no likelihood of a resumption of sales at less
than fair value and that Chung Woo, Ssang Yong and Sung Jin failed to
demonstrate this. Additionally, the Committee argues, citing Tatung Co.
v. United States, 18 CIT 1137, 1144 (1994) (Tatung Company), that the
fact that respondents have not sold subject merchandise at less than
normal value in past administrative reviews does not establish that
there is no likelihood these companies will begin dumping subject
merchandise in the future.
Furthermore, the Committee contends that the Department cannot not
revoke the order with respect to Chung Woo, Ssang Yong and Sung Jin
based on the results of the last three reviews because of the
instability caused by the recent economic crisis in Korea. According to
the Committee, the economic crisis has created an environment that
makes it impossible for the Department to determine that these three
companies will not begin dumping subject merchandise in the U.S.
market.
The depreciation of the won, according to the Committee, will
facilitate the respondents' task of remaining price competitive and
retaining market share in the short-term. However, the Committee
contends the Korean economy will reverse course as the economic
assistance package provided by the IMF begins to take effect.
Furthermore, the Committee argues that an economic turnaround in Korea
accompanied by appreciation of the won will create downward pressure on
the price of steel wire rope as the Korean producers attempt to
maintain the same price levels to satisfy their U.S. customers and
retain market share in the face of competition from companies in other
Asian nations. The Committee claims that the market forces created by
[[Page 17988]]
such a turnaround in the Korean economy will force Chung Woo, Ssang
Yong and Sung Jin to dump merchandise in the U.S. market.
Chung Woo, Ssang Yong and Sung Jin respond that they have satisfied
all three requisite criteria for revocation at 19 CFR 353.25(a)(2).
They claim that the Department has granted revocation in virtually
every case where a respondent has established three consecutive years
of no dumping and furnished the required certifications. They argue
that this is in accordance with the long standing policy that
antidumping duty orders ``shall remain in force only as long and to the
extent necessary to counteract dumping which is causing injury.'' Color
Television Receiver Except for Video Monitors, from Taiwan; Final
Results, 55 FR 47093, 47097 (1990); Uruguay Round Agreement on
Implementation of Article VI of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
1994, Article 11 Antidumping Agreement.
Respondents cite Tatung Company, where the court found that past
behavior constitutes substantial evidence of expected future behavior
and a de minimis margin for three consecutive years serves as a
reliable predictor for future pricing behavior. Based on this ruling,
according to respondents, Chung Woo, Ssang Yong and Sung Jin should not
be expected to sell steel wire rope at less than normal value in the
future because they have received a zero or de minimis margin in all
four review periods.
Respondents also state that the Committee acknowledges that Chung
Woo, Ssang Yong and Sung Jin have satisfied the first and third
criteria of the Department's regulatory requirements. Respondents
contend that the Committee's sole argument against revocation is the
possibility that the subject companies will dump steel wire rope in the
United States at a future date, and this view is based on the rapid
depreciation of the won due to the economic situation in Korea. Citing
Brass Sheet and Strip, 61 FR 49,727, 49,731 (1996) and Tapered Roller
Bearing and Parts Thereof from Japan, 61 FR 57,629, 57,651 (1996),
respondents claim that dumping is most likely when a foreign currency
appreciates against the dollar because the value of the subject
merchandise in the home market appreciates, relative to the value of
the same merchandise in the U.S. market. Respondents continue that even
though the won was appreciating during the first three review periods
and Chung Woo, Ssang Yong and Sung Jin sold increasing quantities of
subject merchandise in the United States, no dumping was found. This,
according to the respondents, makes revocation at this time
particularly appropriate. They cite Color Television Receivers, Except
for Video Monitors, From Taiwan, 55 FR 47093, 47097 (1990), and compare
Chung Woo, Ssang Yong and Sung Jin to a respondent in that case which
received revocation after selling at or above fair value for three
administrative reviews while the Taiwanese currency appreciated 37
percent. Respondents continue, citing Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico, 61
FR 63822, 63825 (1996) (Fresh Cut Flowers), that since Chung Woo, Ssang
Yong and Sung Jin did not sell merchandise at less than fair value
while the won was appreciating, now that it is depreciating, they are
even less likely to do so.
In response to the Committee's contention that a reversal in the
economic crisis now engulfing Korea could cause a sudden appreciation
of the won and, therefore, create pressure to dump subject merchandise
in the United States, respondents claim that such an argument is the
equivalent of saying that future dumping is likely in all cases because
currency fluctuations are inevitable and unavoidable. Respondents cite
Frozen Concentrated Orange Juice from Brazil, 56 FR 52510, 52511,
(1991) as a case in which the Department dismissed such arguments.
Finally, respondents contend that the Committee presented similar
arguments in the 1995-1996 administrative review in opposition to the
request for revocation submitted by Manho and Chun Kee, which was
ultimately granted by the Department. Respondents argue that the
circumstances under which the Department granted revocation to Manho
and Chun Kee in the previous review are similar to those which exist in
this review and, therefore, the Department is further justified in
revoking the order on steel wire rope with respect to Chung Woo, Ssang
Yong and Sung Jin.
Department's Position: We disagree with the Committee and are
revoking the antidumping duty order with respect to Chung Woo, Ssang
Yong and Sung Jin. Section 751(d)(1) of the Act provides that the
Department ``may revoke'' an antidumping order, in whole or in part,
after conducting an appropriate review. 19 U.S.C. 1675(1) (1995). The
Department's regulations elaborate upon this standard. Section
353.25(a)(2) provides that the Department may revoke an order, in part,
if the Secretary concludes: (1) ``One or more producers or resellers
covered by the order have sold the merchandise at not less than foreign
market value for a period of at least three consecutive years;'' (2)
``it is not likely that those persons will in the future sell the
merchandise at less than foreign market value;'' and (3) ``the
producers or resellers agree in writing to their immediate
reinstatement in the order as long as any producer or reseller is
subject to the order, if the Secretary concludes under section
353.22(f) that the producer or reseller, subsequent to the revocation,
sold the merchandise at less than foreign market value.''
We agree with respondents that in evaluating the ``not likely''
issue in numerous cases, the Department has considered three years of
no dumping margins, plus a respondent's certification that it will not
dump in the future, plus its agreeing to the immediate reinstatement in
the order all to be indicative of expected future behavior. In such
instances, this was the only information contained in the record
regarding the likelihood issue.
In other cases, when additional evidence is on the record
concerning the likelihood of future dumping, the Department is, of
course, obligated to consider the evidence. Specifically, where
appropriate, we consider such ``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 [sales at less than normal value].'' Brass Sheet and Strip, 61
FR 49727, 49730 (September 23, 1996). This is consistent with the
Department's established practice and Article 11 of the Antidumping
Agreement which establishes that revocation is appropriate only if the
authorities determine that the order ``is no longer warranted.''
[[Page 17989]]
Based on the evidence on the record of this review, we have
concluded that it is not likely that in the future these respondents
will sell the subject merchandise at less than fair value. In the
previous three reviews and for the final results of this review, Chung
Woo, Ssang Yong and Sung Jin have had zero or de minimis weighted-
average margins. As the petitioners note in their case brief, the Court
of International Trade in Tatung Company acknowledged that past
behavior constitutes substantial evidence of expected future behavior.
Moreover, the Court also noted that ``[p]redicting future behavior is
not an easy task,'' and that the Department's consideration of whether
dumped sales are likely in the future ``necessarily involves an
exercise of discretion and judgment.'' Petitioner's Case Brief at 21
citing Tatung Company, 18 CIT at 1144.
Regarding the arguments concerning the recent devaluation of the
Korean won and the possible effect on the likelihood of future dumping,
we agree, in part, with both the Committee and respondents that there
are short term and long-term economic effects from the devaluation of
the respondents' home market currency. Respondents emphasize the short-
term effects, alleging that home market prices will fall, relative to
the dollar, eliminating the likelihood of future dumping. The Committee
focuses on the possible long-term appreciation of the Korean won which
could raise home market prices, and the competitive pressures from
other Asian suppliers which may force Korean suppliers to reduce U.S.
prices.
In Brass Sheet and Strip we acknowledged that the continued
strengthening of the home market currency may provide an impetus to
resume sales at less than normal value in the absence of an antidumping
duty order. Brass Sheet and Strip, 61 FR at 49731. We have also noted
that during a period of a depreciating currency, as has recently
occurred with the won, there is even less pressure to engage in less-
than-normal-value pricing. Fresh Cut Flowers, 61 FR at 63825. However,
exchange rate relationships and other macroeconomic factors may not be
the overriding factors in every case; rather, they must be considered
in conjunction with the remaining record evidence and in light of the
Department's experience in administering the revocation provisions. See
Brass Sheet and Strip, 61 FR at 49731.
In this proceeding, other than the Committee's statement regarding
the possible long-term appreciation of the won, there is no evidence on
the record indicating the likelihood of a resumption of dumping. For
example, there is no evidence of falling Korean prices in the United
States. In fact, based on Customs data,\4\ we have found that prices
have remained stable. Although we agree that over time home market
inflation may offset the effect of a depreciating currency in dollar
terms, this by itself does not indicate a likelihood of sales at less
than fair value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4 \The above-referenced public information is based on HTS
subheadings 7312.10.9030, 7312.10.9060, and 7312.10.9090. Although
these subheadings encompass a wide range of steel wire rope
products, we concluded that they are representative of the price
trends for the subject merchandise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Market trends and other factors that are specific to steel wire
rope lead us to distinguish this case from two recent proceedings in
which we determined not to partially revoke, Brass Sheet and Strip and
DRAMs from Korea. Unlike the respondent in Brass Sheet and Strip, Chung
Woo, Ssang Yong and Sung Jin have never been found to have sold
merchandise at less than fair value since the order was issued.
Further, unlike the respondent in Brass Sheet and Strip, which made a
single sales transaction in the period of review, these respondents
have made sales in substantial quantities in the United States.
Likewise, when compared to the market for DRAMS as reviewed in the
revocation proceeding, the market for steel wire rope is significantly
more stable. See DRAMs from Korea: Notice of Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Determination Not To Revoke
Order In Part, 62 FR 39809, 39817 (July 24, 1997). Based on our review
of Customs data, we have concluded that the price of Korean steel wire
rope exported to the United States has remained stable, with slight
fluctuations, from 1992 through 1997, while, during the same period,
the market for DRAMS experienced broad price swings.
Based on the evidence on the record for the instant review and
conclusions drawn from our experience with the subject respondents in
prior reviews, it is our judgment that Chung Woo, Ssang Yong or Sung
Jin have met the requirement established by our regulations of de
minimis margins for the requisite consecutive number of years. In
addition, each has certified that they will not dump in the future and
agreed to immediate reinstatement in the order if we conclude that,
subsequent to the partial revocation of the order, the particular
respondent sells subject merchandise at less than normal value. We
conclude that it is not likely that in the future these respondents
will sell subject merchandise at less than normal value. Therefore, we
are revoking the order with respect to Chung Woo, Ssang Yong or Sung
Jin.
Comment 2: The Committee argues that the Department's use of a 1.51
percent dumping margin as adverse facts available for Boo Kook, Dong-
Il, Jinyang and Yeon Sin undercuts the cooperation-inducing purpose of
the facts available provision of the statute. According to the
Committee, the rate received in the first three reviews and the
preliminary results of the instant review has remained low enough to
encourage persistent noncompliance.
The Committee contends that, instead of using the highest rate
available from any prior segment of the proceeding as facts available,
the Department should apply a simple average of the adjusted margins
\5\ calculated in the petition of the original investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5 \In the April 23, 1992, letter to the Department from the
petitioner, the Committee adjusted the rate calculated in the
original petition to 136.72 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The respondents did not comment on this issue.
Department's Position: We agree with the Committee in part and are
raising the facts available rate to 13.79 percent (See the Facts
Otherwise Available section of this notice).
Final Results of Review
We determine the following percentage weighted-average margins
exist for the period March 1, 1996, through February 28, 1997:
[[Page 17990]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boo Kook Corporation.................................... *13.79
Chung Woo Rope Co., Ltd................................. 0.00
Dong-Il Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd.................... *13.79
Hanboo Wire Rope, Inc................................... 1.51
Jinyang Wire Rope, Inc.................................. *13.79
Kumho Wire Rope Mfg. Co., Ltd........................... 0.04
Myung Jin Co............................................ \1\ 1.51
Seo Jin Rope............................................ 1.51
Ssang Yong Cable Manufacturing Co., Ltd................. 0.02
Sung Jin Company........................................ 0.00
Sungsan Special Steel Processing........................ 1.51
TSK Korea Co., Ltd...................................... (\2\)
Yeon Sin Metal.......................................... *13.79
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Adverse Facts Available Rate.
\1\ No shipments subject to this review. Rate is from the last relevant
segment of the proceeding in which the firm had shipments/sales.
\2\ No shipments subject to this review. The firm has no individual rate
from any segment of this proceeding.
The Department shall determine, and Customs shall assess,
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual differences
between export price and normal value may vary from the percentages
stated above. The Department will issue appraisement instructions on
each exporter directly to Customs.
Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective
for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of these
final results of this administrative review, as provided by section
751(a)(1) of the Act. (1) For Chung Woo, Ssang Yong and Sung Jin, the
revocation of the antidumping duty order applies to all entries of
subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after March 1, 1996. The Department will order the
suspension of liquidation ended for all such entries and will instruct
Customs to release any cash deposits or bonds. The Department will
further instruct Customs to refund with interest any cash deposits on
post-March 1, 1996 entries. (2) The cash deposit rates for the other
reviewed companies will be those rates established above (except that,
if the rate for a firm is de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent, a
cash deposit of zero will be required for that firm). (3) 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. (4) 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. (5) If neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a
firm covered in this or any previous review or the original
investigation, the cash deposit rate will be 1.51 percent, the ``All
Others'' rate established in the LTFV Final Determination (58 FR
11029).
These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication
of the final results of the next administrative review.
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their
responsibility 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 notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective orders (APOs) of their responsibility
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(d)(1). Timely written notification
of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial
protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the
regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: April 6, 1998.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-9688 Filed 4-10-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P