[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 216 (Monday, November 9, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60295-60299]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-29850]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
A-557-805


Extruded Rubber Thread From Malaysia; Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

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

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

SUMMARY: In response to a request by the petitioner and three 
producers/exporters of the subject merchandise, the Department of 
Commerce is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty 
order on extruded rubber thread from Malaysia. This review covers four 
manufacturers/exporters of the subject merchandise to the United States 
(Filati Lastex Sdn. Bhd., Heveafil Sdn. Bhd./Filmax Sdn. Bhd., 
Rubberflex Sdn. Bhd., and Rubfil Sdn. Bhd.). The period of review is 
October 1, 1996, through September 30, 1997.
    We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below 
the normal value by each of the companies subject to this review. If 
these preliminary results are adopted in the final results of this 
administrative review, we will instruct the Customs Service to assess 
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries.
    We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary 
results. Parties who wish to submit comments in this proceeding are 
requested to submit with each argument (1) a statement of the issue and 
(2) a brief summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 9, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shawn Thompson or Irina Itkin, Office 
of AD/CVD Enforcement, Office 5, Import Administration, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-1776 
or (202) 482-0656, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On October 2, 1997, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published in the Federal Register a notice of ``Opportunity to Request 
an Administrative Review'' of the antidumping duty order on extruded 
rubber thread from Malaysia (62 FR 51628).
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), on October 20, 1997, the 
petitioner, North American Rubber Thread, requested an administrative 
review of the antidumping order covering the period October 1, 1996, 
through September 30, 1997, for the following producers and exporters 
of extruded rubber thread: Filati Lastex Sdn. Bhd. (Filati), Heveafil 
Sdn. Bhd./Filmax Sdn. Bhd. (Heveafil), Rubberflex Sdn. Bhd. 
(Rubberflex), and Rubfil Sdn. Bhd. (Rubfil). On October 31, 1997, 
Filati, Heveafil, and Rubberflex also requested an administrative 
review.
    In November 1997, the Department initiated an administrative review 
for Filati, Heveafil, Rubberflex, and Rubfil (62 FR 63069 (Nov. 26, 
1997)) and issued questionnaires to each of these companies.
    In February 1998, we received responses from Filati, Heveafil, and 
Rubberflex. We received no response from Rubfil. Because Rubfil did not 
respond to the questionnaire, we have assigned a margin to Rubfil based 
on facts available. For further discussion, see the ``Facts Available'' 
section, below.
    In June and July 1998, we issued supplemental questionnaires to 
Filati, Heveafil, and Rubberflex. We received responses to these 
questionnaires in July, August, and September 1998.
    From September through November 1998, the Department conducted 
verifications of the data submitted by Filati, Heveafil, and 
Rubberflex, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.307(b)(iv).

Scope of the Review

    The product covered by this review is extruded rubber thread. 
Extruded rubber thread is defined as vulcanized rubber thread obtained 
by extrusion of stable or concentrated natural rubber latex of any 
cross sectional shape, measuring from 0.18 mm, which is 0.007 inch or 
140 gauge, to 1.42 mm, which is 0.056 inch or 18 gauge, in diameter. 
Extruded rubber thread is currently classifiable under subheading 
4007.00.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(HTSUS). The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs 
purposes. The written description of the scope of this review is 
dispositive.

Applicable Statute and Regulations

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended (the Act), are references to the provisions effective 
January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act 
by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless 
otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are 
to the regulations at 19 CFR part 351, 62 FR 27296 (May 19, 1997).

Facts Available

A. Use of Facts Available for Rubfil

    In accordance with section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, we 
preliminarily determine that the use of facts available is appropriate 
as the basis for Rubfil's dumping margin. Section 776(a)(2) of the Act 
provides that if an interested party: (1) Withholds information that 
has been requested by the Department; (2) fails to provide such 
information in a timely manner or in the form or manner requested, 
subject to subsections 782(c)(1) and (e); (3) significantly impedes a 
determination under the antidumping statute; or (4) provides such 
information but the information cannot be verified, the Department 
shall, subject to subsection 782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise 
available in reaching the applicable determination. Specifically, 
Rubfil failed to respond to the Department's questionnaire, issued in 
November 1997. Because Rubfil did not respond to the Department's 
questionnaire, we must use facts otherwise available to determine 
Rubfil's dumping margin.

[[Page 60296]]

    Section 776(b) of the Act provides that adverse inferences may be 
used with respect to a party that has failed to cooperate by not acting 
to the best of its ability to comply with requests for information. See 
Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the URAA, H.R. Rep. No. 
316, 103rd Cong., 2d Sess. 870 (SAA). The failure of Rubfil to reply to 
the Department's questionnaire demonstrates that it has failed to act 
to the best of its ability in this review and, therefore, an adverse 
inference is warranted.
    As adverse facts available for Rubfil, we have used the highest 
rate calculated for any respondent in any segment of this proceeding. 
This rate is 54.31 percent. We find that the rate of 54.31 percent, 
which was assigned in the prior administrative review, is sufficiently 
high as to effectuate the purpose of the facts available rule.

B. Corroboration of Secondary Information

    As facts available in this case, the Department has used 
information derived from a prior administrative review, which 
constitutes secondary information within the meaning of the SAA. See 
SAA at 870. Section 776(c) of the Act provides that the Department 
shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate secondary information 
from independent sources reasonably at its disposal. The SAA provides 
that ``corroborate'' means that the Department will satisfy itself that 
the secondary information to be used has probative value. See SAA at 
870.
    To corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the 
extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the 
information to be used. However, unlike for other types of information, 
such as input costs or selling expenses, there are no independent 
sources for calculated dumping margins. Thus, in an administrative 
review, if the Department chooses as total adverse facts available a 
calculated dumping margin from the same or a prior segment of this 
proceeding, it is not necessary to question the reliability of the 
margin for that time period. With respect to the relevance aspect of 
corroboration, however, the Department will consider information 
reasonably at its disposal as to whether there are circumstances that 
would render a margin not relevant. Where circumstances indicate that 
the selected margin may not be appropriate, the Department will attempt 
to find a more appropriate basis for facts available. See, e.g., Fresh 
Cut Flowers from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812, 6814 (February 22, 1996) (Fresh Cut 
Flowers) (where the Department disregarded the highest margin as 
adverse best information available because the margin was based on 
another company's uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an 
unusually high margin).
    For Rubfil, we examined the rate applicable to extruded rubber 
thread from Malaysia throughout the course of the proceeding. With 
regard to its probative value, the rate specified above is reliable and 
relevant because it is a calculated rate from the 1994-1995 
administrative review. There is no information on the record that 
demonstrates that the rate selected is not an appropriate total adverse 
facts available rate for Rubfil. Thus, the Department considers this 
rate to be appropriate adverse facts available.

Normal Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of extruded rubber thread from Malaysia 
to the United States were made at less than normal value (NV), we 
compared the constructed export price (CEP) to the NV for Filati, 
Heveafil and Rubberflex, as specified in the ``Constructed Export 
Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice.
    When making comparisons in accordance with section 771(16) of the 
Act, we considered all products sold in the home market as described in 
the ``Scope of the Review'' section of this notice, above, that were in 
the ordinary course of trade for purposes of determining appropriate 
product comparisons to U.S. sales. Where there were no sales of 
identical merchandise in the home market made in the 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.

Level of Trade and CEP Offset

    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 as export price (EP) or CEP. The NV level of 
trade 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 (SG&A) and profit. For EP, the U.S. 
level of trade is also the level of the starting-price sale, which is 
usually from the exporter to importer. 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 level of trade 
than EP or CEP sales, 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 level of trade and the difference affects price 
comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price 
differences between the sales on which NV is based and comparison-
market sales at the level of trade of the export transaction, we make a 
level-of-trade adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. 
Finally, for CEP sales, if the NV level is more remote from the factory 
than the CEP level and there is no basis for determining whether the 
difference in the levels between NV and CEP affects price 
comparability, we adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the 
CEP offset provision). See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from 
South Africa, 62 FR 61731 (Nov. 19, 1997).
    Filati, Heveafil, and Rubberflex claimed that they made home market 
sales at only one level of trade (i.e., sales to original equipment 
manufacturers). Based on the information on the record, no level of 
trade adjustment was warranted for any respondent. Although Filati 
claimed that the home market level was different, and more remote, than 
the level of trade of the CEP, we have found the levels of trade to be 
the same.
    In order to determine whether NV was established at a level of 
trade which constituted a more advanced stage of distribution than the 
level of trade of the CEP, we compared the selling functions performed 
for home market sales with those performed with respect to the CEP 
transaction, which excludes economic activities occurring in the United 
States. We found that Filati, Heveafil, and Rubberflex performed 
essentially the same selling functions in its sales offices in Malaysia 
for both home market and U.S. sales. Therefore, the respondents' sales 
in Malaysia were not at a more advanced stage of marketing and 
distribution than the constructed U.S. level of trade, which represents 
an F.O.B. foreign port price after the deduction of expenses associated 
with U.S. selling activities. Because we find that no difference in 
level of trade exists between markets, we have not granted a CEP offset 
to any of the respondents. For a detailed explanation of this analysis, 
see the concurrence memorandum

[[Page 60297]]

issued for the preliminary results of this review, dated November 2, 
1998.

Constructed Export Price

    For all U.S. sales by Filati, Heveafil, and Rubberflex, we used 
CEP, in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act. For Filati, we have 
treated sales shipped directly to the U.S. customer as CEP sales 
because we find that the extent of the affiliate's activities performed 
in the United States in connection with these sales is significant. See 
the Filati USA verification report at 4.

A. Filati

    We calculated CEP based on the starting price to the first 
unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. In accordance with section 
772(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we added an amount for uncollected import 
duties in Malaysia. We made deductions from the starting price, where 
appropriate, for rebates. In addition, where appropriate, we made 
deductions for foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling 
expenses, ocean freight, marine insurance, U.S. customs duty, U.S. 
brokerage and handling expenses, and U.S. inland freight, and U.S. 
warehousing expenses, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the 
Act.
    We made additional deductions from CEP, where appropriate, for 
commissions, credit expenses, U.S. indirect selling expenses, and U.S. 
inventory carrying costs, in accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the 
Act. We disallowed an offset claimed by Filati relating to imputed 
costs associated with financing antidumping and countervailing duty 
deposits, in accordance with the Department's practice. See Extruded 
Rubber Thread from Malaysia; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 63 FR 12752,12758 (March 16, 1998) (Thread 
Fourth Review); and Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller 
Bearings) and Parts Thereof from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, 
Romania, Singapore, Sweden and the United Kingdom; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 62 FR 54043, 54079 (Oct. 17, 
1997) (AFBs).
    Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we further reduced the 
starting price by an amount for profit, to arrive at CEP. In accordance 
with section 772(f) of the Act, we calculated the CEP profit rate using 
the expenses incurred by Filati and its affiliate on their sales of the 
subject merchandise in the United States and the foreign like product 
in the home market and the profit associated with those sales.

B. Heveafil

    In cases where Heveafil shipped merchandise directly from Malaysia 
to U.S. customers, we used the bill of lading date as the date of sale 
for these shipments, rather than the date of the U.S. invoice as 
reported. For these shipments, we find that there is a long lag time 
between the date of shipment to the customer and the date of invoice.
    We calculated CEP based on the starting price to the first 
unaffiliated customer in the United States. In accordance with section 
772(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we added an amount for uncollected import 
duties in Malaysia. We made deductions from the starting price, where 
appropriate, for rebates. We also made deductions for foreign inland 
freight, foreign brokerage and handling expenses, ocean freight, marine 
insurance, U.S. customs duty, U.S. brokerage and handling expenses, 
U.S. inland freight, and U.S. warehousing expenses, in accordance with 
section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.
    We made additional deductions to CEP, where appropriate, for credit 
expenses, repacking expenses, U.S. indirect selling expenses, and U.S. 
inventory carrying costs, in accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the 
Act. Regarding indirect selling expenses, we disallowed an offset 
claimed by Heveafil relating to imputed costs associated with financing 
antidumping and countervailing duty deposits, in accordance the 
Department's practice. See Thread Fourth Review (63 FR 12758) and AFBs 
(62 FR 54079).
    Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we further reduced the 
starting price by an amount for profit, to arrive at CEP. In accordance 
with section 772(f) of the Act, we calculated the CEP profit rate using 
the expenses incurred by Heveafil and its affiliate on their sales of 
the subject merchandise in the United States and the foreign like 
product in the home market and the profit associated with those sales.

C. Rubberflex

    We calculated CEP based on the starting price to the first 
unaffiliated customer in the United States. We made deductions from the 
starting price, where appropriate, for rebates. We also made deductions 
for foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling expenses, 
ocean freight, marine insurance, U.S. customs duty, U.S. inland 
freight, and U.S. warehousing expenses, in accordance with section 
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.
    We made additional deductions to CEP, where appropriate, for credit 
expenses, U.S. indirect selling expenses, and U.S. inventory carrying 
costs, in accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act.
    Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we further reduced the 
starting price by an amount for profit, to arrive at CEP. In accordance 
with section 772(f) of the Act, we calculated the CEP profit rate using 
the expenses incurred by Rubberflex and its affiliate on their sales of 
the subject merchandise in the United States and the foreign like 
product in the home market and the profit associated with those sales.

Normal Value

    In order to determine whether there is a sufficient volume of sales 
in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV (i.e., 
the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product 
is greater than five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales), we 
compared the volume of each respondent's home market sales of the 
foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of subject 
merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. Based 
on this comparison, we determined that each respondent had a viable 
home market during the period of review (POR). Consequently, we based 
NV on home market sales.
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, there were 
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that Filati, Heveafil, and 
Rubberflex had made home market sales at prices below their costs of 
production (COP)s in this review because the Department had disregarded 
sales below the COP for these companies in a previous administrative 
review. See Thread Fourth Review. As a result, the Department initiated 
an investigation to determine whether the respondents made home market 
sales during the POR at prices below their respective COPs.
    We calculated the COP based on the sum of each respondent's cost of 
materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts 
for SG&A and packing costs, in accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the 
Act.
    Except as follows, we used the respondents' reported COP amounts to 
compute weighted-average COPs during the POR. Regarding the COP data 
reported by Filati, we found that, in certain instances, Filati 
reported multiple costs for a single control number. In those cases, we 
used the higher of the costs for purposes of the preliminary results.
    We compared the COP figures to home market prices of the foreign 
like product, as required under section 773(b) of the Act, in order to 
determine whether these sales had been made at

[[Page 60298]]

prices below the COP. On a product-specific basis, we compared the COP 
to home market prices, less any applicable movement charges and 
discounts.
    In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at 
prices below the COP, we examined whether such sales were made: (1) In 
substantial quantities within an extended period of time; and (2) at 
prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable 
period of time in the normal course of trade. See Sec. 773(b)(1) of the 
Act.
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(c)(i) of the Act, where less than 20 
percent of a respondent's sales of a given product were at prices less 
than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product 
because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made in 
``substantial quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's 
sales of a given product were at prices below the COP, we found that 
sales of that model were made in ``substantial quantities'' within an 
extended period of time (as defined in section 773(b)(2)(B) of the 
Act), in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act. In such 
cases, we also determined that such sales were not made at prices which 
would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, 
in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Therefore, we 
disregarded the below-cost sales. Where all sales of a specific product 
were at prices below the COP, we disregarded all sales of that product.
    We found that, for certain models of extruded rubber thread, more 
than 20 percent of each respondent's home market sales within an 
extended period of time were at prices less than COP. Further, the 
prices did not provide for the recovery of costs within a reasonable 
period of time. We therefore disregarded the below-cost sales and used 
the remaining above-cost sales as the basis for determining NV, in 
accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act. For those U.S. sales of 
extruded rubber thread for which there were no comparable home market 
sales in the ordinary course of trade, we compared CEP to CV, in 
accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act.
    In accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, we calculated CV 
based on the sum of each respondent's cost of materials, fabrication, 
SG&A, profit, and U.S. packing costs. In accordance with section 
773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based SG&A and profit on the amounts 
incurred and realized by each 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.
    Company-specific calculations are discussed below.

A. Filati

    In all instances, NV for Filati was based on home market sales. 
Accordingly, we based NV on the starting price to unaffiliated 
customers. For all price-to-price comparisons, we made deductions from 
the starting price for rebates, where appropriate. We also made 
deductions, where appropriate, for foreign inland freight, pursuant to 
section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) 
of the Act, we also made deductions for home market credit expenses and 
bank charges. Where applicable, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e), 
we offset any commission paid on a U.S. sale by reducing the NV by the 
amount of home market indirect selling expenses and inventory carrying 
costs, up to the amount of the U.S. commission.
    In addition, we deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. 
packing costs, in accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the Act. Where 
appropriate, we made adjustments to NV to account for differences in 
physical characteristics of the merchandise, in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411.

B. Heveafil

    Where NV was based on home market sales, we based NV on the 
starting price to unaffiliated customers. We made deductions from the 
starting price for discounts. We also made deductions for foreign 
inland freight and foreign inland insurance, pursuant to section 
773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the 
Act, we also made deductions for home market credit expenses and bank 
charges.
    In addition, we deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. 
packing costs, in accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the Act. Where 
appropriate, we made adjustments to NV to account for differences in 
physical characteristics of the merchandise, in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(c)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411.
    For CV-to-CEP comparisons, we made circumstance-of-sale 
adjustments, where appropriate, for differences in credit expenses and 
bank charges, in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) and 
773(a)(8) of the Act.

C. Rubberflex

    In all instances, NV for Rubberflex was based on home market sales. 
Accordingly, we based NV on the starting price to unaffiliated 
customers. We made deductions from the starting price for foreign 
inland freight and foreign inland insurance, pursuant to section 
773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the 
Act, we also made deductions for home market credit expenses.
    In addition, we deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. 
packing costs, in accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the Act. Where 
appropriate, we made adjustments to NV to account for differences in 
physical characteristics of the merchandise, in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(c)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411.

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars based on the 
exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by 
the Federal Reserve Bank.
    Section 773A of the Act directs the Department to use a daily 
exchange rate in order to convert foreign currencies into U.S. dollars 
unless the daily rate involves a fluctuation. It is the Department's 
practice to find that a fluctuation exists when the daily exchange rate 
differs from the benchmark rate by 2.25 percent. The benchmark is 
defined as the moving average of rates for the past 40 business days. 
When we determine a fluctuation to have existed, we substitute the 
benchmark for the daily rate, in accordance with established practice.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the 
following margins exist for the period October 1, 1996, through 
September 30, 1997:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Percent
                    Manufacturer/exporter                        margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Filati Lastex Sdn. Bhd.......................................       8.31
Heveafil Sdn. Bhd............................................  .........
Filmax Sdn. Bhd..............................................       3.91
Rubberflex Sdn. Bhd..........................................       1.15
Rubfil Sdn. Bhd..............................................      54.31
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interested parties may request a hearing within 30 days of the 
publication of this notice. Any hearing, if requested, will be held 37 
days after the date of publication, or the first workday thereafter. 
Interested parties may submit case briefs within 30 days of 
publication. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case 
briefs, may be filed not later than 35 days after the date of 
publication. The Department will publish a notice of the final results 
of this administrative review, which

[[Page 60299]]

will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such 
case briefs.
    The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. We have 
calculated an importer-specific assessment rate based on the ratio of 
the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined 
sales made during the POR to the total entered value of the examined 
sales. This rate will be assessed uniformly on all entries of that 
particular importer made during the POR. The Department will issue 
appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service.
    Further, the following deposit requirements will be effective for 
all shipments of extruded rubber thread from Malaysia entered, or 
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication 
date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided 
for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for 
Filati, Heveafil, Rubberflex, and Rubfil will be the rates established 
in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 
0.50 percent and, therefore, de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 
351.106, the cash deposit will be zero; (2) for previously reviewed or 
investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will 
continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent 
period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a 
prior review, or the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the 
manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for 
the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) 
the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will 
continue to be 15.16 percent, the all others rate established in the 
LTFV investigation.
    These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect 
until publication of the final results of the next administrative 
review.
    This notice 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.
    This administrative review and notice are in accordance with 
section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 351.213.

    Dated: November 2, 1998.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-29850 Filed 11-6-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P