[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 173 (Tuesday, September 8, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47465-47469]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-24069]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-588-824]


Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From 
Japan: 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 Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat 
Products From Japan.

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

SUMMARY: In response to requests from interested parties, the 
Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on certain corrosion-resistant 
carbon steel flat products from Japan. This review covers one 
manufacturer of the subject merchandise. The period of review (``POR'') 
is August 1, 1996 through July 31, 1997.
    We have preliminarily determined that sales subject to this review 
have been made below normal value (``NV''). If these preliminary 
results are adopted in our final results of these administrative 
reviews, we will instruct the U.S. Customs Service to assess 
antidumping duties based on the difference between the export price 
(``EP'') and the NV.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 8, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doreen Chen, Stephen Jacques, or Rick 
Johnson, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., 
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0413, 482-1391, or 482-3818, 
respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

[[Page 47466]]

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).

Background

    On July 19, 1993, the Department published in the Federal Register 
(58 FR 37154) the antidumping duty orders on certain corrosion-
resistant carbon steel flat products from Japan.(``Final 
Determination''). On August 13, 1997, Nippon Steel Corporation 
(``NSC'') requested a review of its exports of corrosion-resistant 
steel. On September 25, 1997, in accordance with section 751 of the 
Act, we published a notice of initiation of 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 February 9, 1998 the Department 
published a notice of extension of the time limit for the preliminary 
results in the review to July 2, 1998. See Corrosion-Resistant Carbon 
Steel Flat Products From Japan: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary 
Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR 26144 
(February 9, 1998). On May 12, 1998, the Department published a notice 
of extension of the time limit for the preliminary results in the 
review to August 31, 1998. See Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat 
Products From Japan: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of 
the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR 26144 (May 12, 1998). 
The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section 
751(a) of the Act.

Scope of Reviews

    This review of ``certain corrosion-resistant steel flat products'' 
covers flat-rolled carbon steel products, of rectangular shape, either 
clad, plated, or coated with corrosion-resistant metals such as zinc, 
aluminum, or zinc-, aluminum-, nickel-or iron-based alloys, whether or 
not corrugated or painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other 
nonmetallic substances in addition to the metallic coating, 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 7210.30.0030, 
7210.30.0060, 7210.41.0000, 7210.49.0030, 7210.49.0090, 7210.61.0000, 
7210.69.0000, 7210.70.6030, 7210.70.6060, 7210.70.6090, 7210.90.1000, 
7210.90.6000, 7210.90.9000, 7212.20.0000, 7212.30.1030, 7212.30.1090, 
7212.30.3000, 7212.30.5000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, 
7212.60.0000, 7215.90.1000, 7215.90.3000, 7215.90.5000, 7217.20.1500, 
7217.30.1530, 7217.30.1560, 7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 7217.90.5060, 
and 7217.90.5090. Included are flat-rolled products of non-rectangular 
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 are flat-rolled steel products either plated or coated with 
tin, lead, chromium, chromium oxides, both tin and lead (``terne 
plate''), or both chromium and chromium oxides (``tin-free steel''), 
whether or not painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other 
nonmetallic substances in addition to the metallic coating. Also 
excluded are clad products in straight lengths of 0.1875 inch or more 
in composite thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and 
measures at least twice the thickness. Also excluded are certain clad 
stainless flat-rolled products, which are three-layered corrosion-
resistant carbon steel flat-rolled products less than 4.75 millimeters 
in composite thickness that consist of a carbon steel flat-rolled 
product clad on both sides with stainless steel in a 20%-60%-20% ratio. 
The HTS item numbers are provided for convenience and Customs purposes. 
The written description remains dispositive of the scope of this 
review.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified cost and 
sales information provided by NSC, using standard verification 
procedures, including on-site inspection of the manufacturer's 
facilities and the examination of relevant sales and financial records. 
Our verification results are outlined in the public versions of the 
verification reports, which are on file with the Department in the 
Central Records Unit, Room B-099.

Transactions Reviewed

    In accordance with section 751 of the Act, the Department is 
required to determine the EP (or CEP) and NV of each entry of subject 
merchandise. On November 18, 1997, respondent requested that it be 
relieved from reporting certain information, e.g. price adjustments for 
sales by NSC's affiliated manufacturers. Respondent argued that it 
should not be required to report such information on sales by 
affiliated manufacturers because these sales were not exported to the 
United States and would not provide the most similar product matches to 
the subject merchandise under review. See November 18, 1997 letter. 
Therefore, respondent reported only matching characteristics, date of 
sale, quantity and price for these sales.
    The Department directed respondent to report sales by affiliated 
resellers. See Department's September 19, 1997 antidumping 
questionnaire and supplemental questionnaire dated January 15, 1998 at 
p.1. In the response to the questionnaire, respondent stated that it 
was unable to collect sales data from all affiliated resellers. See 
Questionnaire Response, dated November 25, 1997 at p. B-6; Supplemental 
Questionnaire Response dated February 12, 1998 at p. S-1-3. Respondent 
only reported sales by one affiliated reseller. Id. The Department 
asked respondent to further explain its inability to report sales by 
affiliated resellers. See Second Supplemental Questionnaire dated April 
14, 1998 at p. 1-2. Respondent elaborated concerning its inability to 
report sales, its methodology in reporting certain transactions and the 
impact of reporting resales on the dumping margin. See Second 
Supplemental Questionnaire Response dated May 13, 1998 at pp. 1-14. The 
Department preliminarily allowed this limited reporting for downstream 
sales since we found adequate home market matches to U.S. sales. As 
this issue involves proprietary information, please see the 
Department's Decision Memorandum: Fourth Administrative Review of the 
Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat 
Products from Japan for a complete explanation of this issue.

[[Page 47467]]

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 of this notice, (supra), and sold in 
the home market during the period of review (POR), to be foreign like 
products for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to 
U.S. sales. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the 
home 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 19, 1997 antidumping 
questionnaire. In making product comparisons, we matched foreign like 
products based on the physical characteristics reported by the 
respondent and verified by the Department.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of subject merchandise to the United 
States were made at less than fair value, we compared the EP 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.

United States Price

    For calculation of the price to the United States, we used EP when 
the subject merchandise was sold directly or indirectly to the first 
unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation and 
when constructed export price (CEP) was not otherwise warranted, based 
on facts on the record.
    The Department calculated EP for NSC based on packed, prepaid or 
delivered prices to customers in the United States. We made adjustments 
to the starting price, net of billing adjustments, for movement 
expenses (foreign and U.S. movement, brokerage and handling, and U.S. 
Customs duties), in accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act.
    It is the Department's current practice normally to use the invoice 
date as the date of sale; we may, however, use a date other than the 
invoice date if we are satisfied that a different date better reflects 
the date on which the exporter or producer establishes the material 
terms of sale. See 19 CFR 351.401(i) (62 FR at 27411).
    Accordingly, as allowed by the exception set forth in section 
351.401(i) of the regulations, we used the date of order confirmation 
as date of sale for all of NSC's sales in both the U.S. market and the 
home market. Because in this review the date of order better reflects 
the date on which the material terms of sale are established, we will 
not use the date of invoice as the new regulations prescribe. We did 
not use date of shipment as the date of sale, as reported by 
respondent, because, we determined that date of shipment did not 
represent the date on which the material terms of sale are established. 
See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR at 
27349.

Normal Value

    The Department determines the viability of the home market as the 
comparison market by comparing the aggregate quantity of home market 
and U.S. sales. We found that respondent's quantity of sales in its 
home market exceeded five percent of its sales to the United States for 
the relevant class or kind of merchandise. Therefore, we have 
determined that respondent's home market sales are viable. Moreover, 
there is no evidence on the record supporting a particular market 
situation in the exporting country that would not permit a proper 
comparison of home market and U.S. prices. Therefore, we used home 
market sales for purposes of comparison with sales of the subject 
merchandise to the United States, pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(C) of 
the Act. In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we 
based NV on the price at which the foreign like product was first sold 
for consumption in the home market, in the usual commercial quantities 
and in the ordinary course of trade, at the same level of trade as the 
EP sale.
    In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we used CV as the 
basis for NV when there were no above-cost contemporaneous sales of 
identical or similar merchandise in the comparison market. 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 amounts incurred and realized by respondent in 
connection with the production and sale of the foreign like product in 
the ordinary course of trade for consumption in the foreign country. 
For selling expenses, we used the weighted-average home market selling 
expenses.
    We used sales to affiliated customers only where we determined such 
sales were made at arm's-length prices, i.e., at prices comparable to 
prices at which the firm sold identical merchandise to unaffiliated 
customers.
    For the class or kind of merchandise under review, the Department 
disregarded sales below the cost of production (``COP'') in the last 
completed review as of the date of the issuance of the antidumping 
questionnaire (see Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products, 
Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products, and Certain Corrosion-
Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Japan: Final Determinations 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 58 FR 37154 (July 9, 1993)). We 
therefore had reasonable grounds to believe or suspect, pursuant to 
section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, 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. Pursuant to section 
773(b)(1) of the Act, we initiated COP investigations of sales by 
respondent in the home market.
    We compared sales of the foreign like product in the home market 
with the model-specific cost of production figure for the POR 
(``COP''). 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 and all costs and 
expenses incidental to placing the foreign like product in condition 
packed and ready for shipment. We revised respondent's reported G & A 
expense ratio to include certain non-operating income and expense 
items. We revised the reported transfer price of electricity obtained 
from affiliates to reflect the market value paid to non-affiliates. The 
market price was higher than the transfer price. See Memorandum to the 
File: OA Analysis Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of Review, 
August 31, 1998. In our COP analysis, we used home market sales and COP 
information provided by the respondent in its questionnaire responses.
    After calculating COP, we tested whether home market sales of 
subject merchandise 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-long average COP, any sales that 
were below cost were also not at prices which permitted cost recovery 
within a reasonable period of time. We compared model-specific COPs to 
the reported home market prices less any applicable

[[Page 47468]]

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.
    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, where 
possible, we based NV on sales at the same level of trade (``LOT'') as 
the U.S. price. See the Level of Trade Section below.
    The Department determined in the final determination of the most 
recently completed segment of this proceeding in which NSC has 
participated (Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products, Certain 
Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products, and Certain Corrosion-Resistant 
Carbon Steel Flat Products From Japan: Final Determinations of Sales at 
Less than Fair Value, 58 FR 37154, July 9, 1993) that it would be 
inappropriate to resort directly to constructed value (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.'' Therefore, we will match a given U.S. sale to foreign market 
sales of the next most similar model when all sales of the most 
comparable model are below cost. 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 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 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 pursuant to the ruling 
of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in CEMEX v. United 
States, 133 F.3d 1098 (Fed Cir. 1998), and has been implemented to the 
extent that the data on the record permitted.
    For those models for which there was a sufficient quantity of sales 
at prices above COP, we based NV on home market prices to unaffiliated 
purchasers, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.403. Home market prices were 
based on the packed, ex-factory or delivered prices to unaffiliated 
purchasers in the home market.
    We calculated the starting price net of discounts, rebates, and 
post-sale adjustments, where applicable. We treated rebates that were 
granted after the date of sale as post-sale price adjustments. The 
Department allows post-sale price adjustments that reflect the 
respondent's normal business practice. See Antifriction Bearings (Other 
Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof from France, et al. 
(AFBs); Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
Partial Termination of Administrative Review, and Revocation in Part of 
Antidumping Duty Orders, 60 FR 10900, 10930 (Feb. 28, 1995); Certain 
Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products and Certain Cut-to-
Length Carbon Steel Plate from Canada: Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 13815, 13823 (March 28, 1996). At 
verification, we examined documentation which adequately demonstrated 
that the adjustments to rebates reflect respondent's normal course of 
trade of conducting ongoing price negotiations with its HM customers. 
In addition, we preliminarily determine that respondent has reported 
rebates on a transaction-specific basis.
    Although it is our general policy to allow rebates only when the 
terms of sale are predetermined, the purpose of requiring respondent to 
prove that the buyer was aware of the conditions to be fulfilled and 
the approximate amount of the rebates at the time of the sale is to 
protect against manipulation of the dumping margins by a respondent 
once it learns that certain sales will be subject to review. See AFB's 
at 10930; Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products and 
Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Canada at 13823. In the 
instant case, because we found that adjustments to rebates are part of 
respondent's normal business practice, we are satisfied that respondent 
is not engaged in the manipulation of dumping margins through the use 
of rebates. For a further description of the Department's treatment of 
these expenses, see the Analysis Memo, dated August 31 at p. 3.
    We made adjustments, where applicable, for packing and movement 
expenses in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act. 
We also made adjustments for differences in cost attributable to 
differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise pursuant to 
section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and for differences in 
circumstances of sale (``COS'') in accordance with 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of 
the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. For comparison to EP, we made COS 
adjustments by deducting home market direct selling expenses (credit, 
royalties and warranty expenses) and adding U.S. direct selling 
expenses (credit and warranty expenses). When comparisons were made to 
EP sales on which commissions were paid, but no commissions were paid 
on the foreign market sales, we made adjustments for home market 
indirect selling expenses and inventory carrying costs to offset these 
U.S. commissions pursuant to 19 CFR section 351.410(b) or 351.410(e).

Level of Trade (``LOT'')

    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 constructed value (``CV''), that of the sales from 
which we derive selling, general and administrative (``SG&A'') 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.
    To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP, 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. 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).

[[Page 47469]]

    In the present review, respondent claimed that only one LOT existed 
and did not request a LOT adjustment. To evaluate LOTs, we examined 
information regarding the distribution systems in both the U.S. and 
home market, including the selling functions, classes of customer, and 
selling expenses.
    Respondent reported one LOT in the home market based on two classes 
of customers: trading companies and end users. We examined the reported 
selling functions and found that NSC provides the same selling 
functions to its home market customers regardless of channel of 
distribution. We preliminarily determine that the selling functions 
between the reported channels are sufficiently similar to consider them 
as one LOT in the comparison market.
    NSC stated that it sells to one LOT in the United States: trading 
companies. We compared the selling functions performed at the home 
market LOT and the LOT in the United States and found them 
substantially similar. Of the thirteen selling functions reported for 
home market sales, twelve of the selling functions were identical to 
U.S. sales. For a further discussion of the Department's LOT analysis, 
see Memorandum to the File: Analysis Memorandum for the Preliminary 
Results of Review, August, 31 1998.

Preliminary Results of Reviews

    As a result of our reviews, we preliminarily determine the 
weighted-average dumping margins for NSC for the period August 1, 1996 
through July 31, 1997 is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
          Manufacturer/exporter              Time period      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NSC.....................................     8/1/96-7/31/97         1.93
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 37 days after the date of publication or the 
first business day thereafter. Case briefs from interested parties may 
be submitted not later than 30 days after the date of publication of 
this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in those briefs, 
may be filed not later than 35 days after the date of publication of 
this notice. The Department will publish the final results of this 
administrative review, including its analysis of issues raised in the 
case and rebuttal briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of 
publication of this notice.
    Upon issuance of the final results of review, 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 calculated an importer-specific ad valorem duty 
assessment rate based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping 
duties calculated for the examined sales 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 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, as 
provided by section 751(a) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for 
NSC will be that established in the final results of review (except 
that no deposit will be required for a firm with a zero or de minimis 
margin, i.e., a margin less than 0.5 percent); (2) for merchandise 
exported by manufacturers or 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 segment; (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'' rates established in the LTFV 
investigations, which was 40.19 percent for corrosion-resistant steel 
products (see Final Determination, 58 FR 37154 (July 9, 1993)). 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 results of the administrative review are issued and published 
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. 98-24069 Filed 9-4-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P