[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 173 (Tuesday, September 8, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47469-47474]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-24068]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-580-825]


Oil Country Tubular Goods From Korea: Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

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

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review of Oil Country Tubular Goods From Korea.

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

SUMMARY: In response to a request from SeAH Steel Corporation 
(``SeAH''), the Department of Commerce (``the Department'') is 
conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on 
oil country tubular goods from Korea. This review covers one 
manufacturer/exporter of the subject merchandise to the United States, 
SeAH, and the period August 1, 1996 through July 31, 1997, which is the 
second period of review (``POR'').
    We have preliminarily determined that SeAH made sales below normal 
value (``NV''). If these preliminary results are adopted in our final 
results of this administrative review, we will instruct the U.S. 
Customs Service to assess antidumping duties based on the difference 
between the constructed export price (``CEP'') and the NV.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 8, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doug Campau, Steve Bezirganian, or 
Steven Presing, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
0409, -0162, or -0194, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended (the Act), are 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 19 CFR 
part 351 (62 FR 27379, May 19, 1997).

[[Page 47470]]

Background

    On August 11, 1995, the Department published in the Federal 
Register (60 FR 41058) the antidumping duty order on oil country 
tubular goods from Korea. On August 4, 1997, the Department published 
in the Federal Register (62 FR 41925) a notice indicating an 
opportunity to request an administrative review of this order for the 
period August 1, 1996, through July 31, 1997, and on August 29, 1997, 
SeAH requested an administrative review for its entries during that 
period. On September 25, 1997, in accordance with Section 751 of the 
Act, we published in the Federal Register a notice of initiation of an 
administrative review of this order for the period August 1, 1996 
through July 31, 1997 (62 FR 50292).
    Under section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department may extend 
the deadline for completion of an administrative review if it 
determines that it is not practicable to complete the review within the 
statutory time limit of 365 days. On January 30, 1998, the Department 
published a notice of extension of the time limit for the preliminary 
results in the review to August 31, 1998. See Oil Country Tubular Goods 
from Korea; Extension of Time Limit for Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 63 FR 4624.
    The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section 
751(a) of the Act.

Scope of Review

    The merchandise covered by this order are oil country tubular goods 
(``OCTG''), hollow steel products of circular cross-section, including 
only oil well casing and tubing, of iron (other than cast iron) or 
steel (both carbon and alloy), whether seamless or welded, whether or 
not conforming to American Petroleum Institute (``API'') or non-API 
specifications, whether finished or unfinished (including green tubes 
and limited service OCTG products). This scope does not cover casing or 
tubing pipe containing 10.5 percent or more of chromium, or drill pipe. 
The OCTG subject to this order are currently classified in the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'') under item 
numbers: 7304.29.10.10, 7304.29.10.20, 7304.29.10.30, 7304.29.10.40, 
7304.29.10.50, 7304.29.10.60, 7304.29.10.80, 7304.29.20.10, 
7304.29.20.20, 7304.29.20.30, 7304.29.20.40, 7304.29.20.50, 
7304.29.20.60, 7304.29.20.80, 7304.29.30.10, 7304.29.30.20, 
7304.29.30.30, 7304.29.30.40, 7304.29.30.50, 7304.29.30.60, 
7304.29.30.80, 7304.29.40.10, 7304.29.40.20, 7304.29.40.30, 
7304.29.40.40, 7304.29.40.50, 7304.29.40.60, 7304.29.40.80, 
7304.29.50.15, 7304.29.50.30, 7304.29.50.45, 7304.29.50.60, 
7304.29.50.75, 7304.29.60.15, 7304.29.60.30, 7304.29.60.45, 
7304.29.60.60, 7304.29.60.75, 7305.20.20.00, 7305.20.40.00, 
7305.20.60.00, 7305.20.80.00, 7306.20.10.30, 7306.20.10.90, 
7306.20.20.00, 7306.20.30.00, 7306.20.40.00, 7306.20.60.10, 
7306.20.60.50, 7306.20.80.10, and 7306.20.80.50. The HTSUS item numbers 
are provided for convenience and Customs purposes. The written 
description remains dispositive of the scope of this review.

Comparison Market

    The Department determines the viability of a comparison market by 
comparing the aggregate quantity of comparison market and U.S. sales. 
An exporting country is not considered a viable comparison market if 
the aggregate quantity of sales of subject merchandise within it 
amounts to less than five percent of the quantity of sales of subject 
merchandise into the U.S. during the POR. Section 773(a)(1)(B) of the 
Act; 19 CFR 351.404. We found Korea was not a viable comparison market 
because the aggregate quantity of SeAH's sales of subject merchandise 
within Korea during the POR amounted to less than five percent of the 
quantity of sales of subject merchandise to the U.S. during the POR.
    According to Section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act, the price of 
sales to a third country can be used as the basis for normal value if 
such price is representative, if the aggregate quantity (or, where 
appropriate, value) of sales to that country is at least 5 percent of 
the quantity (or value) of total sales to the United States, and if the 
Department does not determine that the particular market situation in 
that country prevents proper comparison with the export price or 
constructed export price. The volume and value of sales to Myanmar were 
both found to exceed 5 percent of the volume and value of sales to the 
United States. We also found the price of SeAH's Myanmar sales to be 
representative. (see 1996-1997 Administrative Review of the Antidumping 
Duty Order on Oil Country Tubular Goods from Korea: Analysis of 
Petitioners' Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of Production for SeAH 
Steel Corporation, at 1-2, which is the January 7, 1998 memorandum from 
Steve Bezirganian through Steven Presing to Roland MacDonald (``Cost 
Allegation Analysis Memorandum''). Further, we found no reason to 
determine that the market situation in Myanmar would somehow prevent 
proper comparison between normal value and export price or constructed 
export price. Id. We therefore found Myanmar to be the appropriate 
comparison market per section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act.
    The only comparison market customer was a Korean trading company 
that resold the merchandise to Myanmar customers. SeAH has a joint 
venture with that trading company, but it is not involved with the 
production of subject merchandise. Accordingly, we do not consider SeAH 
and the Korean trading company to be affiliated for purposes of sales 
to Myanmar. Further, we have no other information on the record which 
indicates that this company should be considered an affiliated party 
pursuant to section 771(33) of the Act, we have preliminarily 
determined not to treat it as such.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all 
products produced by the respondent, covered by the description in the 
Scope of the Review section, above, and sold in the comparison market 
during the POR, to be foreign like products for purposes of determining 
appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. Where there were no 
contemporaneous sales of identical merchandise in the comparison market 
to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the most similar 
foreign like product on the basis of the characteristics listed in 
Appendix V of the Department's September 16, 1997 antidumping 
questionnaire.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of subject merchandise to the United 
States were made at less than fair value, we compared the Constructed 
Export Price (CEP) to the NV, as described in the ``United States 
Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice. In accordance 
with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we calculated monthly weighted-
average prices for NV and compared these to individual U.S. transaction 
prices.

Interested Party Comments

    On August 17, 1998, petitioners submitted comments. On August 19, 
1998, SeAH submitted comments. Because of the lateness of these 
submissions, we are not able to fully consider them for these 
preliminary results.

[[Page 47471]]

United States Price

    SeAH produced OCTG in Korea and shipped it to the United States. 
Pusan Pipe America, Inc. (``PPA''), an affiliate of SeAH, was the 
importer of record. After importation, PPA maintained the merchandise 
in inventory. PPA sold OCTG to the Panther division of State Pipe and 
Supply Co. (``State''), a firm that is jointly owned by SeAH and PPA. 
State, in turn, sold OCTG to unaffiliated U.S. customers, typically 
after further manufacturing was performed by unaffiliated processors. 
State invoiced the unaffiliated customers and received payment.
    In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, we used CEP for 
calculation of the price to the United States because the first sales 
to unaffiliated customers in the United States were made after 
importation of the subject merchandise. The starting point for the 
calculation of CEP was the delivered price to unaffiliated customers in 
the United States. In accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act, we 
made deductions for movement expenses, including foreign inland 
freight, ocean freight, marine insurance, foreign and U.S. brokerage 
and handling, U.S. inland freight, and U.S. customs duties. In 
accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we also deducted credit 
expenses, warranty expenses, early payment discounts and other 
discounts, warehousing expenses, other direct selling expenses 
(inspection expenses), indirect selling expenses, and inventory 
carrying costs. For certain U.S. sales, a domestic court ruled SeAH 
should be paid for certain disputed receivables due. However, such 
payments have not yet been received by SeAH. Accordingly, these court-
ordered payments have not been taken into account in determining dates 
of payment. Should SeAH receive those payments prior to the final, we 
will take them into consideration. For our calculations, we set the 
payment date (for these U.S. sales) equal to the date of SeAH's last 
submission (August 19, 1998) and recalculated credit expense 
accordingly.
    In accordance with section 772(c)(1)(b) of the Act, we added duty 
drawback to the starting price. Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the 
Act, we made an adjustment for CEP profit. In accordance with section 
772(d)(2) of the Act, we deducted the cost of further manufacturing 
where such deduction was appropriate. This deduction for further 
manufacturing was based on the fees charged by the unaffiliated U.S. 
processors; SeAH indicated that the reported further processors' 
charges included processing and repacking, and that it did not include 
separate G&A or interest expense information related to this further 
processing because all of the expenses incurred by State and PPA, 
including the minimal G&A and interest expense associated with their 
dealings with further processors, were reported as selling expenses. 
Finally, we made an adjustment for an amount of profit allocated to 
these expenses, when incurred in connection with economic activity in 
the United States, in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act.

Normal Value

A. Model Match

    In accordance with recent practice, we matched a given U.S. sale to 
comparison market sales of the next most similar model if all 
contemporaneous sales of the most comparable model were below cost and 
discarded from our analysis. The Department uses CV as the basis for NV 
only when there are no above-cost sales that are otherwise suitable for 
comparison. Therefore, in this proceeding, in making comparisons in 
accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all products 
sold in the comparison market as described in the ``Scope of 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 
comparison market made in the 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 
characteristics listed in Sections B and C of our antidumping 
questionnaire. This methodology is in accordance with the ruling of the 
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in CEMEX vs. United States, 
133 F.3d 897 (Fed Cir. 1998).

B. Cost of Production and Constructed Value

    1. Cost of Production: On December 2, 1997, petitioners alleged 
that SeAH made comparison market sales of OCTG at prices below the cost 
of production (``COP'') during the POR. After analyzing petitioners'' 
allegation (see the aforementioned Cost Allegation Analysis Memo), the 
Department determined that it had reasonable grounds to believe or 
suspect that sales had been made at prices that were less than the COP. 
Therefore, on January 8, 1998, pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act, 
the Department initiated a COP investigation of SeAH. We compared sales 
of the foreign like product in the comparison market with the model-
specific COP figure for the POR. In accordance with section 773(b)(3) 
of the Act, we calculated the COP based on the sum of the costs of 
materials and fabrication employed in producing the foreign like 
product, plus selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, 
including all costs and expenses incidental to placing the foreign like 
product in condition packed and ready for shipment. In our COP 
analysis, we used comparison market sales and COP information provided 
by the respondent in its questionnaire responses.
    The API Specification 5CT, to which SeAH states it makes its OCTG, 
requires that a carload lot (considered to be a minimum of 40,000 
pounds, or 18.14 metric tons) meet a negative weight tolerance of 1.75% 
(i.e., the actual weight of the carload lot can be no less than 100% 
minus 1.75%, or 98.25%, of the theoretical weight of the carload, the 
latter being the weight basis for SeAH's sales). The weight tolerance 
for single lengths of pipe are plus 6.5% and minus 3.5% (i.e., the 
actual weight of any given pipe must be between 96.5% and 106.5% of the 
theoretical weight). SeAH has reported weight conversion factors that 
indicate actual weight was less than 96.5% of theoretical weight, 
outside of the API weight tolerance. Weight conversion factors are 
needed to convert SeAH's production costs, which for most OCTG products 
are maintained on an actual weight basis, to a theoretical weight basis 
so that the cost and sales data are on a comparable weight basis.
    Petitioners argue that these conversion factors cannot, by 
definition, be greater than 1.75% because SeAH does not know at the 
time of production whether or not the customers will eventually 
purchase carload lots. Petitioners state that the Department should 
therefore deny SeAH's conversion factors in their entirety.
    SeAH argues that the minus 1.75% tolerance only applies to OCTG 
which has an outside diameter of less than 1.660 inches and that it did 
not produce or make sales of these products to Myanmar or the United 
States. SeAH asserts that it, State, and their customers do not require 
that carload lots of the merchandise be weighed, and that it, State, 
and their customers do not interpret the API specifications to require 
that the carload lots of the merchandise be weighed. SeAH indicates 
that it performs a weight-tolerance test for plain-end pipe, to make 
sure its weight meets the plus 6.5% and minus 3.5% tolerances, and

[[Page 47472]]

that it performs the same test again, after the further processing 
(performed in Korea for Myanmar sales, and by the unaffiliated U.S. 
further processors for U.S. sales), to assure that the finished goods 
meet the same tolerances.
    We find, based on the record, that the minus 1.75% weight tolerance 
API specified for carload lots of 5CT applies for all OCTG produced to 
that specification, not simply to OCTG with an outside diameter of less 
than 1.660 inches. The specification states that ``[a]ll dimensions 
shown herein without tolerances are related to the basis for design and 
are not subject to measurement to determine acceptance or rejection of 
the product,'' and that ``[e]xceptions are Grades C90, T95, and Q125, 
which may be furnished in other sizes, weights, and wall thicknesses as 
agreed between the purchaser and the manufacturer'' (see API 
Specification 5CT at section 7.1, in SeAH's December 24, 1997 
submission). The carload lot weight is a dimension (weight) with a 
tolerance (minus 1.75%), and none of SeAH's Myanmar or U.S. sales were 
of Grades C90, T95, or Q125.
    Nevertheless, it does not appear that the API carload lot weight 
tolerance would apply to merchandise being transported by ship, which 
is the case for SeAH's Myanmar sales and for its U.S. sales to PPA. 
These are the transactions that are relevant for cost purposes; the 
further manufactured U.S. sales to unaffiliated U.S. customers need not 
meet any particular specification, or even be categorized as OCTG. SeAH 
stated that its production meets the minus 3.5% and plus 6.5% 
tolerance, and there is no clear reason why the actual weight should be 
less than 96.5% of the theoretical weight if all of SeAH's OCTG is 
produced to the specification. Consequently, for our preliminary 
results we have used a conversion factor based on this assumption 
(except for products for which costs were maintained on a theoretical 
weight basis, which require no weight conversion).
    Hot-rolled steel coil is one of the main material inputs used to 
manufacture OCTG. SeAH purchased the majority of its hot-rolled steel 
coil inputs from Pohang Iron and Steel Co., Ltd. (``POSCO''). While 
SeAH and POSCO are involved in a joint venture that produced non-
subject merchandise, we have no other information on the record which 
indicates that these two companies should be considered affiliated 
parties pursuant to section 771(33) of the Act. Therefore, we have 
preliminarily determined that SeAH and POSCO are not affiliated.
    After calculating COP, we tested whether comparison market sales of 
the foreign like product were made at prices below COP and, if so, 
whether the below-cost sales were made within an extended period of 
time, in substantial quantities, and at prices that did not permit 
recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. Because each 
individual price was compared against the POR average COP, any sales 
that were below cost were also determined not to be at prices which 
permitted cost recovery within a reasonable period of time. We compared 
model-specific COPs to the reported comparison market prices, less any 
applicable movement charges, discounts, and rebates.
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 
percent of a respondent's sales of a given model were at prices less 
than COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that model 
because the below-cost sales were not made in substantial quantities 
within an extended period of time. Where 20 percent or more of a 
respondent's sales of a given model during the POR were at prices less 
than the weighted-average COPs for the POR, we disregarded the below-
cost sales because they were made within an extended period of time in 
substantial quantities in accordance with sections 773(b)(2) (B) and 
(C) of the Act, and were at prices which would not permit recovery of 
all costs within a reasonable period of time in accordance with section 
773(b)(2)(D) of the Act.
    2. Constructed Value: In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the 
Act, we used constructed value (``CV'') as the basis for NV when there 
were no above-cost contemporaneous sales of such or similar merchandise 
in the comparison market. We calculated CV in accordance with section 
773(e) of the Act. We included SeAH's cost of materials and fabrication 
(including packing), SG&A expenses, and profit. See section 
773(e)(2)(A) of the Act. We applied the same conversion factor 
methodology as noted in the COP section above. 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 comparison market. For selling 
expenses, we used the weighted-average comparison market selling 
expenses.

C. Price-to-Price Comparison

    Where appropriate, for comparison to CEP, we made adjustments to NV 
by deducting Korean inland freight, brokerage, handling, and packing, 
in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act, and by 
deducting direct selling expenses (credit expenses) in accordance with 
section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. We also made adjustments for 
differences in costs attributable to differences in physical 
characteristics of merchandise, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of 
the Act.
    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 U.S. sales. 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 SG&A expenses and 
profit. For both EP and CEP, the relevant transaction for the level of 
trade analysis is the sale (or constructed sale) from the exporter to 
the importer.
    To determine whether comparison market 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 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 a LOT adjustment under section 
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, 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, 61732 (November 17, 1997), and Granular 
Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin From Italy; Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR 25826 (May 11, 1998).
    SeAH asserted that its comparison market sales were at a different 
LOT than its U.S. sales because the comparison market sales are at a 
more advanced level of distribution than its sales to State, and 
because SeAH performed and incurred all expenses for all significant 
selling functions and support services for the comparison market sales, 
but did not perform them for its CEP sales made through PPA and State. 
SeAH requested a CEP offset to

[[Page 47473]]

reflect these differences (see, e.g., pages 19-21 of SeAH's November 
12, 1997, Section B questionnaire response).
    In its original questionnaire response, SeAH asserted that it 
performs many functions with respect to third country sales that it 
does not perform with respect to U.S. sales, such as: gathering 
strategic and marketing information including industry developments, 
potential new or refined applications, products and sales practices of 
customers and competitors, and technical and engineering developments; 
establishing pricing policies for OCTG sales based on market conditions 
in the third-country market; establishing sales promotional and 
marketing strategies, including advertising, promotional activities, 
and technical service for third-country market sales; and maintaining a 
skilled sales force that is knowledgeable about SeAH's OCTG products 
and the OCTG market in the third country market. Therefore, SeAH claims 
that it has distinguished different levels of trade for its Myanmar 
sales versus its sales to the U.S. importer of record, PPA, by 
highlighting ways in which SeAH is deeply involved with, and 
knowledgeable about, the Myanmar market.
    However, the record indicates that SeAH has greatly overstated the 
extent and importance of its activities with respect to the Myanmar 
market. For example, at page 14 of its April 3, 1998 supplemental 
questionnaire response, SeAH indicated that it does not even know the 
identity or location of the customers of the Korean trading company to 
which it made its Myanmar sales. While SeAH clarified this point at 
page 40 of its June 4, 1998 supplemental questionnaire response by 
saying that several documents in the third country sales process 
indicate the destination and identity of the ultimate Myanmar 
customers, it also noted that it had no contact with those Myanmar 
customers, nor did it have any knowledge of the prices that the 
unaffiliated Korean trading company charged those Myanmar customers. 
SeAH's knowledge of the OCTG market is based on ``customer contacts and 
other contacts in the industry'' (see page 13 of the April 3, 1998 
supplemental questionnaire response), and based on SeAH's own 
statements, such contacts with respect to Myanmar are very limited.
    The record does not indicate more than a minimal involvement by 
SeAH in either the marketing process or the selling functions 
associated with its Myanmar and U.S. sales. There does not appear to be 
any substantive difference between the functions performed by SeAH with 
respect to the sales to the Korean trading company destined for Myanmar 
and the functions performed by SeAH with respect to its sales to PPA, 
the affiliated U.S. importer of record. In both instances, SeAH made 
sales to resellers that in turn sold to end-users, and the record does 
not indicate any more than the most minimal interaction of SeAH with 
those resellers (the unaffiliated Korean trading company for the 
Myanmar sales, and PPA for the U.S. sales) with respect to the sales 
process. Consequently, we have preliminarily determined that the sales 
in both markets are at the same LOT. Therefore, a CEP offset is not 
warranted.

Preliminary Results of Reviews

    As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine the weighted-
average dumping margin for the period August 1, 1996 through July 31, 
1997 to be as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
          Manufacturer/exporter              Time period      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SeAH....................................     9/1/96-8/31/97         0.35
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose to 
parties to the proceeding any calculations performed in connection with 
these preliminary results within five days after the publication of 
this notice. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309, interested parties may submit 
written comments in response to these preliminary results. Case briefs 
must be submitted within 30 days after the date of publication of this 
notice, and rebuttal briefs, limited to arguments raised in case 
briefs, must be submitted no later than five days after the time limit 
for filing case briefs. 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. Case and rebuttal 
briefs must be served on interested parties in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.303(f). Also, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310, within 30 days of the 
date of publication of this notice, interested parties may request a 
public hearing on arguments to be raised in the case and rebuttal 
briefs. Unless the Secretary specifies otherwise, the hearing, if 
requested, will be held two days after the date for submission of 
rebuttal briefs, that is, thirty-seven days after the date of 
publication of these preliminary results.
    The Department will publish the final results of this 
administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues 
raised in any case or rebuttal brief 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. In accordance 
with 19 CFR 351.212(b), we have calculated exporter/importer-specific 
assessment rates. We divided the total dumping margins for the reviewed 
sales by the total entered value of those reviewed sales for each 
importer. We will direct the U.S. Customs Service to assess the 
resulting percentage margin against the entered customs values for the 
subject merchandise on each of that importer's entries under the 
relevant order during the review period.
    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, as 
provided by section 751(a) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for 
each reviewed company will be that established in the final results of 
review (except that a deposit of zero will be required for firms with 
zero or de minimis margins, i.e., margins less than 0.5 percent); (2) 
for exporters not covered in this review, but covered in the LTFV 
investigation or previous review, 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 previous 
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; (4) the cash deposit 
rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be the 
``all others'' rate established in the LTFV investigation, which was 
12.17 percent. These requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect 
until publication of the final results of the next administrative 
review.
    This notice 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 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.
    These administrative reviews and notices are published in 
accordance with 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C.

[[Page 47474]]

1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 351.213 and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).

    Dated: August 31, 1998.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-24068 Filed 9-4-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P