[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 172 (Friday, September 4, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47227-47231]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-23930]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-421-804]


Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From the Netherlands: 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

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


[[Page 47228]]


ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of antidumping duty 
administrative review.

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

SUMMARY: In response to requests from the petitioners and respondent, 
the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on cold-rolled 
carbon steel flat products from the Netherlands. The review covers one 
manufacturer/exporter of the subject merchandise to the United States 
and the period August 1, 1996 through July 31, 1997.
    We have preliminarily determined that respondent has made sales 
below normal value during the period of review. If these preliminary 
results are adopted in our final results of review, we will instruct 
the U.S. Customs Service to assess antidumping duties on all 
appropriate entries.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results. Parties who submit argument in this proceeding are requested 
to submit with the argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a 
brief summary of the argument (no longer than five pages, including 
footnotes).

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 4, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Helen M. Kramer or Linda Ludwig, 
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone (202) 482-0405 or 482-3833, 
respectively.

APPLICABLE STATUTE: Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the 
Trade and 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 of 1994 
(URAA). In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all references to the 
Department's regulations are to 19 CFR Part 351 (1998).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Department of Commerce published an antidumping duty order on 
cold-rolled carbon steel flat products from the Netherlands on August 
19, 1993 (58 FR 44172). The Department published a notice of 
``Opportunity To Request Administrative Review'' of the antidumping 
duty order for the 1996/1997 review period on August 4, 1997 (62 FR 
41925). On August 29, 1997, both the respondent, Hoogovens Staal BV, 
and petitioners (Bethlehem Steel Corporation, U.S. Steel Company (a 
Unit of USX Corporation), Inland Steel Industries, Inc., Geneva Steel, 
Gulf States Steel Inc. of Alabama, Sharon Steel Corporation, and Lukens 
Steel Company) filed requests for review. We published a notice of 
initiation of the review on September 25, 1997 (62 FR 50292).
    Due to the complexity of issues involved in this case, the 
Department extended the time limit for completion of the preliminary 
results until August 31, 1998, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) 
of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675 (a)(3)(A)). The deadline for the final 
results of this review will continue to be 120 days after the date of 
publication of this notice. The Department is conducting this review in 
accordance with section 751 of the Act.

Scope of the Review

    The products covered by this review include cold-rolled (cold-
reduced) carbon steel flat-rolled products, of rectangular shape, 
neither clad, plated nor coated with metal, whether or not painted, 
varnished or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances, in 
coils (whether or not in successively superimposed layers) and of a 
width of 0.5 inch or greater, or in straight lengths which, if of a 
thickness less than 4.75 millimeters, are of a width of 0.5 inch or 
greater and which measures at least 10 times the thickness or if of a 
thickness of 4.75 millimeters or more are of a width which exceeds 150 
millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness, as currently 
classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) under item numbers 
7209.15.0000, 7209.16.0030, 7209.16.0060, 7209.16.0090, 7209.17.0030, 
7209.17.0060, 7209.17.0090, 7209.18.1530, 7209.18.1560, 7209.18.2550, 
7209.18.6000, 7209.25.0000, 7209.26.0000, 7209.27.0000, 7209.28.0000, 
7209.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.23.1500, 7211.23.2000, 
7211.23.3000, 7211.23.4500, 7211.23.6030, 7211.23.6060, 7211.23.6085, 
7211.29.2030, 7211.29.2090, 7211.29.4500, 7211.29.6030, 7211.29.6080, 
7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, 7215.50.0015, 
7215.50.0060, 7215.50.0090, 7215.90.5000, 7217.10.1000, 7217.10.2000, 
7217.10.3000, 7217.10.7000, 7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 7217.90.5060, 
and 7217.90.5090. Included in this review are flat-rolled products of 
nonrectangular cross-section where such cross-section is achieved 
subsequent to the rolling process (i.e., products which have been 
``worked after rolling'')--for example, products which have been 
beveled or rounded at the edges. Excluded from this review is certain 
shadow mask steel, i.e., aluminum-killed, cold-rolled steel coil that 
is open-coil annealed, has a carbon content of less than 0.002 percent, 
is of 0.003 to 0.012 inch in thickness, 15 to 30 inches in width, and 
has an ultra flat, isotropic surface. These HTS item numbers are 
provided for convenience and Customs purposes. The written description 
remains dispositive.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i)(3) of the Act, we verified 
information provided by Hoogovens at its headquarters in Beverwijk and 
IJmuiden, the Netherlands, using standard verification procedures, 
including inspection of the manufacturing facilities, examination of 
relevant sales and financial records, and selection of original 
documentation containing relevant information. We also verified 
information provided by Hoogovens Steel USA, Inc. at its office in 
Scarsdale, New York.

Export Price (EP)

    In calculating the U.S. starting price, the Department considered 
whether respondent's sales reported as export price (EP) sales are more 
appropriately characterized as CEP sales, as argued by petitioners in 
their letter to the Department dated July 10, 1998. Respondent offered 
a rebuttal to petitioners' argument in a letter dated August 6, 1998.
    In previous reviews the Department accepted the characterization of 
these sales as reported. Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products 
From the Netherlands; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 61 FR 48465 (September 13, 1996); 62 FR 18476 (April 15, 1997); 
63 FR 13204 (March 18, 1998).
    To ensure proper application of the statutory definitions of EP and 
CEP, where a U.S. affiliate is involved in making a sale, we consider 
the sale to be CEP unless the record demonstrates that the U.S. 
affiliate's involvement in making the sale is incidental or ancillary. 
Thus, whenever sales are made prior to importation through an 
affiliated sales agent in the United States, the Department typically 
determines whether to characterize the sales as EP sales based upon the 
following criteria: (1) whether the merchandise was shipped directly to 
the unaffiliated buyer, without being introduced into the affiliated 
selling agent's inventory; (2) whether this

[[Page 47229]]

procedure is the customary sales channel between the parties; and (3) 
whether the affiliated selling agent located in the United States acts 
only as a processor of documentation and a communications link between 
the foreign producer and the unaffiliated buyer. See, e.g., Notice of 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Newspaper 
Printing Presses From Germany, 61 FR 38175 (July 23, 1996); Certain 
Corrosion Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Korea: Final 
Results of Antidumping Administrative Review, 61 FR 18547, 18551 (April 
26, 1996); Certain Cut-To-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Germany: Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 18390 (April 
15, 1997); Certain Cold-Rolled and Corrosion Resistant Carbon Steel 
Flat Products From Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Reviews, 63 FR 13170, 13177 (March 18, 1998).
    The Department found that the sales through Hoogovens Steel USA, 
Inc. (HSUSA) satisfy these criteria. The subject merchandise is shipped 
directly from Hoogovens' mill to customers in the United States. HSUSA 
does not take title to the merchandise and does not maintain 
inventories of subject merchandise. This procedure is the customary 
sales channel between the parties, and the Department found no 
exceptions to this rule. The analysis of the third criterion is more 
complex. In this case the producer sells directly to the U.S. customer. 
The affiliate does not issue invoices, conduct customer credit checks, 
or finance sales, and rarely handles receipt of payment for Hoogovens' 
sales. Rather, Hoogovens creates and maintains most of the 
documentation for U.S. sales in the Netherlands. With respect to 
negotiations and price setting, the record is less clear. On the one 
hand, Hoogovens has stated that HSUSA negotiates prices with U.S. 
customers, subject to Hoogovens' approval. On the other hand, HSUSA 
does not have the authority to set prices or quantities. Under the 
terms of the agency agreement between Hoogovens and HSUSA, HSUSA is 
responsible for conducting market research, finding new customers, and 
soliciting orders. However, the agency agreement provides that in 
performance of these activities on behalf of Hoogovens, HSUSA has no 
authority to conclude contracts on Hoogovens' behalf. HSUSA cannot 
negotiate above the prices set by Hoogovens and its compensation does 
not depend on the price, quantity or profitability of sales. The record 
shows that Hoogovens is directly and continuously involved in 
negotiations and other communications with unaffiliated customers, and 
is solely responsible for providing technical service. See Verification 
at Hoogovens Steel USA, Inc., July 15, 1998, page 3 and Verification 
Exhibits 4 and 6. HSUSA serves as a communications link in relaying 
price quotes and other information, as well as quality complaints, 
between Hoogovens and customers. HSUSA regularly visits U.S. customers, 
both alone and in the company of Hoogovens officials from the 
Netherlands, and participates in meetings with U.S. customers that take 
place in the Netherlands. Based upon the information on the record, the 
Department preliminarily concludes that HSUSA's role is ancillary to 
the sales made in the Netherlands.
    We note that this is a very complex and difficult issue. While we 
have preliminarily determined to treat the transactions through HSUSA 
as EP sales, we note that certain record evidence could be argued to 
support treating these transactions as CEP sales. The Department 
invites parties to submit information and comment on this issue. Any 
such information or argument should be included in parties' case and 
rebuttal briefs. We intend to examine this issue carefully for the 
final results of this review. Any information or arguments parties 
provide will be fully analyzed in making this final decision. Parties 
are encouraged to provide any relevant information and arguments on 
this issue to ensure that the Department's final determination as to 
whether Hoogovens' sales to unaffiliated customers should be treated as 
EP or CEP is based on a complete and thorough record.
    We calculated EP based on the delivered, duty-paid price to 
unaffiliated customers in the United States. We made adjustments for 
discounts and post-sale price adjustments. We made deductions, where 
applicable, for foreign inland freight, ocean freight and marine 
insurance, brokerage and handling, U.S. inland freight, post-sale 
warehousing, and U.S. customs duties in accordance with section 772(c) 
of the Act. For EP sales, we rejected the reported imputed credit 
expenses based on the weighted average interest rate on short term 
dollar-denominated loans taken out in the Netherlands. We recalculated 
these U.S. credit expenses using the weighted average interest rate on 
HSUSA's short term borrowings in the United States during the POR.

Constructed Export Price (CEP)

    We based CEP on the delivered price to unaffiliated customers in 
the United States. We made deductions for foreign inland freight, ocean 
freight and marine insurance, brokerage and handling, U.S. inland 
freight, and U.S. customs duties. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) 
of the Act, we calculated the CEP by deducting selling expenses 
associated with economic activities occurring in the United States, 
including credit expenses, indirect selling expenses, and inventory 
carrying costs. In accordance with section 772(d)(2) of the Act, for 
sales made through the affiliated Rafferty-Brown companies, we also 
deducted the cost of further manufacturing, including repacking 
expenses. Finally, we made an adjustment for an amount of profit 
allocated to these expenses in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the 
Act.
    In the absence of cost of production (COP) data for certain home 
market sales,1 we estimated COP for calculation of the CEP 
profit allocation and the home market profit rate for CV as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Hoogovens reported CV data, which provide the cost of 
manufacturing the products sold in the United States. As the product 
mix is very different in the home market, the CV data are not 
representative of total costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. We estimated the home market fixed costs by calculating the 
weighted average ratio of fixed costs to variable costs for U.S. sales 
(using the reported VCOMU and TCOMU variables) and multiplying the 
reported home market variable costs (VCOMH) by this ratio.
    2. We obtained the total cost of manufacturing (COM) by adding the 
reported total variable costs and the estimated fixed costs.
    3. We obtained general and administrative expenses and interest 
expenses from the constructed value (CV) data base and added them to 
the total COM to obtain COP.

Normal Value (NV)

    In order to determine whether sales of the foreign like product in 
the home market are a viable basis for calculating NV, we compared the 
volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume 
of subject merchandise sold in the United States, in accordance with 
section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. Hoogovens' aggregate volume of home 
market sales of the foreign like product was greater than five percent 
of its respective aggregate volume of U.S. sales of the subject 
merchandise. Therefore, we have based NV on home market sales.

[[Page 47230]]

    Hoogovens made sales to both affiliated and unaffiliated customers 
in the home market during the period of review. We included sales to 
affiliated customers when we determined those sales to be at arms 
length (i.e., at weighted average prices that were 99.5 percent or more 
of weighted average prices for identical products sold to unaffiliated 
customers in the home market). When the weighted average price to an 
affiliated customer was less than 99.5 percent of the weighted average 
price to unaffiliated customers, or there were no sales of identical 
merchandise to unaffiliated customers, we excluded sales to that 
affiliated customer from our calculation of NV. See e.g., Rules and 
Regulations, Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties 62 FR 27296, 
27355 (May 19, 1997): ``The Department's current policy is to consider 
transactions between affiliated parties as `arm's length' if the prices 
to affiliated purchasers are on average at least 99.5 percent of the 
prices charged to unaffiliated purchasers.''
    Home market prices were based on the packed, ex-factory or 
delivered prices to customers. We made deductions to NV for inland 
freight, early payment discounts, rebates, credit expenses, and 
packing. We made deductions or additions, as appropriate, for post-sale 
price adjustments. Where CV was used as the basis of NV, we deducted 
direct selling expenses (comprised of credit and warranty/technical 
service expenses).

Level of Trade

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) 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 expenses and profit. For EP, the U.S. LOT is 
also the level of the starting-price sale, which is usually from 
exporter to importer. In this case, the exporter sells directly to 
unaffiliated customers. For CEP, it is the level of the constructed 
sale from the exporter to the importer.
    To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP or 
CEP, we examine 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 LOT, 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 LOT of 
the export transaction, we make an LOT adjustment under section 
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. We determine any effect on price comparability 
by examining sales at different levels of trade in the home market (or 
the third country market) used to calculate NV. Any price effect must 
be manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between home 
market (or third-country) sales used for comparison and sales at the 
equivalent LOT of the export transaction. To quantify the price 
differences, we calculate the difference in the weighted average of the 
net prices of the same models sold at different levels of trade in the 
home market. Net prices are used because any difference will be due to 
differences in LOT rather than other factors. We use the average 
percentage difference between these weighted averages to adjust NV when 
the LOT of NV is different from that of the export sale. If there is no 
pattern of price differences, then the difference in LOT does not have 
a price effect and no adjustment is necessary.
    In the case of CEP sales, Section 773 (b)(7)(B) of the statute also 
provides for an adjustment to NV if it is compared to U.S. sales at a 
different LOT, provided the NV is more remote from the factory than the 
CEP sales and we are unable to determine whether the difference in 
levels of trade between CEP and NV affects the comparability of their 
prices. This latter situation might occur when there is no home market 
(or third-country) LOT equivalent to the U.S. sales level, or where 
there is an equivalent home market (or third-country) level, but the 
data are insufficient to support a conclusion on price effect. This 
adjustment, the CEP offset, is the lower of the (1) indirect selling 
expenses of the home market (or third-country) sale; or (2) indirect 
selling expenses deducted from the starting price used to calculate 
CEP. The CEP offset is not automatic each time we use CEP. The CEP 
offset is made only when the LOT of the home market (or third country) 
sale is more advanced than the LOT of the U.S. CEP sale and there is 
not an appropriate basis for determining whether there is an effect on 
price comparability.
    To examine LOT in this review, we requested detailed information 
concerning the selling functions associated with sales to service 
centers and to several categories of end-users in each of Hoogovens' 
markets and interviewed sales, technical service and research managers. 
The information gathered indicated that there are no significant 
differences among the selling functions performed and services offered 
to service centers and end-user customers in either the home or U.S. 
markets. In both markets, the larger customers received more frequent 
visits from sales personnel. In the home market, a higher level of 
service was provided to automotive customers than to other end-users, 
but the sales were at the same stage of marketing as all other home 
market sales. Hoogovens stated it cannot differentiate among the 
selling functions performed and services offered to different classes 
of home market or export price customers. However, Hoogovens claimed it 
has no home market sales at a LOT equivalent to the CEP LOT, alleging:
    While the CEP sale has been adjusted to create, in effect, an 
ex-factory level of trade, the starting price of the home market 
sales reflects many selling activities not reflected in the adjusted 
CEP price. These include indirect selling activities, indirect 
warranty and technical service expenses, and inventory carrying 
costs incurred on home market sales.

Section A response (October 6, 1997), p. 13.
    We disagree with Hoogovens' claim that the prices used to determine 
NV reflect many selling activities not reflected in CEP. In calculating 
CEP, the Department deducted the imputed credit expenses incurred by 
the Rafferty-Brown companies as direct selling expenses. In accordance 
with section 772(d)(1), the Department deducted indirect selling 
expenses (ISE), including imputed inventory carrying costs (ICC) 
incurred in the United States by the Rafferty-Brown companies for sales 
to the first unaffiliated buyers. The Department did not deduct ISE 
incurred in the Netherlands (reported in computer data fields DINDIRSU 
and DINVCARU), nor expenses of the U.S. sales office from the adjusted 
CEP, on the grounds that these are expenses associated with the sale to 
Hoogovens U.S. affiliates, rather than with the sales by the affiliates 
to the first unaffiliated buyers. Thus, the CEP includes Hoogovens' 
warranty and technical service expenses for U.S. sales, as well as ISE, 
including the expenses of the sales offices in IJmuiden and New York 
incurred in connection with the sales to the affiliated service 
centers.
    Hoogovens' starting price for home market sales includes direct 
warranty and technical service expenses, ICC, the expenses of the sales 
office in IJmuiden, and other indirect selling expenses incurred for 
home market sales. Thus, for the purposes of the LOT analysis, there is 
no distinguishable difference between the selling functions included

[[Page 47231]]

in the home market starting price and the selling functions included in 
the CEP. On the basis of this analysis, the Department has determined 
that there is no basis for Hoogovens' claim that home market sales are 
at a different, more advanced LOT than the adjusted CEP sales. The 
Department therefore has determined for these preliminary results that 
Hoogovens' sales are made at one LOT in both markets.
    We note that this is a very complex and difficult issue. While we 
have preliminarily determined to treat all home market and U.S. sales 
as at the same LOT, we note that this is a change from the prior review 
period. The Department invites parties to submit information and 
comment on this issue. Any such information or argument should be 
included in parties' case and rebuttal briefs. We intend to examine 
this issue carefully for the final results of this review. Any 
information or arguments parties provide will be fully analyzed in 
making this final decision. Parties are encouraged to provide any 
relevant information and arguments on this issue to ensure that the 
Department's final determination as to whether all of Hoogovens' home 
market and U.S. sales are at the same LOT is based on a complete and 
thorough record.

Sales Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of cold-rolled carbon steel flat 
products in the United States were made at less than fair value, we 
compared EP or CEP to NV, as described in the ``Export Price,'' 
``Constructed Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this 
notice. In accordance with section 777(A) of the Act, we calculated 
monthly weighted-average prices for NV and compared these to individual 
U.S. transactions. When there were no contemporaneous home market sales 
of the foreign like product, we used CV as the basis for normal value, 
in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act. All the sales to which 
CV was applied were CEP sales of secondary merchandise. We calculated 
CV in accordance with section 773(e) of the Act and the methodology 
enunciated in the Memorandum of April 19, 1995, entitled ``Treatment of 
Non-Prime Merchandise for the First Administrative Review of Certain 
Carbon Steel Flat Products.'' We included the cost of manufacture, and 
selling, general and administrative expenses (SG&A). In accordance with 
section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based SG&A expenses and profit on 
the amounts incurred and realized by the respondent in connection with 
the production and sale of the foreign like product in the ordinary 
course of trade for consumption in the home market. For selling 
expenses, we used the weighted average home market selling expenses. We 
calculated profit by subtracting the weighted average total cost of 
production (estimated as described above) from the total weighted 
average sales revenue. We adjusted CV for credit and warranty expenses.

Reimbursement

    Section 351.402(f) of the antidumping regulations requires the 
Department to deduct from EP or CEP the amount of any antidumping duty 
that is reimbursed to the importer. Based on verified evidence on the 
record in this review, including the revised agency agreement between 
Hoogovens and Hoogovens Steel USA, Inc. (HSUSA) and the refund to 
Hoogovens by HSUSA of a portion of the cash deposits advanced equal to 
the Department's calculation of the antidumping duties to be assessed 
in the third administrative review, the Department has preliminarily 
determined that HSUSA is solely responsible for the payment of 
antidumping duties. Further, evidence on the record in this review 
shows that as a result of corporate restructuring, HSUSA has sufficient 
assets to establish its ability to pay the antidumping duties to be 
assessed. Therefore, for this period of review, we have determined that 
Hoogovens has not reimbursed HSUSA for antidumping duties to be 
assessed.

Preliminary Results of Review

    We preliminarily determine that the following margin exists for the 
period August 1, 1996 through July 31, 1997:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin  
                          Company                             (percent) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hoogovens Staal BV.........................................         0.95
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parties to this proceeding may request disclosure within five days 
of publication of this notice and 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 working day 
thereafter. Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written 
comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication. Rebuttal 
briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in 
such briefs or comments, may be filed no later than 37 days after the 
date of publication. The Department will publish the final results of 
this administrative review, which will include the results of its 
analysis of issues raised in any such written comments or at a hearing, 
within 120 days after the publication of this notice.
    The Department shall determine, and Customs shall assess, 
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. For assessment purposes, 
the duty assessment rate will be a specific amount per metric ton. The 
Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to Customs. 
The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment 
of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by this review 
and for future deposits of estimated duties.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective 
upon completion of the final results of this administrative review for 
all shipments of cold-rolled carbon steel flat products from the 
Netherlands entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or 
after the publication date of the final results of this administrative 
review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash 
deposit rate for the reviewed firm will be the rate established in the 
final results of administrative review, except if the rate is less than 
0.5 percent, and therefore, de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 
351.106, in which case the cash deposit rate will be zero; (2) if the 
exporter is not a firm covered in this review or the original 
investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be 
that established for the manufacturer of the merchandise in the final 
results of this review; and (3) if neither the exporter nor the 
manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous review or the 
original fair value investigation, the cash deposit rate will be 19.32 
percent.
    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during these review periods. 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 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: August 31, 1998.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-23930 Filed 9-3-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P