[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 180 (Friday, September 17, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50489-50493]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-24302]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-122-814]


Pure Magnesium From Canada; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and Determination Not to Revoke Order in Part

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

ACTION: Notice of final results of administrative review and 
determination not to revoke order in part.

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

SUMMARY: On May 11, 1999, the Department of Commerce published the 
preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping 
duty order on pure magnesium from Canada and its notice of intent not 
to revoke the order with respect to pure magnesium produced by Norsk 
Hydro Canada Inc. We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment 
on the preliminary results. Based on our analysis of the comments 
received, we have made certain changes for the final results.
    This review covers one producer/exporter of pure magnesium to the 
United States during the period August 1, 1997, through July 31, 1998. 
The review indicates no dumping margins during the review period.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 17, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Zak Smith, Import Administration, AD/
CVD Enforcement Group I, Office 1, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone 
(202) 482-0189.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute and Regulations

    The Department of Commerce (``the Department'') is conducting this 
administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act 
of 1930 (``the Act''), as amended. 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 Act 
by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (``URAA''). In addition, unless 
otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are 
to those codified at 19 CFR Part 351 (April 1998).

Background

    On May 11, 1999, the Department published the preliminary results 
of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on pure 
magnesium from Canada and notice of the intent not to revoke the order 
in part (64 FR 25276) (``Preliminary Results''). The producer/exporter 
in this review is Norsk Hydro Canada Inc. (``NHCI''). We received case 
briefs from NHCI and petitioner, Magnesium Corporation of America 
(``Magcorp''), and a rebuttal brief from NHCI (see Interested Party 
Comments, below).

Scope of the Review

    The product covered by this review is pure magnesium. Pure 
unwrought magnesium contains at least 99.8 percent magnesium by weight 
and is sold in various slab and ingot forms and sizes. Granular and 
secondary magnesium are excluded from the scope of this review. Pure 
magnesium is currently classified under subheading 8104.11.0000 of the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule (``HTS''). The HTS item number is provided 
for convenience and for customs purposes. The written description 
remains dispositive.

Determination Not to Revoke Order in Part

    The Department ``may revoke, in whole or in part'' an antidumping 
duty order upon completion of a review under section 751 of the Act. 
While Congress has not specified the procedures that the Department 
must follow in revoking an order, the Department has developed a 
procedure for revocation that is described in 19 CFR 351.222. This 
regulation requires, inter alia, that a company requesting revocation 
must submit the following: (1) A certification that the company has 
sold the subject merchandise at not less than normal value (``NV'') in 
the current review period and that the company will not sell at less 
than NV in the future; (2) a certification that the company sold the 
subject merchandise in each of the three years forming the basis of the 
request in commercial quantities; and (3) an agreement to reinstatement 
of the order if the Department concludes that the company, subsequent 
to the revocation, sold subject merchandise at less than NV. See 19 CFR 
351.222(e)(1). Upon receipt of such a request, the Department may 
revoke an order, in part, if it concludes that (1) the company in 
question has sold subject merchandise at not less than NV for a period 
of at least three consecutive years; (2) it is not likely that the 
company will in the future sell the subject merchandise at less than 
NV; and (3) the company has agreed to its immediate reinstatement in 
the order if the Department concludes that the company, subsequent to 
the revocation, sold subject merchandise at less than NV. See 19 CFR 
351.222(b)(2).
    In our Preliminary Results, we determined that ``NHCI does not 
qualify for revocation of the order on pure magnesium because it does 
not have three consecutive years of sales in commercial quantities at 
not less than normal value'' (see Preliminary Results at 25277).
    After consideration of the various comments that were submitted in 
response to the Preliminary Results, we determine that NHCI did not 
sell the subject merchandise in the United States in commercial 
quantities in each of the three years cited by NHCI to support its 
request for revocation. Specifically, NHCI made one sale in one of the 
relevant years and two sales in another. One or two sales to the United 
States during a one year period is not consistent with NHCI's selling 
activity prior to the order, nor is it consistent with NHCI's selling 
activity in the home market (see Memorandum from Team to Susan Kuhbach, 
``Commercial Quantities,'' dated September 8, 1999 (``Commercial 
Quantities Memorandum''), for a discussion of NHCI's selling activity). 
Therefore, we find that NHCI does not qualify for revocation of the 
order on pure magnesium under 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1)(ii).
    We note that on January 29, 1999, a panel established by the 
Dispute

[[Page 50490]]

Settlement Body (``DSB'') of the World Trade Organization (``WTO'') 
determined that the ``not likely'' standard contained in 19 CFR 
353.25(a)(2) was inconsistent with the United States' obligations under 
Article 11.2 of the WTO Antidumping Agreement. See United States--Anti-
Dumping Duty on Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors (DRAMS) of 
One Megabit or Above From Korea, WTO Doc. WT/DS99/R (January 29, 1999) 
(``DRAMS Panel''). The panel recommended that the United States ``bring 
section 353.25(a)(2)(ii) of the DOC regulations * * * into conformity 
with its obligations under Article 11.2 of the AD Agreement.'' The DSB 
adopted the panel report on March 19, 1999. On April 15, 1999, the 
United States announced its intention to implement the recommendations 
and rulings of the DSB. Consistent with section 123(g) of the URAA, 
which governs the Department's implementation of adverse panel reports, 
the Department is revising 19 CFR 351.222(b). The determination not to 
revoke in the instant case is not premised upon the interpretation or 
application of the ``not likely'' standard currently found in 19 CFR 
351.222(b).

Comparisons

    We calculated export price and normal value based on the same 
methodology used in the Preliminary Results, with the following 
exceptions:
    Based upon comments received from respondent, when determining the 
appropriate home market sales to use for comparison purposes the 
Department is now matching to sales of identical merchandise. Also 
based upon comments received from respondent, we have corrected the 
currency conversions applied to home market freight charges.

Interested Party Comments

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.309, we invited interested parties to 
comment on our Preliminary Results. On June 10, 1999, the petitioner 
and the respondent submitted case briefs and the respondent submitted a 
rebuttal brief on June 15, 1999.

Comment 1: Appropriateness of Commercial Quantities Analysis

    NHCI argues that the Department erred in conducting a commercial 
quantities analysis because its request for revocation was based on an 
absence of dumping over three consecutive years, not over a period of 
time in which there was an unreviewed intervening year. According to 
the respondent, section 351.222(b)(2) of the Department's regulations 
neither authorizes nor instructs the Department to conduct a commercial 
quantities analysis. NHCI contends that such analyses are only for 
revocations based on unreviewed intervening years. In support of this 
contention, NHCI cites the Department's notice of proposed rule in 
which the Department stated that, with respect to the new changes 
concerning intervening years, it would require a certification 
regarding sales in commercial quantities. See Antidumping Duties; 
Countervailing Duties; Proposed Rule, 61 FR 7308, 7320 (February 27, 
1996) (``Proposed Rule''). The respondent notes that the certification 
was promulgated into the final regulations with respect to revocations 
based on an intervening year through section 351.222(d)(1), which 
states that the Department ``must be satisfied that, during each of the 
three (or five) years, there were exports to the United States in 
commercial quantities. * * *''
    NHCI agrees that such an analysis is reasonable in the case of a 
request based on unreviewed intervening years because a revocation of 
the antidumping duty order is weaker when based on only two, rather 
than three, years of sales above normal value. The respondent notes 
that the Department has reasoned that if sales are made in commercial 
quantities during an intervening year in which no review was requested, 
it is reasonable to conclude that the sales were not dumped because, if 
they had been, the domestic industry would have requested a review. 
Thus, according to the respondent, if reviews have taken place in each 
year upon which a revocation request is made, a commercial quantities 
analysis has no relevance. Rather, the fact that sales have been made 
above normal value each year is the relevant factor.
    Magcorp argues that the Department's requirement that sales have 
been made in commercial quantities applies to all respondents 
requesting revocation of an antidumping order, regardless of whether an 
unreviewed intervening year has taken place. The petitioner cites to 
section 351.222(e)(1)(ii) of the Department's regulations which states 
that a request for revocation must include the person's certification 
that, during each of the consecutive years, the person sold the subject 
merchandise to the United States in commercial quantities. According to 
the petitioner, the Department's regulations create a first step that 
must be met before the Department will consider revocation and is not 
limited to the situation of an unreviewed year. Magcorp cites to the 
fifth administrative review of this antidumping order (see Pure 
Magnesium From Canada; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review and Determination Not to Revoke Order in Part, 64 FR 12977 
(March 16, 1999) (``Fifth Review'')) and to Certain Corrosion-Resistant 
Carbon Steel Flat Products and Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate 
from Canada: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 
and Determination to Revoke in Part (64 FR 2173 (January 13, 1999)) 
(``Corrosion-Resistant Steel from Canada''), in which the Department 
did not revoke the antidumping duty order with respect to companies 
that had sold above normal value for three consecutive years because 
such sales were not made in commercial quantities. While the petitioner 
recognizes that the Department's prior regulations did not address the 
volume of subject imports with respect to revocation, Magcorp argues 
that the Department now views sales in commercial quantities to be 
essential for revoking an order.
    Department's Position: As noted above, we have developed a 
procedure for revocation that is described in 19 CFR 351.222. This 
regulation requires that a company requesting revocation must submit a 
certification that the company sold the subject merchandise in 
commercial quantities in each of the three years forming the basis of 
the request. Therefore, we must determine, as a threshold matter, in 
accordance with our regulations, whether the company requesting 
revocation sold the subject merchandise in commercial quantities in 
each of the three years forming the basis of the request. See Fifth 
Review at 12978. In the Preliminary Results, we found that NHCI does 
not qualify for revocation of the order on pure magnesium because it 
did not have three consecutive years of sales in commercial quantities 
at not less than normal value. We based this finding on the fact that 
two of the three years of sales NHCI is relying upon to support its 
request for revocation were not made in commercial quantities. 
Specifically, in the Fifth Review we determined that NHCI did not sell 
the subject merchandise in the United States in commercial quantities 
in any of the three years cited by NHCI to support its request for 
revocation. Because NHCI has used two of those three years to support 
its current request for revocation and the facts have not otherwise 
changed, we determine that NHCI has not met the threshold criterion 
outlined in section 351.222 of our regulations requiring sales in 
commercial quantities in each of the

[[Page 50491]]

three years forming the basis of the revocation request. See Commercial 
Quantities Memorandum.
    We also note that while the regulation requiring sales in 
commercial quantities may have developed from the unreviewed 
intervening year regulation, its application in all revocation cases 
based on an absence of dumping is reasonable and mandated by the 
regulations. The application of this requirement to all such cases is 
reflected not only in the provision for unreviewed intervening years 
(see 19 CFR 351.222(d)(1)), but also in the new general requirement 
that parties seeking revocation certify to sales in commercial 
quantities in each of the years on which revocation is to be based. See 
19 CFR 351.222(e)(1)(ii). This requirement ensures that the 
Department's revocation determination is based upon a sufficient 
breadth of information regarding a company's normal commercial 
practice. In this case the number of sales and the total sales volumes 
for at least two of the three years are so small, both in absolute 
terms and in comparison with the period of investigation and other 
review periods, that we do not have sufficient information regarding 
the company's normal commercial behavior to make a revocation decision. 
If sales levels are not reflective of a company's normal commercial 
activities, they can offer no basis upon which to make a revocation 
determination, regardless of whether we conducted a review of the sales 
in question or the sales took place in an intervening year. See, e.g., 
Corrosion-Resistant Steel from Canada at 2175.

Comment 2: Impermissible Change in Revocation Procedure

    NHCI argues that the Department's practice of reviewing whether 
sales have taken place in commercial quantities in all three revocation 
review years constitutes an impermissible substantive change to the 
Department's longstanding revocation practice. According to the 
respondent, the Department expressly stated in its Proposed Rule (at 
7319) that it intended there to be no substantive change in its new 
revocation regulations. NHCI notes that this understanding was also 
reflected in the Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and Determination Not to Revoke Order in Part: 
Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors of One Megabyte or Above 
From the Republic of Korea, 62 FR 39809, 39810 (July 24, 1997) (``DRAMS 
from Korea''), where the Department said that its final regulations did 
not change the previous revocation requirements.
    The respondent further argues that, up to this point, the 
development of the Department's revocation procedure has been in the 
direction of examining positive evidence indicating the absence of 
unfair price discrimination. According to NHCI, the Department must 
review sales to make this evaluation but the number of sales or sales 
volume from one year to the next has nothing to do with whether 
specific sales are evidence of unfair price discrimination. The 
respondent notes that when the Department has considered the volume of 
a respondent's shipments it has done so in the context of determining 
whether future dumping was likely. NHCI contends that the Department's 
threshold criterion of requiring sales in commercial quantities results 
in the Department ignoring positive evidence of unfair price 
discrimination and that this approach constitutes an impermissible 
substantive change to the Department's longstanding revocation 
practice.
    Department's Position: As noted in the preamble, our substantive 
criteria for revocation (i.e., an absence of dumping for three years 
and no continuing necessity for application of the order--the 
likelihood issue) have not changed. However, the new regulations do 
establish a new criterion for requesting revocation. Specifically, we 
now require a company requesting revocation to have sold the subject 
merchandise in commercial quantities during the three periods on which 
the revocation request is based, and to certify to that effect. Unless 
this criterion is met, we do not consider the revocation request. 
However, where it is met, we consider all relevant positive evidence in 
making our revocation decision.

Comment 3: Meeting the Commercial Quantities Threshold

    NHCI argues that, even if a commercial quantities analysis is 
warranted, it has made sales to the United States in commercial 
quantities for at least three consecutive years. Specifically, the 
respondent contends that the term ``commercial quantities'' refers not 
to the number or volume of sales, but to whether any individual sale 
was a normal size transaction for the industry. In support of this 
argument, respondent points to the proposed regulations in which the 
Department states that it will ``establish whether sales were made in 
commercial quantities based upon examination of the normal sizes of 
sales by the producer/exporter and other producers of subject 
merchandise.'' (See Proposed Regulations at 7320.) Respondent believes 
that the Department never intended to consider the aggregate volume of 
sales made throughout the POR. Rather, NHCI argues, the concept of 
commercial quantities was included in the regulations to ensure that 
individual sales were bona fide sales that demonstrated the exporter's 
ability to sell to U.S. customers without dumping in ordinary 
transactions (as opposed to sales of samples or prototypes).
    Given this interpretation of commercial quantities, the respondent 
argues that its sales were made in commercial quantities because they 
were characteristic of NHCI's normal commercial practice and the 
industry standard. Specifically, NHCI states that its spot sales in 
both the U.S. and home markets involved commercial volumes consistent 
with the normal size of sales within the industry in general. 
Furthermore, NHCI argues that the sales examined in the last three 
years of this proceeding were found by the Department to be sales made 
in the ordinary course of trade and were not found to be samples nor 
prototypes nor ``noncommercial'' in any other sense.
    Magcorp argues that NHCI's sales to the United States during the 
last three review periods were far too small to be considered 
commercial quantities. The petitioner contends that the concept of 
commercial quantities refers to the aggregate volume of sales made by a 
respondent over the course of the entire period of review (``POR'') and 
not to the size of a single sale. In support of this argument, 
petitioner claims that there would be no reason for the requirement of 
commercial quantities in 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1)(ii) if the term merely 
referred to the existence of any sale recognizable as a U.S. sale for 
calculating an antidumping margin because there would be no reason for 
the Department to ask a respondent to certify a fact that has already 
been established. Under this definition of commercial quantities, the 
petitioner states that NHCI's sales during the three years in question 
have been negligible throughout the period, noting that in one of the 
years NHCI only had one U.S. sale.
    The petitioner further argues that only if a respondent's sales are 
sufficiently large will a zero dumping margin offer any valid 
indication that the respondent can continue to export the subject 
merchandise to the United States at normal prices if the antidumping 
duty order were revoked. The petitioner refers to the preamble of the 
final regulations in which the Department states that a revocation 
based on the absence of dumping is based on the fact

[[Page 50492]]

that when a respondent sells in commercial quantities without dumping 
it has demonstrated that it will not resume dumping if the order is 
revoked (see Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule 
(``Final Regulations''), 62 FR 27296, 27326 (May 19, 1997)).
    Department's Position: In the Fifth Review, we determined that NHCI 
did not sell the subject merchandise in the United States in commercial 
quantities in any of the three years cited by NHCI to support its 
request for revocation. Specifically, NHCI made one sale in two of the 
relevant years and two sales in the other. We determined that one or 
two sales to the United States during a one year period was neither 
consistent with NHCI's selling activity prior to the order nor NHCI's 
selling activity in the home market. Specifically, we stated that,

for each year, the volume of merchandise sold was less than one-half 
of one percent of the volume of merchandise sold in the last 
completed fiscal year prior to the order. These sales and volume 
figures are so small, both in absolute terms and in comparison with 
the period of investigation, that we cannot reasonably conclude that 
the zero margins NHCI received are reflective of the company's 
normal commercial experience. More specifically, the abnormally low 
level of sales activity does not provide a reasonable basis for 
determining that the discipline of the order is no longer necessary 
to offset dumping.

(See Fifth Review at 12978.) Two of the 3 years examined in the Fifth 
Review have been cited by NHCI in support of its current request for 
revocation. Because no party has submitted information indicating that 
the facts relied upon in the Fifth Review have changed, we continue to 
find that NHCI does not qualify for revocation because it does not have 
three consecutive years of sales in commercial quantities.
    We disagree with NHCI's argument that the commercial quantities 
criterion requires only that there be a bona fide commercial 
transaction during a given period. As the Department recently 
explained, ``sales during the POR which, in the aggregate, are an 
abnormally small quantity do not provide a reasonable basis for 
determining that the discipline of the order is no longer necessary to 
offset dumping'' (see Corrosion-Resistant Steel from Canada at 2175). 
As the record of this case demonstrates, NHCI did not sell the subject 
merchandise in the United States in commercial quantities in at least 
two of the three years cited by NHCI to support its request for 
revocation. Regardless of the bona fide nature of each transaction, 
these sales, in the aggregate, are abnormally small in quantity and do 
not provide the Department with a reasonable basis to make a revocation 
determination. Furthermore, we agree with the petitioner that if 
commercial quantities related to the bona fide nature of the sales, the 
commercial quantities requirement in our regulations would be 
redundant.

Comment 4: Revocation Following a Drop-Off in Sales

    NHCI argues that the Department is effectively disqualifying 
companies from revocation if there is a sales drop-off following the 
imposition of an antidumping duty order. NHCI contends that, in 
situations where a sales drop-off has occurred, aggregate sales will 
appear ``abnormally small'' when compared to the aggregate sales made 
prior to the imposition of the order. However, the respondent states 
that there is no requirement in the Department's regulations that a 
company maintain a certain number of sales, market share, or sales 
volume after imposition of an order to qualify for revocation and that 
such a requirement is unreasonable and inappropriate because it has 
nothing to do with a company's pricing practice.
    Department's Position: The Department's threshold requirement does 
not mean, as NHCI suggests, that the Department is effectively 
disqualifying companies from revocation if there is a sales drop-off 
following the imposition of an antidumping order. The issue that is 
analyzed by the Department is the magnitude of the drop-off. In this 
regard, the Department has expressed its intent to revoke an 
antidumping duty order even where the sales drop-off has been 
substantial so long as the sales used to demonstrate a lack of price 
discrimination are reflective of the companies' normal commercial 
experience. See, e.g., Professional Electric Cutting Tools from Japan: 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Administrative Review and Intent to 
Revoke in Part, 64 FR 43346, 43351 (August 10, 1999).
    When determining whether a company's sales have been made in 
commercial quantities we must look at each case on an individual basis. 
In many instances, when making such an assessment we will use the 
original period of investigation as a benchmark for a company's normal 
commercial behavior. The period of investigation is a logical and 
reasonable benchmark for this assessment, especially given that it is 
the only time period for which we have evidence concerning the 
company's normal commercial behavior with respect to exports to the 
United States without the discipline of an antidumping duty order. As 
demonstrated in the Commercial Quantities Memorandum, we have 
determined that NHCI's sales during the fourth and fifth review periods 
were not reflective of its normal commercial behavior.

Comment 5: Commercial Quantities Threshold Conflicts with WTO Agreement

    The respondent argues that the Department's preliminary analysis is 
inconsistent with the 1994 WTO Antidumping Agreement because Article 
11.1 of this agreement states that an antidumping duty ``shall remain 
in force only as long as and to the extent necessary to counteract 
dumping which is causing injury.'' Respondent supports this position by 
noting that in a recent decision a WTO panel found that the ``continued 
imposition [of an antidumping duty] must * * * be essentially dependent 
on, and therefore assignable to, a foundation of positive evidence that 
circumstances demand it'' (see DRAMS Panel). NHCI states that the 
Department's application of a commercial quantities threshold in this 
proceeding is in direct violation of the positive evidence rule set 
forth in the DRAMS Panel because the Department has determined to keep 
the order in place after refusing to consider any positive evidence.
    Department's Position: The Department's revocation procedures are 
fully consistent with Article 11 of the WTO Antidumping Agreement. 
Consistent with the Agreement, under U.S. law, the Department is not 
required to review whether application of an order continues to be 
necessary unless there is positive evidence that such a review is 
warranted. Under the Department's regulations, three years of sales in 
commercial quantities at not less than normal value is the minimum 
evidence required to establish that a revocation review is warranted. 
This evidentiary threshold is reasonable because, as discussed above, 
absent commercially meaningful sales, we do not have a sufficient basis 
to make a reasoned judgement as to revocation. Moreover, while this 
specific evidentiary threshold was not at issue in the DRAMS Panel, it 
is in no way inconsistent with the Panel's findings.

Comment 6: Likelihood of Future Dumping

    In addition to their arguments respecting the commercial quantities 
threshold requirement, both the petitioner and the respondent submitted

[[Page 50493]]

comments, in the alternative, on the likelihood of future dumping.
    Department's Position: Because we have determined that NHCI is not 
eligible for revocation, based on the fact that it did not make sales 
in commercial quantities during the three year period being analyzed, 
we do not reach the likelihood of future dumping issue.

Final Results of Review

    As a result of this review, we find that the following margin 
exists for the period August 1, 1997, through July 31, 1998:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Manufacturer/exporter                  Period         Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Norsk Hydro Canada Inc....................     8/1/96-7/31/97          0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of 
antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the review and 
for future deposits of estimated duties for the manufacturers/exporters 
subject to this review. The Department will issue appraisement 
instructions directly to the Customs Service.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective 
for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of these 
final results of this new shipper administrative review, as provided by 
section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for the 
reviewed company will be the rate indicated above; (2) for companies 
not covered in this review, but covered in previous reviews or the 
original less-than-fair-value investigation, the cash deposit rate will 
continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent 
period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a 
prior review, or the original investigation, but the manufacturer is, 
the cash deposit rate will be the most recent rate established for the 
manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) if neither the exporter nor 
the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous review or 
the original investigation, the cash deposit rate will be the ``all 
others'' rate of 21 percent established in the amended final 
determination of sales at less than fair value (58 FR 62643 (November 
29, 1993)).
    These deposit requirements will remain in effect until publication 
of the final results of the next administrative review.
    This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding 
the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the 
relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this 
requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective orders (``APOs'') of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.306. Timely written notification of 
the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial 
protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the 
regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
    We are issuing and publishing this administrative review and notice 
in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 771(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: September 8, 1999.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-24302 Filed 9-16-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P