[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 130 (Thursday, July 8, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36853-36857]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-17393]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-570-601]


Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and 
Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China; Preliminary Results of 
1997-1998 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial Recission 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

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

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of 1997-1998 administrative 
review and partial recission of review.

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

SUMMARY: We preliminarily determine that sales of tapered roller 
bearings and parts thereof, finished and unfinished, from the People's 
Republic of China, were made below normal value during the period June 
1, 1997, through May 31, 1998. We are also rescinding the review, in 
part, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3). Interested parties are 
invited to comment on these preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 8, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Zak Smith or James Breeden, Import 
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20230; 
telephone (202) 482-0189 and (202) 482-1174, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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, 
all references to the Department of Commerce's (``the Department's'') 
regulations are to 19 CFR Part 351 (April 1998).

Background

    On May 27, 1987, the Department published in the Federal Register 
(52 FR 19748) the antidumping duty order on tapered roller bearings and 
parts thereof, finished and unfinished (``TRBs''), from the People's 
Republic of China (``PRC''). The Department notified interested parties 
of the opportunity to request an administrative review of this order on 
June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31717). On June 30, 1998, the petitioner, The 
Timken Company, requested that the Department conduct an administrative 
review. Thus, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(1), we published a 
notice of initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review on 
July 28, 1998 (63 FR 40258).
    On September 21, 1998, we sent a questionnaire to the Secretary 
General of the Basic Machinery Division of the Chamber of Commerce for 
Import & Export of Machinery and Electronics Products and requested 
that the questionnaire be forwarded to all PRC companies identified in 
our initiation notice and to any subsidiary companies of the named 
companies that produce and/or export the subject merchandise. In this 
letter, we also requested information relevant to the issue of whether 
the companies named in the initiation notice are independent from 
government control. See the Separate Rates Determination section, 
below. Courtesy copies of the questionnaire were also sent to companies 
with legal representation and to companies listed in the initiation 
notice for which we were able to obtain addresses.
    We received responses to the questionnaire from the following six 
companies: Luoyang Bearing Corp. (Group) (``Luoyang''), Wafangdian 
Bearing Factory (``Wafangdian''), Zhejiang Machinery Import & Export 
Company (``Zhejiang''), China National Machinery Import & Export 
Corporation (``CMC''), Wanxiang Group Corporation (``Wanxiang''), and 
Premier Bearing & Equipment (``Premier'').
    On October 28 and December 4, 1998, the petitioner made requests to 
rescind the review with respect to Wafangdian, Zhejiang, Wanxiang, and 
CMC. While the petitioner's rescission requests were made more than 90 
days after initiation, 351.213(d)(1) of our regulations provides that 
we may extend that deadline, and it is our practice to do so where it 
poses no undue burden on the parties or the Department. Therefore, in 
accordance with 351.213(d)(1) of our regulations, we have rescinded the 
review regarding these companies (for a complete discussion of this 
decision see the Memorandum from Team to Richard Moreland, ``Partial 
Rescission of Review,'' dated February 19, 1999). CMC objected to the 
rescission on the grounds that it requested a review when requesting 
revocation. However, CMC's request for revocation was submitted

[[Page 36854]]

after the anniversary month and, therefore, cannot constitute a timely 
request for review. Thus, CMC's request was not considered.
    In addition, during April, May, and October, 1998, Triumph Express 
Service Int'l Limited, Shanghai United Bearing, Transunion 
International Company, Ltd., China Resources Transportation & Godown 
Co., Ltd., Scanwell Consolidators, Ltd., and Chin Jun Industrial, Ltd. 
reported no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States 
during the period of review (``POR''), June 1, 1997, through May 31, 
1998. We independently confirmed with the Customs Service that there 
were no shipments from these companies. Therefore, in accordance with 
351.213(d)(3) of our regulations, we preliminarily conclude that there 
were no shipments from these companies to the United States and are 
rescinding the review with respect to these companies.
    The Department is conducting this administrative review in 
accordance with section 751 of the Act.

Scope of Review

    Merchandise covered by this review includes TRBs and parts thereof, 
finished and unfinished, from the PRC; flange, take up cartridge, and 
hanger units incorporating tapered roller bearings; and tapered roller 
housings (except pillow blocks) incorporating tapered rollers, with or 
without spindles, whether or not for automotive use. This merchandise 
is classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
States (``HTSUS'') item numbers 8482.20.00, 8482.91.00.50, 8482.99.30, 
8483.20.40, 8483.20.80, 8483.30.80, 8483.90.20, 8483.90.30, 8483.90.80, 
8708.99.80.15, and 8708.99.80.80. Although the HTSUS item numbers are 
provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description 
of the scope of the order and this review is dispositive.

Separate Rates Determination

    To establish whether a company operating in a state-controlled 
economy is sufficiently independent to be entitled to a separate rate, 
the Department analyzes each exporting entity under the test 
established in the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 
6, 1991) (``Sparklers''), as amplified by the Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's 
Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (``Silicon Carbide''). 
Under this policy, exporters in nonmarket economies (``NMEs'') are 
entitled to separate, company-specific margins when they can 
demonstrate an absence of government control, both in law and in fact, 
with respect to export activities. Evidence supporting, though not 
requiring, a finding of de jure absence of government control over 
export activities includes: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations 
associated with the individual exporter's business and export licenses; 
(2) any legislative enactments decentralizing control of companies; and 
(3) any other formal measures by the government decentralizing control 
of companies. De facto absence of government control over exports is 
based on four factors: (1) Whether each exporter sets its own export 
prices independently of the government and without the approval of a 
government authority; (2) whether each exporter retains the proceeds 
from its sales and makes independent decisions regarding the 
disposition of profits or financing of losses; (3) whether each 
exporter has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other 
agreements; and (4) whether each exporter has autonomy from the 
government regarding the selection of management (see Silicon Carbide, 
59 FR at 22587, and Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589).
    In previous administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order on 
TRBs from the PRC, we determined that Luoyang should receive a separate 
rate (see, e.g., Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished 
and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China; Final Results of 
1996-1997 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper Review 
and Determination Not to Revoke Order in Part, 63 FR 63842 (November 
17, 1998) (``TRBs X'')). We preliminarily determine that the evidence 
on the record of this review also demonstrates an absence of government 
control, both in law and in fact, with respect to Luoyang's exports 
according to the criteria identified in Sparklers and Silicon Carbide. 
Therefore, we have continued to assign Luoyang a separate rate.
    Premier is a privately owned Hong Kong trading company. Because we 
have determined that this firm, rather than its PRC-based suppliers, is 
the proper respondent with respect to its sales of TRBs to the United 
States, no separate-rates analysis of Premier's suppliers is necessary. 
See the United States Sales section, below.

Separate-Rate Determinations for Non-Responsive Companies

    We have preliminarily determined that those companies for which we 
initiated a review and which did not respond to the questionnaire 
should not receive separate rates. See the Use of Facts Otherwise 
Available section, below.

Use of Facts Otherwise Available

    We preliminarily determine that, in accordance with sections 776(a) 
and (b) of the Act, the use of adverse facts available is appropriate 
for all companies which did not respond to our requests for 
information. Furthermore, we preliminarily determine that Premier did 
not demonstrate that it cooperated to the best of its ability in 
providing certain information, and we have applied adverse facts 
available to calculate a portion of Premier's margin.
    1. Companies that did not respond to the questionnaire: Where the 
Department must base its determination on facts available because a 
respondent failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability 
to comply with a request for information, section 776(b) of the Act 
authorizes the Department to use inferences adverse to the interests of 
that respondent in choosing facts available. Section 776(b) of the Act 
also authorizes the Department to use as adverse facts available 
information derived from the petition, the final determination, a 
previous administrative review, or other information placed on the 
record. Information from prior segments of the proceeding constitutes 
secondary information and section 776(c) of the Act provides that the 
Department shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that secondary 
information from independent sources reasonably at its disposal. The 
Statement of Administrative Action (``SAA'') provides that 
``corroborate'' means simply that the Department will satisfy itself 
that the secondary information to be used has probative value (see H.R. 
Doc. 316, Vol. 1, 103d Cong., 2d Sess. 870 (1994)).
    To corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the 
extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the 
information to be used. However, unlike 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 a prior segment of the 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

[[Page 36855]]

will consider information reasonably at its disposal as to whether 
there are circumstances that would render a margin inappropriate. Where 
circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not appropriate as 
adverse facts available, the Department will disregard the margin and 
determine an appropriate margin (see, e.g., Fresh Cut Flowers from 
Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 
6812, 6814 (Feb. 22, 1996) (where the Department disregarded the 
highest margin as adverse facts available because the margin was based 
on another company's uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an 
unusually high margin)).
    We have preliminarily assigned a margin of 33.18 percent to those 
companies for which we initiated a review and which did not respond to 
the questionnaire. This margin, calculated for sales by Xiangfan 
Machinery Import & Export (Group) Corp. during the 1996-97 review, 
represents the highest overall margin calculated for any firm during 
any segment of this proceeding. As discussed above, it is not necessary 
to question the reliability of a calculated margin from a prior segment 
of the proceeding. Further, there are no circumstances indicating that 
this margin is inappropriate as adverse facts available. Therefore, we 
preliminarily find that the 33.18 percent rate is corroborated. As 
noted in the Separate Rates Determination section above, we have also 
preliminarily determined that the non-responsive companies should not 
receive separate rates. Therefore, the facts available for these 
companies form the basis for the PRC rate, which is 33.18 percent for 
this review.
    2. Premier: Premier, a Hong Kong-based reseller of TRBs, claims 
that it attempted to obtain factors-of-production data for the models 
it sold in the United States from its suppliers. Premier provided 
factors data from two suppliers for some models which it sold to the 
United States. However, only one supplier's set of factors data was 
usable as Premier was unable to answer supplemental questions relating 
to the second supplier's set of factors data. For other models sold in 
the United States, Premier stated that it was unable to provide factors 
data from any of its PRC suppliers. Instead, Premier provided factors 
data from another PRC producer of the same models. For the remaining 
models sold in the United States by Premier, no factors data were 
reported.
    As in prior reviews, we have preliminarily determined that there is 
little variation in factor utilization rates among the TRB producers 
from which we have received factors-of-production data (see, e.g., 
Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, 
From the People's Republic of China; Preliminary Results of 1996-1997 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper Review, 63 FR 
37339, 37342 (July 10, 1998) (``Preliminary TRBs X'')). Therefore, for 
the models for which we have such information, we are using, as facts 
available, the factors data provided by Premier, including information 
from manufacturers which did not supply Premier during the POR, in 
order to calculate normal value.
    For the models for which no factors data was reported, we have 
preliminarily determined that Premier has not demonstrated that it 
cooperated to the best of its ability in responding to our antidumping 
duty questionnaire. While Premier has stated that it attempted to 
obtain factors data from its PRC-based suppliers, it has not provided 
sufficient evidence on the record to support this claim. For example, 
Premier did not provide copies of the letters it sent to all of its 
suppliers requesting information, nor has it provided copies of letters 
from all of its suppliers responding to Premier's request. In addition, 
Premier submitted contradictory information about its suppliers. Given 
that this is the eleventh review of the antidumping duty order on TRBs 
from the PRC and that Premier has participated in several reviews, 
Premier has been on notice of the Department's requirements on this 
matter. Because the missing factors of production amount to a 
substantial portion of Premier's response, we are using adverse facts 
available for such missing data.
    Thus, with respect to Premier's U.S. sales for which no 
corresponding factors data were reported, we are applying, as adverse 
facts available, a margin of 25.56 percent, the highest overall margin 
ever applicable to Premier. This approach is consistent with our final 
results in the prior review (see TRBs X 63 FR 63857). As discussed 
above, it is not necessary to question the reliability of a calculated 
margin from a prior segment of the proceeding. Further, there are no 
circumstances indicating that this margin is inappropriate as adverse 
facts available. Therefore, we preliminarily find that the 25.56 
percent rate is corroborated.

United States Sales

    Premier reported that it maintains inventories of TRBs in Hong Kong 
and sells TRBs worldwide. Therefore, its PRC-based suppliers have no 
knowledge when they sell to this firm that the shipments are destined 
for the United States. Since Premier is the first party to sell the 
merchandise to the United States, we have calculated United States 
price of this merchandise based on Premier's sales.
    For sales made by Premier and Luoyang, we based the U.S. sales on 
export price (``EP''), in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, 
because the subject merchandise was sold to unaffiliated purchasers in 
the United States prior to importation into the United States and 
because the constructed export price methodology was not indicated by 
other circumstances.
    We calculated EP based on the FOB, CIF, or C&F port price to 
unaffiliated purchasers, as appropriate. From this price we deducted 
amounts, where appropriate, for foreign inland freight, ocean freight, 
and marine insurance. We valued the deduction for foreign inland 
freight using surrogate data (Indian freight costs). (We selected India 
as the surrogate country for the reasons explained in the Normal Value 
section of this notice.) When marine insurance and ocean freight were 
provided by PRC-owned companies, we valued the deductions using the 
surrogate data (amounts charged by international providers). When 
marine insurance and ocean freight were provided by market economy 
companies, we deducted the values reported by the respondents for these 
services.

Normal Value

    Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall 
determine normal value (``NV'') using a factors-of-production 
methodology if: (1) the merchandise is exported from an NME, and (2) 
the information does not permit the calculation of NV under section 
773(a) of the Act. The Department has treated the PRC as an NME in all 
previous antidumping cases. In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of 
the Act, any determination that a foreign country is an NME shall 
remain in effect until revoked by the administering authority. None of 
the parties to this proceeding has contested such treatment in this 
review. Moreover, parties to this proceeding have not argued that the 
PRC tapered roller bearing industry is a market-oriented industry. 
Consequently, we have no basis to determine that the information would 
permit the calculation of NV using PRC prices or costs. Therefore, 
except as noted below, we calculated NV based on factors of production 
in accordance with sections 773(c)(3) and (4) of the Act and 
Sec. 351.408(c) of our regulations.

[[Page 36856]]

    Although Premier is a Hong Kong company, we also calculated NV for 
it based on factors-of-production data. We did not use Premier's third-
country sales in calculating NV because its PRC-based suppliers knew at 
the time of sale that the subject merchandise was destined for 
exportation. Section 773(a)(3)(A) of the Act provides that under such 
conditions NV may be determined in the country of origin of the subject 
merchandise. Accordingly, we calculated NV for Premier on the basis of 
PRC production inputs and surrogate country factor prices.
    Under the factors-of-production methodology, we are required to 
value the NME producer's inputs in a comparable market economy country 
that is a significant producer of comparable merchandise. We chose 
India as the most comparable surrogate on the basis of the criteria set 
out in Sec. 351.408(b) of our regulations. See Memorandum to Susan 
Kuhbach from Jeff May: ``Tapered Roller Bearings (``TRBs'') from the 
People's Republic of China (``PRC''): Nonmarket Economy Status and 
Surrogate Country Selection,'' dated January 8, 1999, for a further 
discussion of our surrogate selection. We selected Indonesia as a 
second-choice surrogate based on the same criteria. We note that, in 
past reviews of this and other orders, we have found that both India 
and Indonesia are significant producers of TRBs (see Preliminary TRBs 
X, 63 FR 37342, and Tapered Roller Bearing and Parts Thereof, Finished 
and Unfinished, From Romania; Preliminary Results of Antidumping 
Administrative Review, 63 FR 11217-01 (March 6, 1998)).
    We used publicly available information from India to value the 
various factors of production with the exception of the following: hot-
rolled alloy steel bars for the production of cups and cones, cold-
rolled steel rods used in the production of rollers, and steel scrap 
from the production of cups, cones, and rollers. To value hot-rolled 
alloy steel bars for the production of cups and cones we used publicly 
available Japanese export prices to Indonesia. To value cold-rolled 
steel rods used in the production of rollers we used publicly available 
Indonesian import data. We used these data because we found the Indian 
data for those inputs to be unreliable. (See Memorandum to Susan 
Kuhbach: ``Selection of a Surrogate Country and Steel Value Sources,'' 
dated June 30, 1999 (``Steel Values Memorandum'').)
    We valued the factors of production as follows (for a complete 
description of the factor values used, see the Memorandum to Susan 
Kuhbach: ``Factors of Production Values Used for the Preliminary 
Results,'' dated June 30, 1999):
    1. Steel Inputs. For hot-rolled alloy steel bars used in the 
production of cups and cones, consistent with TRBs X (63 FR 63845), we 
used a weighted average of Japanese export values to Indonesia from the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule (``HTS'') category 7228.30.900 obtained from 
Official Japan Ministry of Finance statistics. For cold-rolled steel 
rods used in the production of rollers, we used Indonesian import data 
under Indonesian tariff subheading 7228.50000 obtained from Badan Pusat 
Statistik, Republik Indonesia. For cold-rolled steel sheet for the 
production of cages, we used Indian import data under Indian tariff 
subheading 7209.4200 obtained from the Monthly Statistics of the 
Foreign Trade of India, Vol. II--Imports. (For further discussion of 
selection of steel value sources, see Steel Values Memorandum.)
    As in previous administrative reviews, we eliminated from our 
calculation steel imports from NME countries and imports from market 
economy countries that were made in small quantities. For steel used in 
the production of cups, cones, and rollers, we also excluded imports 
from countries that do not produce bearing-quality steel (see, e.g., 
TRBs X). We made adjustments to include freight costs incurred using 
the shorter of the reported distances from either the closest PRC port 
to the TRBs factory or the domestic supplier to the TRBs factory (see 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Collated Roofing Nails From the People's Republic of China, 62 FR 51410 
(October 1, 1997), and Sigma Corporation v. United States, 117 F. 3d 
1401 (Fed. Cir. 1997)).
    One producer in this review purchased steel sheet from a market 
economy supplier and paid for the steel with market economy currency. 
Thus, in accordance with section 351.408(c)(1) of our regulations, we 
valued the steel input using the actual price reported for directly 
imported inputs from a market economy. Two producers purchased imported 
steel bar from a trading company in the PRC. We have not used the 
trading company prices and instead used a surrogate to value that 
steel.
    We valued scrap recovered from the production of cups, cones, and 
rollers using Indonesian import statistics from HTS category 
7204.29000. Scrap recovered from the production of cages was valued 
using import data from the Indian tariff subheading 7204.4100.
    2. Labor. Section 351.408(c)(3) of our regulations requires the use 
of a regression-based wage rate. We have used the regression-based wage 
rate on Import Administration's internet website at www.ita.doc.gov/
import__admin/records/wages.
    3. Overhead, SG&A Expenses, and Profit. For factory overhead, we 
used information obtained from the fiscal year 1997-98 annual reports 
of six Indian bearing producers. We calculated factory overhead and 
selling, general and administrative (``SG&A'') expenses (exclusive of 
labor and electricity) as percentages of direct inputs (also exclusive 
of labor) and applied these ratios to each producer's direct input 
costs. For profit, we totaled the reported profit before taxes for the 
six Indian bearing producers and divided it by the total calculated 
cost of production (``COP'') of goods sold. This percentage was applied 
to each respondent's total COP to derive a company-specific profit 
value.
    4. Packing. We calculated the packing costs as a percentage of COP 
for each respondent based on the information submitted in the 1996-97 
review. This ratio was applied to the respondents' COP for the current 
review to derive a company-specific packing expense. See Memorandum 
from Susan Kuhbach to the File: ``Valuation of Packing,'' dated 
February 12, 1999.
    5. Electricity. We used a simple average of 1995 regional 
electricity prices in India for large industries as reported in India's 
Energy Sector, published by the Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy 
Pvt. Ltd. (September 1996). We adjusted the value to reflect inflation 
using the WPI.
    6. Inland Freight. We valued truck freight using a rate derived 
from the April 20, 1994 issue of The Times of India. We adjusted the 
rate to reflect inflation using the WPI. We valued rail freight using 
rates published by the Indian Railway Conference Association in 1995. 
We calculated an average rate per kilometer and adjusted the rate to 
reflect inflation using the WPI.
    7. Ocean Freight. We calculated a value for ocean freight based on 
1996 rate quotes from Maersk Inc. Because the information obtained was 
from a period contemporaneous with the POR, no adjustments were 
necessary.
    8. Marine Insurance. We calculated a value for marine insurance 
based on the CIF value of the TRBs shipped. We obtained the rate used 
through queries we made directly to an international marine insurance 
provider.
    9. Brokerage and Handling. We used the public version of a U.S. 
sales listing reported in the questionnaire response submitted by Viraj 
Impoexpo in the antidumping investigation of Stainless

[[Page 36857]]

Steel Wire Rod from India (63 FR 48184, September 9, 1998). Because 
this information is contemporaneous with the current POR, no 
adjustments were necessary.

Preliminary Results of the Review

    We preliminarily determine that the following dumping margins exist 
for the period June 1, 1997, through May 31, 1998:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                   Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Luoyang....................................................         0.98
Premier....................................................        23.61
PRC Rate...................................................        33.18
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of 
publication. Any hearing, if requested, will be held 42 days after the 
publication of this notice, or the first workday thereafter. Issues 
raised in hearings will be limited to those raised in the respective 
case and rebuttal briefs. Interested parties may submit case briefs 
within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal 
briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may 
be filed not later than 35 days after the date of publication of this 
notice.
    Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this 
proceeding are requested to submit with each argument (1) a statement 
of the issue and (2) a brief summary of the argument with an electronic 
version included. The Department will publish the final results of this 
administrative review subsequently, including the results of its 
analysis of issues raised in any such written briefs or hearing. The 
Department will issue final results of this review within 120 days of 
publication of these preliminary results.
    The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. With respect to 
EP sales for these preliminary results, we divided the total dumping 
margins (calculated as the difference between NV and EP) for each 
importer/customer by the total number of units sold to that importer/
customer. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results 
of administrative review, we will direct the Customs Service to assess 
the resulting per-unit dollar amount against each unit of merchandise 
in each of that importer's/customer's entries under the order during 
the review period.
    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of the final results of this administrative review for all 
shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as 
provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) For the PRC companies 
named above, the cash deposit rates will be the rates for these firms 
established in the final results of this review, except that, for 
exporters with de minimis rates, i.e., less than 0.50 percent, no 
deposit will be required; (2) for previously-reviewed PRC and non-PRC 
exporters with separate rates, the cash deposit rate will be the 
company-specific rate established for the most recent period; (3) for 
all other PRC exporters, the rate will be the PRC country-wide rate, 
which is 33.12 percent; and (4) for all other non-PRC exporters of 
subject merchandise from the PRC, the cash deposit rate will be the 
rate applicable to the PRC supplier of that exporter. These deposit 
requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of 
the final results of the next administrative review.
    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under Sec. 351.402(f) of our 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.
    We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: June 30, 1999.
Richard W. Moreland,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-17393 Filed 7-7-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P