[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