[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 108 (Friday, June 5, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30706-30710]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15040]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-588-823]
Professional Electric Cutting Tools From Japan; Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of antidumping duty
administrative review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In response to a request by Black & Decker Inc., the
petitioner in this case, and Makita Corporation, respondent, the
Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative
review of the antidumping duty order on professional electric cutting
tools (PECTs) from Japan. The period of review (POR) covers sales of
the subject merchandise to the United States during the period July 1,
1996 through June 30, 1997.
We have preliminarily determined that the respondent has not sold
subject merchandise at less than normal value (NV) during the POR. If
these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of this
administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs not to assess
antidumping duties based on the difference between the constructed
export price (CEP) and the NV.
We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary
results. Parties who submit argument in this proceeding should also
submit with the argument (1) a statement of the issue, and (2) a brief
summary of the argument.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 5, 1998.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lyn Baranowski or Stephen Jacques, AD/
CVD Enforcement Group III, Office 9, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202) 482-1385 or (202) 482-1391, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
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 by the
Uruguay Rounds Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise
indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to the
regulations codified at 19 CFR part 351 (62 FR 27296; May 19, 1997).
Background
On July 12, 1993, the Department published in the Federal Register
the antidumping duty order on PECTs from Japan (58 FR 37461). On July
21, 1997, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of
opportunity to request an administrative review of this antidumping
duty order (62 FR 38973). On July 29 and 31, respectively, respondent
and petitioner requested that we conduct an administrative review in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b). We published the notice of
initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review on August 28,
1997 (62 FR 45622).
The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section
751 of the Act.
Scope of the Review
Imports covered by this review are shipments of PECTs from Japan.
PECTs may be assembled or unassembled, and corded or cordless.
The term ``electric'' encompasses electromechanical devices,
including tools with electronic variable speed features. The term
``assembled'' includes unfinished or incomplete articles, which have
the essential characteristics of the finished or complete tool. The
term ``unassembled'' means components which, when taken as a whole, can
be converted into the finished or unfinished or incomplete tool through
simple assembly operations (e.g., kits).
PECTs have blades or other cutting devices used for cutting wood,
metal,
[[Page 30707]]
and other materials. PECTs include chop saws, circular saws, jig saws,
reciprocating saws, miter saws, portable bank saws, cut-off machines,
shears, nibblers, planers, routers, joiners, jointers, metal cutting
saws, and similar cutting tools.
The products subject to this order include all hand-held PECTs and
certain bench-top, hand-operated PECTs. Hand-operated tools are
designed so that only the functional or moving part is held and moved
by hand while in use, the whole being designed to rest on a table top,
bench, or other surface. Bench-top tools are small stationary tools
that can be mounted or placed on a table or bench. The are generally
distinguishable from other stationary tools by size and ease of
movement.
The scope of the PECT order includes only the following bench-top,
hand-operated tools: cut-off saws; PVC saws; chop saws; cut-off
machines, currently classifiable under subheading 8461 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS); all types of
miter saws, including slide compound miter saws and compound miter
saws, currently classifiable under subheading 8465 of the HTSUS; and
portable band saws with detachable bases, also currently classifiable
under subheading 8465 of the HTSUS.
This order does not include: professional sanding/grinding tools;
professional electric drilling/fastening tools; lawn and garden tools;
heat guns; paint and wallpaper strippers; and chain saws, currently
classifiable under subheading 8508 of the HTSUS.
Parts or components of PECTs when they are imported as kits, or as
accessories imported together with covered tools, are included within
the scope of this order.
``Corded'' and ``cordless'' PECTs are included within the scope of
this order. ``Corded'' PECTs, which are driven by electric current
passed through a power cord, are, for purposes of this order, defined
as power tools which have at least five of the following seven
characteristics:
1. The predominate use of ball, needle, or roller bearings (i.e., a
majority or greater number of the bearings in the tool are ball,
needle, or roller bearings;
2. Helical, spiral bevel, or worm gearing;
3. Rubber (or some equivalent material which meets UL's
specifications S or SJ) jacketed power supply cord with a length of 8
feet or more;
4. Power supply cord with a separate cord protector;
5. Externally accessible motor brushes;
6. The predominate use of heat treated transmission parts (i.e., a
majority or greater number of the transmission parts in the tool are
heat treated); and
7. The presence of more than one coil per slot armature.
If only six of the above seven characteristics are applicable to a
particular ``corded'' tool, then that tool must have at least four of
the six characteristics to be considered a ``corded'' PECT.
``Cordless'' PECTs, for the purposes of this order, consist of
those cordless electric power tools having a voltage greater than 7.2
volts and a battery recharge time of one hour or less.
PECTs are currently classifiable under the following subheadings of
the HTSUS: 8508.20.00.20, 8508.20.00.70, 8508.20.00.90, 8461.50.00.20,
8465.91.00.35, 85.80.00.55, 8508.80.00.65 and 8508.80.00.90. Although
the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes,
the written description of the merchandise under review is dispositive.
This review covers one company, Makita Corporation (Makita), and
the period July 1, 1996 through June 30, 1997.
Verification
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified information
provided by Makita (sales and cost), using standard verification
procedures, including on-site inspection of the manufacturer's
facilities, the examination of relevant sales and financial records,
and selection of original documentation containing relevant
information. Our verification results are outlined in the public
version of the verification reports.
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether sales of subject merchandise to the United
States were made at less than fair value, we compared the CEP to the
NV, as described in the ``Constructed Export Price'' and ``Normal
Value'' sections of this notice. In accordance with section 777A(d)(2),
we calculated monthly weighted-average prices for NV and compared these
to individual U.S. transactions.
Constructed Export Price
For Makita, we used CEP as defined in section 772(b) of the Act
because the subject merchandise was first sold in the United States
after importation into the United States by Makita U.S.A., a seller
affiliated with Makita. We calculated CEP based on packed, delivered
prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. We
made deductions for discounts and rebates.
We deducted Japanese and U.S. inland freight, ocean freight,
insurance, brokerage and handling pursuant to section 772(c)(2) of the
Act. We also deducted an amount from the price for the following
expenses in accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, which related
to economic activities in the United States: commissions, direct
selling expenses, including credit expenses, and indirect selling
expenses, including inventory carrying costs. Finally, we made an
adjustment for profit allocated to these expenses in accordance with
section 772(d)(3) of the Act.
We found at verification that Makita could not provide
documentation to support its contention concerning the company's
calculation of spare parts cost for warranty services. Consequently, as
facts available, we calculated a value using Makita's Parts List Price
and Cost documents. As this issue involves proprietary information,
please see the analysis memorandum for a more complete explanation.
We also found at verification that Makita improperly included
antidumping duty legal fees in the calculation of indirect selling
expenses incurred in the United States. See Daewoo Elec. Co., Ltd. et
al. v. United States, 13 CIT 253, 269 (1989), Federal Mogul Corp. v.
United States, 17 CIT 88, __, vacated in part, on other grounds, 18 CIT
1027 (1994), Zenith Elec. Corp. v. United States, 15 CIT 394 (1991),
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: AFBs and parts
from France, 57 FR 28360, 28413 (June 24, 1992). As such, we have
recalculated U.S. indirect selling expenses to exclude antidumping duty
legal fees. As this issue involves business proprietary information,
please see the analysis memorandum for a more complete explanation.
Normal Value
We compared the aggregate volume of Makita's home-market sales of
the foreign like product and U.S. sales of the subject merchandise to
determine whether the volume of the foreign like product Makita sold in
Japan was sufficient, pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act, to
form a basis for NV. Because Makita's volume of home-market sales of
foreign like product was greater than five percent of its U.S. sales of
subject merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the
Act, we based NV on the prices at which the foreign like products were
first sold for consumption in Japan.
[[Page 30708]]
In calculating NV, we disregarded sales of the foreign like product
to affiliated customers in the home market where we determined that
such sales were not made at arm's length. To test whether these sales
were made at arm's length, we compared the prices, net of all movement
charges, direct selling expenses, discounts and packing, of sales of
the foreign like product to affiliated and unaffiliated customers.
Where the price to the affiliated party was on average 99.5 percent or
more of the price to unaffiliated parties, we determined that the sales
made to the affiliated party was at arm's-length. Where no affiliated
customer ratio could be constructed because identical merchandise was
not sold to unaffiliated customers, we were unable to determine that
these sales were made at arm's length and, therefore, excluded them
from our analysis. See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Argentina,
(58 FR 37062, 37077 (July 9, 1993)). Where the exclusion of such sales
eliminated all sales of the most appropriate comparison product based
on our model-matching hierarchy, we made comparisons to the next most
similar model.
We based home-market prices on the packed, delivered prices to
affiliated or unaffiliated purchasers in the home market. We made
adjustments for discounts and rebates. Where applicable, we made
adjustments for differences in packing and for movement expenses in
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act. In accordance
with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410, if
appropriate, we made circumstance of sale adjustments by deducting
home-market direct selling expenses and adding U.S. direct selling
expenses, except those deducted from the starting price in calculating
CEP pursuant to section 772(d) of the Act.
For the reasons stated in the ``Level of Trade'' section below, we
have allowed a CEP offset for comparisons made at different levels of
trade. To calculate the CEP offset, we deducted from normal value the
indirect selling expenses on home market sales which were compared to
CEP sales. We limited the home market indirect selling expense
deduction by the amount of the indirect selling expenses deducted in
calculating the CEP under section 772(d)(1)(D) of the Act.
Level of Trade/CEP Offset
In accordance with section 773(a)(7) of the Act, to the extent
practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at
the same level of trade (LOT) as the EP or CEP transaction. The NV LOT
is that of the starting-price sales in the comparison market or, when
NV is based on CV, that of the sales from which we derive selling,
general, and administrative (SG&A) expenses and profit. For EP sales,
the U.S. level of trade is also the level of the starting-price sale,
which is usually from exporter to importer. For CEP sales, it is the
level of the constructed sale from the exporter to the importer.
To determine whether NV sales are at a different level of trade
than EP or CEP sales, we examine the stages in the marketing process
and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the
producer and the unaffiliated customer. If the comparison-market sales
are at a different level of trade, and the difference affects price
comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price
differences between the sales on which NV is based and comparison-
market sales at the level of trade of the export transaction, we make a
LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, for CEP
sales, if the NV level is more remote from the factory than the CEP
level and there is no basis for determining whether the difference in
the levels between NV and CEP affects price comparability, we adjust NV
under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEP Offset provision). See
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain
Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa, 62 FR 61731
(November 19, 1997).
In order to determine whether a LOT adjustment or CEP offset was
warranted for Makita, we compared the CEP sales to the HM sales in
accordance with the principles discussed above. For purposes of our
analysis, we examined information regarding the distribution systems in
both the United States and Japanese markets, including the selling
functions, classes of customer, and selling expenses for the company.
In this review, Makita reported two levels of trade in the home
market: (1) Sales made at the wholesale/distributor price level; and
(2) sales made at the retail level. Makita also reported twelve
channels of distribution covering the two levels of trade in the home
market. Makita based the channels of distribution on which entity
(i.e., wholesaler, subwholesaler or retailers) in the distribution
chain Makita had billed or shipped the merchandise to. Although Makita
described twelve channels of distribution, upon review we found that
channels 1 through 7 were sales to the wholesale LOT, and channels 8
through 12 were at the retail LOT.
Makita reported only CEP sales in the U.S. market. The CEP sales
were based on sales made by Makita to its wholly-owned U.S. subsidiary,
Makita U.S.A. (MUSA). We determined that these sales constitute a
single level of trade in the United States. Because Makita's sales to
the United States were all CEP sales made by an affiliated company, we
considered only the parent company's selling activities reflected in
the price after the deduction of expenses and profit, pursuant to
section 772(d) of the Act.
To determine whether sales in the comparison market were at a
different level of trade than CEP sales, we first compare the relevant
selling functions made at both home market levels of trade and we then
examine the relevant selling functions made at the CEP level and
compare them to the selling functions performed in each home market
level of trade.
Overall, Makita listed fourteen separate selling functions which it
performed in making sales in both markets in its chart in Addendum 1 to
Section A of Makita's October 27, 1997 questionnaire response. Based on
our analysis of the reported selling functions (see sales verification
report dated April 10, 1998), we have determined that there is no
qualitative difference between the functions listed as freight/delivery
arrangement and arranging freight to customers. Therefore, in our level
of trade analysis, we have treated these two reported selling functions
as one, freight/delivery arrangement to customers.
In comparing the two home market levels of trade to each other, we
note that there are nine selling functions that are identical in both
function and intensity. These functions are market research, after
sales service and warranties, technical advice, advertising, R&D/
product development, procurement and sourcing, competitive pricing
(offering discounts, rebates, and other price incentives), pricing
negotiations with customers, and processing daily order updates. The
following 4 selling activities only have different levels of intensity
between the two home market levels of trade: Inventory maintenance,
freight/delivery arrangement to customers, sales calls and
demonstrations, and interaction with end-users. There are no instances
where the functions are entirely different between the two home market
levels of trade.
Based on the analysis of the selling functions and corresponding
levels of intensity, we determine that the home
[[Page 30709]]
market retail level of trade is at a more advanced stage of marketing,
and hence a different level of trade, than the wholesale home market
level of trade.
When we compare the CEP level of trade to the home market wholesale
level of trade, we note that there is only one selling function which
is identical in both function and intensity: R&D/product development.
There are 4 instances in which the selling functions differ only in
intensity: Inventory maintenance, technical advice, procurement and
sourcing, and processing daily order updates. There are 8 selling
functions which exist in the home market but which either are not
performed for CEP transactions or are negligible: Market research,
after-sales service and warranties, advertising, freight/delivery
arrangement to customer, competitive pricing, pricing negotiations with
customers, sales calls and demonstrations, and interaction with end-
users.
When we compare the CEP level of trade to the home market retail
level of trade, we again note that there is only one selling function
which is identical in both function and intensity: R&D/product
development. Similarly, there are 4 instances in which the selling
functions differ only in intensity: Inventory maintenance, technical
advice, procurement and sourcing, and processing daily order updates.
There are 8 selling functions which exist in the home market retail
level but which either are not performed for CEP sales or are
negligible. These functions are: Market research, after-sales service
and warranties, advertising, freight/delivery arrangement to customer,
competitive pricing, pricing negotiations with customers, sales calls
and demonstrations, and interaction with end-users.
Based on our analysis of the selling functions, which include
differences in levels of intensities, we find that both home market
levels of trade are at a more advanced stage of distribution than that
of the CEP level. Therefore, we agree with Makita's assertion that
there is no home market level equivalent to the CEP level of trade.
Therefore, the Department determines for the preliminary results
that (1) significant differences exist in the selling functions
associated with each of the two home market levels of trade and the CEP
level of trade, (2) the CEP level of trade is at a less advanced stage
of distribution than either home market level of trade; and (3) the
data available do not provide an appropriate basis for a level-of-trade
adjustment for any comparisons to CEP. Consequently, we have granted
Makita's request for a CEP offset for this review.
We therefore made a CEP offset in our calculation of NV. We applied
the CEP offset to normal value or constructed value, where appropriate.
Cost of Production Analysis
On January 3, 1997, the Department published the final results of
the second administrative review on Professional Electric Cutting Tools
from Japan (62 FR 386). In that most recently completed review of
Makita, the Department disregarded sales by Makita at prices below
cost, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act. Because the Department
disregarded sales below the COP in the last completed review, we have
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of the foreign like
product under consideration for the determination of NV in this review
may have been made at prices below the COP as provided by section
773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(1)
of the Act, we initiated an investigation to determine whether Makita
made home market sales during the POR at prices below its COP.
A. Calculation of COP
We calculated the COP based on the sum of the costs of materials
and fabrication employed in producing the foreign like product, plus
amounts for home market selling, general and administrative (SG&A)
expenses and packing costs in accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the
Act. We relied on the home market sales and COP information provided by
Makita in their questionnaire responses.
We found at verification that Makita had incorrectly reported the
amount for fixed factory overhead. Makita had incorrectly reclassified
certain costs that resulted in the fixed factory overhead being
overstated. As facts available, we have used the costs reported by
Makita. As this issue involves proprietary information, please see the
analysis memorandum and the verification report dated April 10, 1998
for a more complete explanation.
B. Test of Home Market Prices
After calculating COP, we tested whether home market sales of the
subject merchandise were made at prices below COP within an extended
period of time in substantial quantities and whether such prices
permitted recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. We
compared model-specific COPs to the reported home market prices less
any applicable movement charges, discounts, rebates and direct selling
expenses.
C. Results of COP Test
Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, where less than 20
percent of a respondent's sales of a given product are at prices less
than COP, we do not disregard any below-cost sales of that product
because we determine that the below-cost sales are not made in
substantial quantities within an extended period of time. Where 20
percent or more of a respondent's sales of a given product during the
POR are at prices less than the COP, we disregard the below-cost sales
because we find such sales to be made in substantial quantities within
an extended period and were at prices which would not permit the
recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time (see section
773(b)(2)(D) of the Act). Based on this test, for these preliminary
results, we disregarded all below-cost sales made by Makita (see the
Analysis Memorandum dated June 1, 1998).
On January 8, 1998, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit issued a decision in Cemex v. United States, WL 3626 (Fed.
Cir.). In that case, based on the pre-URAA version of the Act, the
Court discussed the appropriateness of using CV as the basis for
foreign market value when the Department finds foreign market sales to
be outside ``the ordinary course of trade.'' This issue was not raised
by any party in this proceeding. However, the URAA amended the
definition of sales outside the ``ordinary course of trade'' to include
sales below cost. See section 771(15) of the Act. Consequently, the
Department has reconsidered its practice in accordance with this court
decision and has determined that it would be inappropriate to resort
directly to CV, in lieu of foreign market sales, as the basis for NV if
the Department finds foreign market sales of merchandise identical or
most similar to that sold in the United States to be outside the
``ordinary course of trade.'' Instead, the Department will use sales of
similar merchandise, if such sales exist. The Department will use CV as
the basis for NV only when there are no above-cost sales that are
otherwise suitable for comparison. Therefore, in this proceeding, when
making comparisons in accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we
considered all products sold in the home market as described in the
``Scope of the Review'' section of this notice, above, that were in the
ordinary course of trade for purposes of determining appropriate
product comparisons to U.S. sales. Where there were no sales of
identical merchandise in the home market made in the
[[Page 30710]]
ordinary course of trade to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S.
sales to sales of the most similar foreign like product made in the
ordinary course of trade, based on the information provided by Makita
in response to our antidumping questionnaire. We have implemented the
Court's decision in this case to the extent that the data on the record
permitted.
Constructed Value
In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we used CV as the
basis for NV when there were no usable sales of the foreign like
product in Japan. We calculated CV in accordance with section 773(e) of
the Act. We included the cost of materials and fabrication, SG&A
expenses, and profit. In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the
Act, we based SG&A expenses and profit on the actual amounts incurred
and realized by Makita in connection with the production and sale of
the foreign like product in the ordinary course of trade for
consumption in Japan. We used the weighted-average home market selling
expenses.
Where appropriate, we made adjustments to CV in accordance with
section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act for differences in the
circumstances of sale (COS). We made COS adjustments by deducting home
direct selling expenses and adding U.S. direct selling expenses, except
those deducted from the starting price in calculating CEP pursuant to
section 772(d) of the Act.
Preliminary Results of Review
As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the
following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period June
30, 1996, through July 1, 1997:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Makita Corporation......................................... 0.09
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parties to the proceeding may request disclosure within five days
of the date of publication of this notice. Any interested party may
request a hearing within 30 days of publication. Any hearing, if
requested, will be held 44 days after the date of publication or the
first business day thereafter. Issues raised in the hearing will be
limited to those raised in the case briefs. Case briefs from interested
parties may be submitted not later than 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice in the Federal Register; rebuttal briefs may
be submitted not later than 5 days thereafter. The Department will
publish the final results of this administrative review, including its
analysis of issues raised in any written comments or at a hearing, not
later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice.
The Department shall determine, and the U.S. Customs Service shall
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. If these
preliminary results are adopted in our final results, we will instruct
the Customs Service not to assess antidumping duties on the merchandise
subject to review. Upon completion of this review, the Department will
issue appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service.
Upon issuance of the final results of this review, the Department
shall determine, and the U.S. Customs Service shall assess antidumping
duties on all appropriate entries. We will calculate an importer-
specific ad valorem duty assessment rate based on the ratio of the
total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales
made during the POR to the total customs value of the sales used to
calculate those duties. This rate will be assessed uniformly on all
entries of that particular importer made during the POR. This is
equivalent to dividing the total amount of antidumping duties, which
are calculated by taking the difference between statutory NV and
statutory CEP, by the total statutory CEP value of the sales compared,
and adjusting the result by the average difference between CEP and
customs value for all merchandise examined during the POR.
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 the
final results of these administrative reviews, as provided by section
751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for Makita will be the
rate established in the final results of this review, except that no
deposit will be required for Makita if we find zero or de minimis
margins, i.e., margins less than 0.5 percent; (2) for previously
reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit
rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the
most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this
review, a prior review, or the original 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; and (4)
the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will
continue to be 54.52 percent, the ``All Others'' rate made effective by
the LTFV investigation.
These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect
until publication of the final results of the next administrative
review.
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
This administrative review and notice are in accordance with
section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)), 19 CFR 351.213,
and 19 CFR 351.221. This determination is issued and published in
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: June 1, 1998.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-15040 Filed 6-4-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P