[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 21 (Tuesday, February 2, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5025-5030]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-2455]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-533-815]


Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 
Preliminary Negative Critical Circumstances Determination: Elastic 
Rubber Tape from India

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 2, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cynthia Thirumalai, Craig W. Matney, 
or Alysia Wilson, Office 1, Group I, AD/CVD Enforcement, Import 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 3099, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone (202) 482-
4087, (202) 482-1778, or (202) 482-0108, respectively.

The Applicable Statute

    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

[[Page 5026]]

to the Department of Commerce's (``the Department's'') regulations are 
to the regulations at 19 CFR part 351 (April 1, 1998).

Preliminary Determination

    We preliminarily determine that elastic rubber tape (``ERT'') from 
India is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less 
than fair value (``LTFV''), as provided in section 733 of the Act. The 
estimated margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the ``Suspension of 
Liquidation'' section of this notice.

Case History

    Since the initiation of this investigation on September 8, 1998 
(see Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Elastic 
Rubber Tape from India, 63 FR 49546 (September 16, 1998) (``Notice of 
Initiation'')), the following events have occurred:
    On October 15, 1998, the International Trade Commission (``ITC'') 
published its preliminary determination that there is a reasonable 
indication that an industry in the United States is being materially 
injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports from 
India of the subject merchandise (63 FR 55407).
    On October 9, 1998, the Department issued the antidumping duty 
questionnaire to Garware Elastomerics Limited (``GEL''), the only 
producer/exporter of ERT in India. GEL submitted its responses to 
Section A on November 6, 1998, and then Sections B and C of the 
questionnaire on November 23, 1998. Also on November 23, 1998, the 
Department requested that GEL report the value and volume of its 
imports into the United States during the period of April through 
December 1998 in connection with the petitioners' allegation of 
critical circumstances. GEL submitted this information to the 
Department on December 9, 1998, and additional export data on December 
29, 1998.
    On December 17, 1998, the Department issued a supplemental 
questionnaire to GEL. GEL submitted part of its supplemental response 
on December 29, 1998, and the remainder on January 11, 1999.
    On December 23, 1998, the Department received a timely allegation 
by Fulflex, Inc., Elastomer Technologies Group, Inc., and RM Engineered 
Products, Inc., (referred to hereinafter as ``the petitioners'') that 
GEL made sales in its home market below the cost of production. On the 
basis of the information contained in the petitioners' allegation, we 
initiated a sales-below-cost investigation (see Memorandum to Susan 
Kuhbach, January 26, 1999).

Scope of the Investigation

    For purposes of this investigation, the product covered is elastic 
rubber tape. Elastic rubber tape is defined as vulcanized, non-cellular 
rubber strips, of either natural or synthetic rubber, 0.006 inches to 
0.100 inches (0.15 mm to 2.54 mm) in thickness and \1/8\ inches to 1\5/
8\ inches (3 mm to 42 mm) in width. Such product is generally used in 
swim wear and underwear.
    The merchandise subject to this investigation is classified in the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'') at 
subheading 4008.21.00. Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for 
convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the 
merchandise under investigation is dispositive.

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation (``POI'') is July 1, 1997, through June 
30, 1998.

Adverse Facts Available

    On October 9, 1998, the Department issued a questionnaire to GEL 
requesting, among other things, the variable cost-of-manufacture data 
and total unit cost of manufacture for the U.S. and home market sales. 
GEL requested an extension for the due date of the questionnaire 
response. The Department granted the extension. However, GEL did not 
supply the variable cost data and total unit cost data in its response 
nor did it indicate that it was unable to compile this information 
within the deadline or otherwise. On December 17, 1998, the Department 
issued a supplemental questionnaire requesting this data and additional 
data. GEL requested an extension of this questionnaire deadline, which 
the Department granted. However, GEL did not submit the variable cost 
data and total unit cost data by the extended deadline. For more 
information, see Memo to the File, ``Time Extension for Supplemental 
Questionnaire and Variable Cost of Manufacture Data,'' dated January 4, 
1999 and Memo to the File ``Missing Variable Cost of Manufacture 
Data,'' dated January 12, 1999.
    Because GEL failed to respond to our requests for the variable 
cost-of-manufacture and total unit cost data as requested in the 
original and supplemental questionnaires, we are unable to calculate a 
difference-in-merchandise adjustment to use in our price-to-price 
comparison when there are no sales of identical products in the home 
market to compare to U.S. sales. Accordingly, we must resort to facts 
available for this information. Section 776(a) of the Act states that 
(a) in general, if an interested party or any other person, fails to 
provide information by the deadlines for submission of the information 
or in the form and manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and 
(e) of section 782, the Department shall, subject to 782(d), use the 
facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination 
under this title. Because GEL failed to provide the necessary variable 
cost-of-manufacture data, under section 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the 
Department is required to apply, subject to sections 782(c)(1), (d) and 
(e), the facts otherwise available.
    Section 782(c)(1) of the Act provides that, if an interested party, 
promptly after receiving a request from the Department for information, 
notifies the Department that it is unable to submit the information in 
the requested form and manner and submits a full explanation and 
suggested alternative forms in which such party is able to submit the 
information, the Department shall consider the ability of the 
interested party to submit the information in the requested form and 
manner, and it may modify such requirements to the extent necessary to 
avoid imposing an unreasonable burden on that party. In the instant 
proceeding, GEL did not indicate that it could not submit the variable 
and total cost-of-manufacture data in the form or manner requested.
    Nevertheless, in accordance with section 782(d) of the Act, we 
again asked GEL to provide this information in our December 17, 1998, 
supplemental questionnaire. GEL did not provide the requested data in 
its response to the supplemental questionnaire, even though we granted 
an extension of the due date for the response. We notified the 
respondent that its request to extend further the due date for this 
material to January 29, 1999, was unacceptable because this information 
was necessary to perform calculations for a preliminary determination 
due three days prior to GEL's proposed date. For more information, see 
Memo to the File, ``Time Extension for Supplemental Questionnaire and 
Variable Cost of Manufacture Data,'' dated January 4, 1999. Thus, in 
accordance with section 782(d) of the Act, we provided GEL an 
opportunity to remedy or explain its deficiencies.
    Finally, section 782(e) of the Act provides that the Department, 
when reaching its determination, shall not decline to consider 
information provided by the respondent that is

[[Page 5027]]

already on the record. Accordingly, the Department used the information 
GEL submitted to calculate the preliminary dumping margin on sales with 
identical matches and has applied facts available only to U.S. sales 
with non-identical matches.
    Therefore, in accordance with section 776(a) of the Act, the use of 
facts available for GEL's variable cost-of-manufacture and total unit 
cost data is required in this case. In selecting the facts available, 
section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use an adverse 
inference if the Department finds that an interested party failed to 
cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with 
requests for information. See also, Statement of Administrative Action 
accompanying the URAA, H. Rep. No. 103-316 (``SAA''), at 870.
    GEL did not provide the information as requested in our 
questionnaires, despite various extensions of the deadlines for the 
submission of this information. Therefore, we have determined that GEL 
has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to 
comply with our request for information. In its response to our first 
request for this information, GEL indicated that it was not providing 
the variable and total cost information as requested. GEL's offer to 
submit this information in response to the possible initiation of a 
cost-of-production (``COP'') investigation does not excuse its failure 
to provide the data in the time and manner requested. This information 
was needed to perform calculations for the preliminary determination. 
The cost allegation was not made until December 14, 1998, and the 
Department did not initiate a cost investigation until January 26, 
1999. Therefore, at the time GEL completed its original response to the 
Department, it was unaware that a COP questionnaire would be issued. We 
find that GEL did not cooperate to the best of its ability and, 
therefore, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, we have used an 
adverse inference when selecting from among the facts otherwise 
available. As adverse facts available, we are assigning a dumping 
margin of 66.51 percent, derived from the petition, for those U.S. 
sales which did not have identical matches in the home market. See, the 
Notice of Initiation.
    Section 776(c) of the Act directs that, when the Department relies 
on secondary information (such as the petition) in using the facts 
otherwise available, it must, to the extent practicable, corroborate 
that information from independent sources reasonably at its disposal. 
When analyzing the petition prior to the initiation of this 
investigation, we reviewed all of the data upon which the petitioners 
relied in calculating the estimated dumping margins, and we adjusted 
those calculations where necessary. See Initiation Checklist dated 
September 8, 1998. The estimated dumping margin of 66.51 percent was 
based on the highest price-to-price margin contained in the petition, 
as adjusted by the Department. For purposes of this preliminary 
determination, we have corroborated that estimated margin. See, Notice 
of Initiation and Memorandum from Team to Susan Kuhbach, dated January 
26, 1999, for a detailed explanation of corroboration of the 
information in the petition.

Date of Sale

    In their December 9, 1998 submission, the petitioners objected to 
GEL's use of date of invoice as the date of sale. The petitioners 
argued that, given the fact that GEL begins production of subject 
merchandise pursuant to a purchase order, the purchase-order date is 
the date when the material terms of sale are set and, thus, the 
appropriate date to use as the date of sale. They further argue that 
the Department's dumping margin calculation would be distorted by using 
GEL's reported date of sale due to the significant fluctuations in the 
exchange rate during the POI.
    After a review of the petitioners' comments and the method by which 
GEL made sales in both the home market and U.S. market, we 
preliminarily determine that the date of invoice is the appropriate 
date of sale in this investigation.
    Section 351.401(i) of our regulations states that, in identifying 
the date of sale,

[t]he Secretary normally will use the date of invoice, as recorded 
in the exporter or producer's records kept in the ordinary course of 
business. However, the Secretary may use a date other than the date 
of invoice if the Secretary is satisfied that a different date 
better reflects the date on which the exporter or producer 
establishes the material terms of sale.

According to GEL's response, product mix, product specifications, 
destination, and the quantity of a customer's original order can change 
until the date of shipment, which is the same as the company's date of 
invoice. Additionally, GEL indicated that the order can be canceled as 
late as the date of shipment or invoice date. Consequently, we have 
used the invoice date as the date of sale for GEL for purposes of this 
preliminary determination.
    We intend to verify GEL's claims concerning changes between the 
date of shipment and the date of invoice. Based upon the outcome of our 
verification, we will determine whether it is appropriate to continue 
to use the date of invoice as the date of sale. We will consider 
whether, in fact, there were any changes to the material terms between 
the original order and the date of invoice. See, e.g., Notice of Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Canned Pineapple 
Fruit from Thailand, 63 FR 7392 at 7394-7395 (February 13, 1998).

Critical Circumstances

    The petitioners alleged in the petition that critical circumstances 
exist with respect to imports of ERT from India. In accordance with 19 
CFR 351.206(c)(2)(i), since this allegation was filed at least 20 days 
prior to our preliminary determination, we must issue our preliminary 
critical circumstances determination not later than the preliminary 
determination.
    Section 733(e)(1) of the Act provides that, if a petitioner alleges 
critical circumstances, the Department will determine whether there is 
a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that (A)(i) there is a history 
of dumping and material injury by reason of dumped imports in the 
United States or elsewhere of the subject merchandise, or (ii) the 
person by whom, or for whose account, the merchandise was imported knew 
or should have known that the exporter was selling the subject 
merchandise at less than its fair value and that there was likely to be 
material injury by reason of such sales, and (B) there have been 
massive imports of the subject merchandise over a relatively short 
period.
    With respect to the second criterion, whether imports of ERT have 
been massive over a relatively short period, GEL submitted its U.S. 
sales import data for subject merchandise for an eight-month period 
beginning with April 1998 and ending with November 1998. Section 
351.206(h) states that, unless the imports during a ``relatively short 
period'' have increased by at least 15 percent over the imports during 
a period immediately preceding the filing of the petition, the 
Secretary will not consider the imports massive. Furthermore, the 
Secretary will normally consider a ``relatively short period'' the 
period beginning on the date the proceeding begins and ending at least 
three months later. We compared GEL's exports in the three-month period 
September through November 1998 (post-petition period) to its exports 
in the three months prior to the filing of the petition, June through 
August 1998. This comparison indicates that there was a decrease in 
GEL's

[[Page 5028]]

exports to the United States in the post-petition period.
    Based on these facts, we determine that the second criterion for 
finding that critical circumstances exist is not satisfied. Therefore, 
we preliminarily determine that critical circumstances do not exist 
with respect to exports of ERT from India by GEL. As a result, we have 
not analyzed information pertaining to the first criterion. We will 
make a final determination concerning critical circumstances when we 
make our final determination in this investigation.

Affiliation

    For the purposes of this preliminary determination, the Department 
finds that GEL and Elastomer Inc. (EI), a U.S. reseller of subject 
merchandise, are affiliated parties. Section 771 (33)(G) of the Act 
states that ``{a}ny person who controls any other person * * *'' is 
affiliated with that person. The statute explains further that ``a 
person shall be considered to control another person if the person is 
legally or operationally in a position to exercise restraint or 
direction over the other person.'' In determining control, the 
Department considers the following factors, among others: debt 
financing; franchise or joint venture agreements; corporate or family 
groupings; close supplier relationship in which the supplier or buyer 
becomes reliant upon the other. However, control will not exist on the 
basis of these factors unless the relationship has the potential to 
affect decisions concerning the production, pricing, or cost of the 
subject merchandise or foreign like product. See 19 CFR 351.102(b).
    In the instant proceeding, information on the record indicates that 
GEL's relationship with EI has the potential to affect decisions 
regarding the pricing of subject merchandise. Additionally, the nature 
of the relationship calls into question whether EI has a distinct 
operating personality outside its relationship with GEL. Specific 
information supporting our conclusion cannot be addressed in the notice 
due to its proprietary nature. For more information, see Memorandum to 
Richard W. Moreland From Case Team ``Affiliation of GEL and 
Elastomer,'' dated January 20, 1999.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of ERT from India to the United States 
were made at less than fair value, we compared the export price 
(``EP'') or the constructed export price (``CEP'') to the normal value 
(``NV''), as described below in the ``Export Price,'' ``Constructed 
Export Price,'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice where the 
products were identical. In accordance with section 777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of 
the Act, we calculated weighted-average EPs and CEPs for comparison to 
weighted-average NVs. Where there were no home market sales of 
merchandise identical to the merchandise being sold in the United 
States, we applied the 66.51 percent rate described above in the 
``Adverse Facts Available'' section of this notice.

Level of Trade

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent 
practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at 
the same level of trade (``LOT'') as the EP or CEP transaction. The NV 
LOT is that of the starting-price sales in the comparison market. For 
EP, the U.S. LOT is also the level of the starting-price sale, which is 
usually from 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 LOT than EP or 
CEP, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions 
along the chain of distribution between the producer and the 
unaffiliated customer. If the comparison-market sales are at a 
different LOT, and the difference affects price comparability, as 
manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the 
sales on which NV is based and comparison-market sales at the LOT of 
the export transaction, we make an LOT adjustment under section 
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. 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 (November 19, 1997).
    We reviewed information from GEL regarding the marketing stage 
involved in the reported home market and U.S. sales, including a 
description of the selling activities performed by the respondent for 
each channel of distribution. Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of 
the Act and the SAA at 827, in identifying LOTs for EP and home market 
sales, we considered the selling functions reflected in the starting 
prices before any adjustments. For CEP sales, we considered only the 
selling activities reflected in the price after the deduction of 
expenses and profit under section 772(d) of the Act. We expect that, if 
claimed LOTs are the same, the functions and activities of the seller 
should be similar. Conversely, if a party claims that LOTs are 
different for different groups of sales, the functions and activities 
of the seller should be dissimilar.
    Based on an analysis of the selling functions, class of customers, 
and level of selling expenses for GEL's EP and CEP sales, we found that 
sales were made at a single stage in the marketing process in both the 
home market and the United States. However, we found that the stage of 
the marketing process in the home market and that in the United States 
were substantially dissimilar. In particular, we found GEL's home 
market sales involved greater selling activities than its U.S. sales. 
Some of the activities that GEL performs for its home market sales in 
excess of those its performs for U.S. sales include calling on new 
customers, making site visits to existing clients and the provision of 
post-sale services. We also note that GEL sells to end-users in the 
home market while its U.S. EP customers and its U.S. importer for its 
CEP sales are all resellers. Therefore, we have preliminarily found 
that sales in both markets are at different LOTs.
    While we have found GEL's home market and U.S. sales to be at 
different levels of trade, there is no information on the record of 
this investigation to provide an appropriate basis for determining a 
LOT adjustment. In addition, as described above, we have preliminarily 
found the LOT in the home market to be more remote than that in the 
United States. Based on the foregoing, we are granting GEL a CEP offset 
pursuant to section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act.

United States Price

    GEL claimed an upward adjustment to its U.S. price for a ``duty 
drawback'' program. As stated in Certain Welded Carbon Standard Steel 
Pipes and Tubes from India (62 FR 47632 at 47635), September 10, 1997, 
we determine whether an adjustment to U.S. price for a respondent's 
claimed duty drawback is appropriate when the respondent meets both 
parts of our two-part test. There must be (1) a sufficient link between 
the import duty and the rebate, and (2) a sufficient amount of raw 
materials imported and used in the production of the final exported 
product. Because GEL has not provided adequate information to meet 
either part of the test, we have not made an adjustment to EP or CEP. 
We will issue a supplemental questionnaire seeking additional 
documentation regarding

[[Page 5029]]

whether GEL's use of this program meets our two-part test, and we will 
revisit this issue for our final determination.

Export Price

    For GEL's sales not made through its affiliate, we used EP 
methodology, in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because the 
subject merchandise was sold directly to the first unaffiliated 
purchaser in the United States prior to importation and because CEP 
methodology was not otherwise indicated. We based EP on the packed 
prices to the unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. In 
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, we made deductions, 
where appropriate, from the starting price for foreign inland freight, 
international freight, marine insurance, U.S. customs duty, and 
brokerage and handling. We also made a deduction, where appropriate, 
for rebates.

Constructed Export Price

    For GEL's sales through its U.S. affiliate, we used CEP 
methodology, in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, because the 
first sale of subject merchandise to an unaffiliated purchaser was made 
by GEL's affiliate in the United States. We based CEP on the packed, 
delivered prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. Where 
appropriate, we made deductions for discounts. We also made deductions 
for the following movement expenses, where appropriate, in accordance 
with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act: foreign inland freight, brokerage 
and handling, international freight, marine insurance, U.S. customs 
duties, U.S. inland freight, and U.S. warehouse expenses. In accordance 
with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we deducted selling expenses 
associated with economic activities occurring in the United States, 
including direct selling expenses, inventory carrying costs, and other 
indirect selling expenses. Section 772(d)(3) of the Act directs the 
Department to deduct profit allocated to the CEP sale. However, we note 
that GEL did not make a profit during the POI. Therefore, no profit was 
deducted.

Home Market Viability

    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, we 
compared GEL's volume of home market sales of the foreign like product 
to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. As respondent's 
aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product 
exceeded five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales for the 
subject merchandise, we have determined that the home market is viable 
for GEL, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act.

Normal Value

    We based NV on packed, delivered prices to unaffiliated customers 
in the home market. We made deductions, where appropriate, from the 
starting price for inland freight, inland insurance, pursuant to 
section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act.
    We also made deductions, where appropriate, for discounts. We made 
adjustments for differences in circumstances of sale (``COS'') in 
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. 
For comparisons to EP, we made COS adjustments by deducting direct 
selling expenses incurred on home market sales and adding U.S. direct 
selling expenses. For comparisons to CEP, we made COS adjustments by 
deducting direct selling expenses incurred on home market sales. Since 
GEL had no U.S. direct selling expenses other than those we deducted 
from the starting price in calculating CEP pursuant to section 772(d) 
of the Act, we made no additions to NV in making COS adjustments. We 
also made adjustments, where applicable, to offset commissions in CEP 
calculations in accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e). Where commissions 
were paid on sales of a particular U.S. product but not on the home 
market comparison product, we made our adjustments by subtracting 
commissions from U.S. price and then deducting from NV the lesser of 
the amount of commissions paid on the U.S. product or the amount of 
indirect selling expenses incurred on home market sales of the 
comparison product, including inventory carrying costs. Conversely, 
where commissions were paid on sales of the home market comparison 
product but not on the U.S. product, we subtracted commissions from NV 
and then deducted from U.S. price the amount of indirect selling 
expenses, including inventory carrying costs. In addition, pursuant to 
sections 773(a)(6) (A) and (B) of the Act, we deducted home market 
packing costs and added U.S. packing costs.

Cost of Production

    Based on a timely allegation by the petitioners on December 23, 
1998, we initiated an investigation of sales below COP with respect to 
GEL's home market sales pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act (see 
January 26, 1999, Memorandum to Susan Kuhbach from Team). As a result 
of the Department's COP investigation, the Department requested that 
GEL answer Section D of the original questionnaire concerning the COP 
of merchandise sold in the home market. Due to the timing of the 
initiation of our COP investigation, we are unable to include a COP 
analysis in this preliminary determination. However, we intend to issue 
a COP analysis memorandum for GEL prior to verification and we will 
conduct a cost verification.

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, in accordance with section 773(A) of the Act.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we will verify all 
information relied upon in making our final determination.

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(d) of the Act, we are directing the 
Customs Service to suspend liquidation of all imports of subject 
merchandise that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the 
Federal Register. We will instruct the Customs Service to require a 
cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average 
amount by which the NV exceeds the export or constructed export price. 
We preliminarily determine that the weighted-average margin for GEL is 
62.01 percent. Because we only investigated one producer/exporter, 
GEL's rate will also serve as the ``all others'' rate. The suspension-
of-liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.

ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the 
ITC of our determination. If our final determination is affirmative, 
the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of 
this preliminary determination or 45 days after our final determination 
whether these imports are materially injuring, or threatening material 
injury to, the U.S. industry.

Public Comment

    Case briefs or other written comments in at least ten copies must 
be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration no 
later than March 5, 1999, and rebuttal briefs no later than March 10, 
1999. A list of authorities used and an executive summary of issues 
should accompany any briefs submitted to the Department. Such

[[Page 5030]]

summary should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. In 
accordance with section 774 of the Act, we will hold a public hearing, 
if requested, to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on 
arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs. Tentatively, the hearing 
will be held on March 15, 1999, time and room to be determined, at the 
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20230. Parties should confirm by telephone the time, 
date, and place of the hearing 48 hours before the scheduled time.
    Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate 
if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant 
Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 
1870, within 30 days of the publication of this notice. Requests should 
contain the following information: (1) the party's name, address, and 
telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of the 
issues to be discussed. Oral presentations will be limited to issues 
raised in the briefs. If this investigation proceeds normally, we will 
make our final determination no later than April 12, 1999.
    This determination is issued and published in accordance with 
sections 733(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: January 26, 1999.
Richard W. Moreland,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-2455 Filed 2-1-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P