[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 235 (Tuesday, December 8, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67650-67654]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-32542]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-351-820]


Ferrosilicon From Brazil: Notice of Partial Rescission and 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

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

ACTION: Notice of partial rescission and preliminary results of 
antidumping duty administrative review.

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

SUMMARY: In response to timely requests for administrative review for 
the period March 1, 1997 through February 28, 1998, the Department of 
Commerce is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty 
order on ferrosilicon from Brazil. We preliminarily determined that 
during the period of review, one of the two manufacturers/exporters 
that are under review sold ferrosilicon to customers in the United 
States at less than normal value. If the preliminary results are 
adopted in our final results of this administrative review, we will 
instruct the U.S. Customs Service to assess antidumping duties on all 
appropriate entries.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary 
results of this review. Parties who submit comments on issues in this 
proceeding should submit with each comment (1) a statement of the 
issue; and (2) a brief summary of their comment.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 8, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alexander Amdur, Howard Smith, or 
Wendy Frankel, AD/CVD Enforcement Group II, Office IV, Import 
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 
20230; telephone: (202) 482-5346, (202) 482-5193, or (202) 482-5849, 
respectively.

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are 
references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective 
date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act) by the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise 
indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations refer to the 
regulations codified at 19 CFR Part 351 (April 1998).

[[Page 67651]]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On March 11, 1998, 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 ferrosilicon 
from Brazil covering the period March 1, 1997, through February 28, 
1998. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 
63 FR 1868 (March 11, 1998); see also Antidumping Duty Order: 
Ferrosilicon From Brazil, 59 FR 11769 (March 14, 1994). Pursuant to the 
notice of opportunity to request an administrative review and 19 CFR 
351.213(b) of the Department's regulations, in March 1998, Companhia de 
Ferro Ligas da Bahia (Ferbasa) and Companhia Brasileira Carbureto de 
Calcio (CBCC) requested that the Department conduct an administrative 
review of their respective shipments of ferrosilicon to the United 
States. Additionally, in March 1998, AIMCOR and SKW Metals & Alloys, 
Inc., (collectively petitioners), domestic interested parties under 19 
CFR 351.102(b) of the Department's regulations, requested that the 
Department conduct an administrative review of Companhia Ferroligas 
Minas Gerais-Minasligas (Minasligas) as well as the aforementioned 
companies. In response to these requests, the Department initiated an 
antidumping duty administrative review of Ferbasa, CBCC, and Minasligas 
(collectively respondents). See Initiation of Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation 
in Part, 63 FR 20378 (April 24, 1998).
    The Department issued an antidumping duty questionnaire to the 
respondents in May 1998 and received responses thereto in June and July 
1998. In June 1998, the Department granted Ferbasa's request that it be 
allowed to limit its reporting period for sales in the comparison 
market to the period that is contemporaneous with its U.S. sale, 
namely, May 1, 1997 through October 31, 1997. In a letter granting this 
request, the Department also instructed Ferbasa to report its cost 
figures for ferrosilicon for this limited period. Additionally, based 
on U.S. Custom's documents obtained by the Department, we determined, 
and CBCC confirmed, that CBCC did not have any entries of ferrosilicon 
for consumption in the U.S. customs territory during the period of 
review (POR). Therefore, we are rescinding this review with respect to 
CBCC. The Department issued supplemental questionnaires to the 
remaining respondents in September, October, and November 1998 and 
received responses thereto in these same three months.
    The Department is conducting this antidumping duty administrative 
review in accordance with section 751 of the Act.

Duty Absorption

    On May 20, 1998, petitioners requested that the Department 
determine, with respect to Minasligas, whether antidumping duties had 
been absorbed during the POR. On May 28, 1998, Minasligas requested 
that the Department reject petitioners' request for a determination 
regarding duty absorption because Minasligas did not sell the subject 
merchandise to the United States through an affiliated importer during 
the POR.
    Section 751(a)(4) of the Act provides that the Department, if 
requested, shall determine during an administrative review initiated 
two or four years after the publication of the order, whether 
antidumping duties have been absorbed by a foreign producer or exporter 
subject to the order, if the subject merchandise is sold in the United 
States through an importer who is affiliated with such foreign producer 
or exporter. For transition orders as defined in section 751(c)(6)(C) 
of the Act, i.e., orders in effect as of January 1, 1995, section 
351.213(j)(2) of the Department's regulations provides that the 
Department will make a duty-absorption determination, if requested, in 
any administrative review initiated in 1996 or 1998. Because the order 
on ferrosilicon from Brazil has been in effect since 1994, it is a 
transition order in accordance with section 751(c)(6)(C) of the Act. 
The instant review of Minasligas was initiated in 1998. However, during 
the POR, Minasligas did not sell the subject merchandise to the United 
States through importers that are affiliated within the meaning of 
section 751(a)(4) of the Act and, therefore, we did not make a duty 
absorption determination in this segment of the proceeding.

Scope of the Review

    The merchandise subject to this review is ferrosilicon, a ferro 
alloy generally containing, by weight, not less than four percent iron, 
more than eight percent but not more than 96 percent silicon, not more 
than 10 percent chromium, not more than 30 percent manganese, not more 
than three percent phosphorous, less than 2.75 percent magnesium, and 
not more than 10 percent calcium or any other element. Ferrosilicon is 
a ferro alloy produced by combining silicon and iron through smelting 
in a submerged-arc furnace. Ferrosilicon is used primarily as an 
alloying agent in the production of steel and cast iron. It is also 
used in the steel industry as a deoxidizer and a reducing agent, and by 
cast iron producers as an inoculant.
    Ferrosilicon is differentiated by size and by grade. The sizes 
express the maximum and minimum dimensions of the lumps of ferrosilicon 
found in a given shipment. Ferrosilicon grades are defined by the 
percentages by weight of contained silicon and other minor elements. 
Ferrosilicon is most commonly sold to the iron and steel industries in 
standard grades of 75 percent and 50 percent ferrosilicon. Calcium 
silicon, ferrocalcium silicon, and magnesium ferrosilicon are 
specifically excluded from the scope of this review. Calcium silicon is 
an alloy containing, by weight, not more than five percent iron, 60 to 
65 percent silicon, and 28 to 32 percent calcium. Ferrocalcium silicon 
is a ferro alloy containing, by weight, not less than four percent 
iron, 60 to 65 percent silicon, and more than 10 percent calcium. 
Magnesium ferrosilicon is a ferro alloy containing, by weight, not less 
than four percent iron, not more than 55 percent silicon, and not less 
than 2.75 percent magnesium. Ferrosilicon is currently classifiable 
under the following subheadings of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 
the United States (HTSUS): 7202.21.1000, 7202.21.5000, 7202.21.7500, 
7202.21.9000, 7202.29.0010, and 7202.29.0050. The HTSUS subheadings are 
provided for convenience and customs purposes. Our written description 
of the scope of this review is dispositive.
    Ferrosilicon in the form of slag is included within the scope of 
this order if it meets, in general, the chemical content definition 
stated above and is capable of being used as ferrosilicon. Parties that 
believe their importations of ferrosilicon slag do not meet these 
definitions should contact the Department and request a scope 
determination.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all 
products within the scope of this review that were produced by the 
respondents, and sold in the ordinary course of trade in the comparison 
market during the POR, to be foreign like products for purposes of 
determining the appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales.

[[Page 67652]]

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether the respondents' sales of ferrosilicon to 
customers in the United States were made at less than fair value, we 
compared export price (EP) to normal value (NV), as described in the 
``Export 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 the prices of 
individual U.S. transactions.

Level of Trade

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent 
practicable, we determined NV based on sales in the comparison market 
at the same level of trade (LOT) as the EP 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 in this review, is from the exporter to the U.S. importer.
    Neither respondent claimed a LOT adjustment. Nevertheless, in order 
to determine whether the respondents' NV sales are at a different LOT 
than their EP sales, we examined stages in the marketing process and 
selling functions along the chain of distribution between the 
respondent producers and the unaffiliated customers. 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. 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).
    During the POR, Ferbasa sold ferrosilicon to an unaffiliated 
trading company in the U.S. market and to unaffiliated resellers and 
end users in the comparison market, while Minasligas sold ferrosilicon 
to unaffiliated trading companies and end users in the U.S. market and 
unaffiliated end users in the comparison market. We found that the 
selling functions associated with each respondent's U.S. and comparison 
markets sales of ferrosilicon are generally the same. For example, 
Ferbasa negotiated the sales terms, prepared ferrosilicon for shipment, 
and maintained sales records in both the U.S. and comparison market. 
Minasligas negotiated the sales terms and arranged for delivery, either 
to the customer's location, in the case of certain sales in the 
comparison market, or to the Brazilian port, in the case of sales to 
U.S. customers. We noted, however, that Ferbasa sold ferrosilicon from 
inventory in the comparison market, while it manufactured ferrosilicon 
to order for the U.S. market. In addition, Ferbasa incurred commission, 
freight, and brokerage and handling expenses in connection with sales 
of ferrosilicon to the U.S. market, while it did not incur these 
expenses on sales of ferrosilicon in the comparison market. With regard 
to Minasligas, the company incurred expenses at the port in connection 
with sales of ferrosilicon to the U.S. market, but it did not incur 
such expenses on sales of ferrosilicon in the comparison market. These 
differences primarily involve differences in handling and transporting 
ferrosilicon to customers, not differences in selling functions. 
Although Ferbasa maintained inventory only for its comparison market 
customers, this simply involved storing piles of ferrosilicon in open 
stalls at the factory. We concluded that this is not a significant 
selling function given the low level of service that is required to 
maintain inventory in such a fashion and, thus, we did not consider 
Ferbasa's maintenance of inventory to be a significant difference in 
selling activities. In the absence of differences in other selling 
activities such as the sales order process, advertising, warranty 
service, technical support, or the maintenance of distribution 
warehouses, we found that the differences noted above do not constitute 
substantial differences indicating that either respondent's sales in 
the U.S. and comparison markets occurred at different marketing stages. 
Therefore, we determined that a single level of trade exists in each 
market for both respondents and, moreover, all U.S. and comparison 
market sales were made at the same level of trade for each respondent. 
Consequently, we did not make a level of trade adjustment in 
calculating NV for either respondent.

Export Price

    We calculated EP in accordance with sections 772(a) and (c) of the 
Act because the respondents sold the subject merchandise directly to 
the first unaffiliated purchasers in the United States prior to 
importation and constructed export price was not otherwise warranted 
based on the facts on the record. Specifically, we calculated EP based 
on the packed prices to unaffiliated customers in the United States 
from which we made deductions, where appropriate, for foreign inland 
freight and insurance, brokerage and handling, port warehousing, 
weighing and clerical expenses.
    For Minasligas, we based EP on the U.S. dollar-denominated prices 
that Minasligas negotiated with its U.S. customers and listed on 
commercial invoices for its U.S. sales, rather than the Reais-
denominated prices that Minasligas reported on the sales tape. For 
further information, see the Memorandum from Alexander Amdur to the 
File on Minasligas: Calculations for the Preliminary Results of the 
1997-1998 Administrative Review of Ferrosilicon from Brazil (Minasligas 
Calculation Memorandum) dated December 1, 1998 on file in the Central 
Records Unit (CRU) located in room B-099 of the main Department of 
Commerce Building.
    For Ferbasa, we based EP on the U.S. dollar-denominated price that 
Ferbasa reported for its U.S. transaction on the sales tape. We 
accepted the reported price notwithstanding the petitioners' allegation 
of November 5, 1998, that the price may not have been the result of a 
bona fide arm's-length transaction. We have reviewed the information 
contained in the administrative record and concluded that the evidence 
does not demonstrate that the transaction in question was not bona 
fide. Therefore, for the preliminary results, we have based Ferbasa's 
EP on the price reported in the sales tape. For further information, 
see the Concurrence Memorandum From Howard Smith to Holly Kuga 
regarding this issue, dated December 1, 1998, on file in the CRU 
located in room B-099 of the main Department of Commerce Building.

Normal Value

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C)(ii) of the Act, we 
determined that the home market for each respondent serves as a viable 
basis for calculating NV because the aggregate volume of each 
respondent's home market sales of the foreign like product was greater 
than five percent of the aggregate volume of its U.S. sales of the 
subject merchandise. Therefore, 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 exporting 
country in the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary course 
of trade and, to the extent practicable, at the same level of trade as 
the EP. In accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the Act, we adjusted 
NV, where applicable,

[[Page 67653]]

by adding U.S. packing costs and subtracting home market packing costs, 
ICMS and IPI tax expenses, and freight expenses. Moreover, in 
accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the Act, we adjusted NV for 
differences in the circumstances of sale by adding late payment 
charges, where applicable, and U.S. credit expenses, and by subtracting 
home market credit expenses.
    For Minasligas, we recalculated the amount of the U.S. credit 
expense that was used as an adjustment to NV by making the following 
changes. First, we used, as the date of payment, the date Minasligas' 
bank received payment from Minasligas' U.S. customers for each U.S. 
sale, rather than the date the bank advanced Minasligas money on the 
sale through Advance Exchange Contracts (ACCs). Second, we used the 
actual average interest rate of the ACCs that Minasligas used to 
finance its U.S. sales during the POR, rather than the average monthly 
Brazilian Taxa referencial de juros (TR) rate for the POR reported by 
Minasligas in its response. The Department's questionnaire instructs 
respondents to calculate U.S. credit expense using the interest rate 
paid on short-term U.S. dollar borrowings. Although Minasligas claimed 
that it had no short-term U.S. dollar borrowings during the POR, we 
determined that the advances obtained from the ACCs were short-term 
U.S. dollar borrowings.
    In its response, Minasligas calculated home market credit expense 
using a gross unit price net of one month's credit expense, regardless 
of the credit period applicable to the sale. Because the Department's 
practice is to calculate credit expense based on gross unit price 
without any adjustments, we recalculated Minasligas's home market 
credit expense using the unadjusted gross unit price. Furthermore, we 
recalculated the home market credit expense using the average monthly 
TR rate for the POR reported by Minasligas in the narrative portion of 
its response, rather than the interest rate that Minasligas 
inadvertently used to calculate credit expense on its sales tape. For 
further information, See Minasligas Calculation Memorandum.
    For Ferbasa, we adjusted NV by adding U.S. commissions and 
subtracting home market indirect selling expenses up to the amount of 
the U.S. commission, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e). We did not 
reduce NV by the reported home market packing expense because we 
determined that Ferbasa reported packing revenue, rather than packing 
expense, in its home market sales tape. In addition, although Ferbasa 
revised its reported cost of manufacturing, it failed to revise its 
home market inventory carrying cost which was based on manufacturing 
costs. Therefore, we recalculated home market inventory carrying cost 
using the revised cost of manufacturing figure reported by Ferbasa in 
its November 10, 1998, supplemental response.
I. Cost of Production (COP) Analysis
    Because we disregarded sales below the COP for Ferbasa and 
Minasligas in the last completed segments of the proceeding (See 
Ferrosilicon from Brazil; Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 63 FR 28355 (May 22, 1998) with respect to 
Ferbasa, and 62 FR 43504 (August 14, 1997) with respect to Minasligas), 
we had reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of the 
foreign product under consideration for the determination of NV in this 
review may have been made at prices below the COP, as provided by 
section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, pursuant to section 
773(b)(1) of the Act, we initiated investigations to determine whether 
the respondents sold ferrosilicon in the home market during the POR at 
prices that were less than their COP.
    a. Calculation of COP. In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the 
Act, we calculated each respondent's COP based on the sum of the cost 
of materials and fabrication employed in producing the foreign like 
product, plus amounts for SG&A, financing expenses and, for Minasligas, 
packing costs. We did not include packing costs in COP for Ferbasa 
because the company failed to report this cost separately. We adjusted 
Ferbasa's reported costs by (1) adjusting general and administrative 
expenses by other operating income and non-operating expenses related 
to the general operations of the company, and (2) increasing financing 
expense by monetary correction losses. For further information, see the 
Ferbasa Preliminary Results Calculation Memorandum dated December 1, 
1998, on file in the CRU located in room B-099 of the main Department 
of Commerce Building. We adjusted Minasligas' reported costs by using, 
as the fixed overhead cost for all grades of ferrosilicon, the one cost 
that Minasligas originally reported for all grades of ferrosilicon, 
rather than the separate fixed overhead costs that Minasligas 
subsequently allocated to the standard and refined grades of 
ferrosilicon. We recalculated the indirect selling expenses using a 
value-based, rather than quantity-based, allocation methodology. For 
further information, see Minasligas Calculation Memorandum.
    b. Test of Home Market Prices. In order to determine whether the 
respondents made home market sales during the POR at prices below the 
COP on a product-specific basis, we compared the weighted-average COP 
(net of selling and, where applicable, packing expenses and adjusted as 
noted above) to home market prices less ICMS and IPI tax expenses, 
direct and indirect selling expenses and, where applicable, home market 
packing expenses. In addition, where applicable, we added interest 
revenue to home market prices before comparing them to the COP. We 
excluded ICMS and IPI tax expenses from the home market prices used in 
our sales-below-cost analysis because the COP did not contain these 
expenses.
    In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at 
prices below the COP, we examined whether such sales were made (1) 
within an extended period of time in substantial quantities, and (2) at 
prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable 
period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act.
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 
percent of a respondent's sales of a given product during the POR were 
at prices below 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 during the POR were at prices 
less than the COP, we determined that such sales were made in 
``substantial quantities'' within an extended period of time and not at 
prices which would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable 
period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(C) & (D) of the 
Act. Therefore, we disregarded the below-cost sales.
    In the instant review, we found that for certain ferrosilicon 
products, more than 20 percent of Ferbasa's and Minasligas' home market 
sales were sold at prices less than the COP within an extended period 
of time, and that the prices did not provide for the recovery of costs 
within a reasonable period of time. Therefore, in accordance with 
section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we disregarded the below-cost sales and 
used the remaining above-cost sales as the basis for determining NV.

Currency Conversion

    Pursuant to section 773(A)(a) of the Act, for purposes of the 
preliminary results, we converted foreign currencies into U.S. dollars 
using the official exchange rates in effect on the date of the U.S. 
sales. These official exchange

[[Page 67654]]

rates are based on the daily rates identified by the Dow Jones Business 
Information Services. Section 773(A)(a) of the Act directs the 
Department to use a daily exchange rate to convert foreign currencies 
into U.S. dollars unless the daily rate involves a ``fluctuation.'' It 
is our practice to find that a fluctuation exists when the daily 
exchange rate differs from a benchmark rate by 2.25 percent. See 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain 
Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube from Turkey (61 FR 35188, 35192) 
(July 5, 1996). The benchmark rate is defined as the moving average of 
the rates for the past 40 business days. Where we determined that the 
daily rates applicable to this review fluctuated, as defined above, we 
converted foreign currencies into U.S. dollars using the benchmark 
exchange rate.

Preliminary Results of The Review

    As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the 
following weighted-average dumping margins exist:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Weighted-
                                                               average
                   Manufacturer/exporter                        margin
                                                              (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Companhia Ferroligas Minas Gerais-Minasligas (Minasligas)..        10.16
Companhia de Ferro Ligas da Bahia (Ferbasa)................         0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 5 days of the date of publication of 
this notice. Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days 
of the date of publication of this notice. Parties who submit arguments 
in this proceeding are requested to submit with each argument: (1) a 
statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary of the argument. All 
case briefs must be submitted within 30 days of the date of publication 
of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, which are limited to issues raised in 
the case briefs, may be filed not later than 37 days after the date of 
publication of this notice. A hearing, if requested, will be held 44 
days after the publication of this notice or the first business day 
thereafter. The Department will publish a notice of the final results 
of this administrative review, which will include the results of its 
analysis of issues raised in any written comments or at the hearing, 
within 120 days from the publication of these preliminary results.
    The Department shall determine, and the U.S. Customs Service 
(Customs) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. 
Upon completion of this review, the Department will issue appraisement 
instructions directly to Customs. The final results of this review 
shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries 
of merchandise covered by the determination and for future deposits of 
estimated duties. For duty assessment purposes, for each importer we 
will divide the total applicable dumping margin (calculated as the 
difference between NV and EP) by the total number of metric tons sold. 
We will direct Customs to assess the resulting per-metric ton dollar 
amount against each metric ton of subject merchandise entered by the 
importer during the POR. Furthermore, the following deposit 
requirements will be effective upon completion of the final results of 
this administrative review for all shipments of ferrosilicon from 
Brazil entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or 
after the publication date of the final results of this administrative 
review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash 
deposit rate for the reviewed companies (Ferbasa and Minasligas) will 
be the rate established in the final results of this administrative 
review, except if the rate is less than 0.5 percent, ad valorem and, 
therefore, de minimis, the cash deposit rate will be zero; (2) for 
merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this 
review but covered in the original less than fair value (LTFV) 
investigation or a previous review, the cash deposit rate will continue 
to be the company-specific rate published in 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 and; (4) if neither the 
exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous 
reviews or the original LTFV investigation, the cash deposit rate will 
be 35.95 percent, the ``All Others'' rate established in the original 
LTFV investigation (59 FR 11769, March 14, 1994). 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) of the Department's regulations 
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) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: December 1, 1998.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-32542 Filed 12-7-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P