[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