[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 214 (Friday, November 5, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60417-60422]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-29059]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-201-504]


Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware From Mexico: Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

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

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of antidumping duty 
administrative review.

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

SUMMARY: In response to a request by the petitioner, Columbian Home 
Products, LLC (formerly General Housewares Corporation), the Department 
of Commerce is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping 
duty order on porcelain-on-steel cookware from Mexico. This review 
covers Cinsa, S.A. de C.V. and Esmaltaciones de Norte America, S.A. de 
C.V., manufacturers/exporters of the subject merchandise to the United 
States. The twelfth period of review is December 1, 1997, through 
November 30, 1998.
    We preliminarily determine that sales have been made below normal 
value. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results. If

[[Page 60418]]

these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of 
administrative review, we will instruct the Customs Service to assess 
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 5, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate Johnson or Rebecca Trainor, 
Office 2, AD/CVD Enforcement Group I, Import Administration-Room B099, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 
(202) 482-4929 or 482-4007, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute

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

Background

    On October 10, 1986, the Department published in the Federal 
Register, 51 FR 36435, the final affirmative antidumping duty 
determination on certain porcelain-on-steel (POS) cookware from Mexico. 
We published an antidumping duty order on December 2, 1986, 51 FR 
43415.
    On December 8, 1998, the Department published in the Federal 
Register a notice advising of the opportunity to request an 
administrative review of this order for the period December 1, 1997, 
through November 30, 1998 (the POR), 63 FR 67646. The Department 
received a request for an administrative review of Cinsa, S.A. de C.V. 
(Cinsa) and Esmaltaciones de Norte America, S.A. de C.V. (ENASA) from 
Columbian Home Products, LLC (CHP), formerly General Housewares 
Corporation (GHC) (hereinafter, the petitioner). We published a notice 
of initiation of the review on January 25, 1999, 64 FR 3682. The 
Department is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a) 
of the Act.

Scope of the Review

    The products covered by this review are porcelain-on-steel 
cookware, including tea kettles, which do not have self-contained 
electric heating elements. All of the foregoing are constructed of 
steel and are enameled or glazed with vitreous glasses. This 
merchandise is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule 
of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 7323.94.00. Kitchenware 
currently classifiable under HTSUS subheading 7323.94.00.30 is not 
subject to the order. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for 
convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope 
of this proceeding is dispositive.

Allegation of Reimbursement

    For the reasons discussed below, the Department has preliminarily 
determined that the producers/exporters, Cinsa and ENASA, will 
reimburse their affiliated importer Cinsa International Corporation 
(CIC) for antidumping duties assessed on entries of POS cookware from 
Mexico made during this review period. As a result of this 
determination, we deducted from the export price (EP) and constructed 
export price (CEP) the amount of the antidumping duty that we 
preliminarily found for Cinsa and ENASA for this review period in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.402 (1998).
    In the eleventh review of this order, we found that Cinsa and ENASA 
had reimbursed CIC for antidumping duties through a capital infusion 
provided to CIC, through a holding company, by their common parent 
company, Grupo Industrial Saltillo (``GIS''). We found that, in making 
this transfer of funds dedicated to the payment of antidumping duties, 
GIS acted on behalf of Cinsa and ENASA, such that the transfer may be 
attributed to those two firms. See Porcelain-On-Steel Cookware from 
Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 64 FR 
26934, 26936-37 (May 18, 1999) (``POS Cookware'').
    The Department has previously stated that ``where the Department 
determines in the final results of an administrative review that an 
exporter or producer has engaged in the practice of reimbursing the 
importer, the Department will presume that the company has continued to 
engage in such activity in subsequent reviews, absent a demonstration 
to the contrary.'' See Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products 
From the Netherlands: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 63 FR 13204, 13213 (March 18, 1998) (``Dutch Steel''). ``The 
establishment of a rebuttable presumption allows the Department to 
administer the law fairly and effectively.'' See Dutch Steel, 63 FR at 
13214. ``The Department's policy is crafted to address the instances in 
which there has been a finding of reimbursement and the importer is 
financially unable to pay the duty on its own. In that circumstance, 
the Department will determine that the importer must continue to rely 
on reimbursements, such as intracorporate transfers, from the producer 
or exporter in order to meet its obligations to pay the duties.'' Id.
    We gave Cinsa and ENASA an opportunity to submit factual 
information to rebut the presumption of reimbursement with respect to 
current review entries. To rebut the presumption that reimbursement 
will continue to take place when current entries are liquidated, a 
respondent must normally demonstrate that, during the POR in question 
(in this case the 12th POR), antidumping duties were assessed against 
the affiliated importer and the affiliated importer did in fact pay all 
antidumping duties assessed during that POR, without reimbursement, 
directly or indirectly, by the exporter/producer. See POS Cookware, 64 
FR at 26938. In such a case, the importer's financial ability to pay 
antidumping duties during the current POR is sufficient evidence of the 
importer's ability, without reimbursement, to pay the antidumping 
duties to be assessed on entries during the current review. Id. 
Alternatively, respondents may rebut the presumption by demonstrating 
that there are changed circumstances (e.g., completed corporate 
restructuring) sufficient to obviate the need for reimbursement of 
antidumping duties to be assessed on the entries under review. Id.; see 
also Dutch Steel, 63 FR at 13213.
    In order to establish that CIC is no longer being reimbursed for 
antidumping duties and that changed circumstances exist sufficient to 
obviate the need for reimbursement as to twelfth review entries when 
they are liquidated, respondents submitted the following:
    1. The relevant pages of CIC's general ledger from year-end 1997 
and 1998 showing that CIC's capital account did not change during 1998. 
Respondents also submitted the January 1999 general ledger page showing 
the return of the April 1997 capital contribution upon which the 
Department's finding of reimbursement was based in the prior review.
    2. Recent audited financial data for 1998 showing CIC's earnings 
and profit margin for that year and interim financial data for the 
first half of 1999, as well as projected figures through 2002.
    3. A statement that CIC has ceased being the importer of record for 
POS cookware imported from Mexico effective September 1, 1999. 
Respondents state that Cinsa is now the importer of record of the 
subject merchandise, with title passing to CIC

[[Page 60419]]

after the merchandise clears Customs. They claim that the result of 
this restructuring is to eliminate the cost to CIC of posting the 
estimated antidumping duty deposits, and thus to increase the 
profitability of CIC.
    4. A statement that, in August 1, 1999, CIC will begin to market a 
new line of products in the U.S. and Canada that will further enhance 
CIC's profitability, and information in support of the level of income 
they expect to realize from this new line.
    We find that the information that Cinsa and ENASA have submitted 
fails to satisfactorily demonstrate changed circumstances sufficient to 
obviate the need for reimbursement of CIC as to twelfth-review entries 
when they are liquidated. The primary basis of Cinsa and ENASA's 
argument that CIC is financially self-sufficient and will not need 
assistance to pay antidumping duties are sales projections which 
contrast markedly with CIC's actual performance in 1999 versus its 
performance in 1998. In addition, the limited actual financial data on 
the record is insufficient to enable us to determine that CIC's 
resources will be adequate to cover the liquidation of twelfth review 
entries. Because much of this information is business proprietary, it 
is discussed more fully in the November 1, 1999, Analysis Memorandum 
for the Preliminary Results (Analysis Memo). We will continue to 
evaluate whether CIC will have the financial capacity to independently 
meet its antidumping duty obligations and, in so doing, will solicit 
additional financial data from CIC when it becomes available for 
purposes of the final results. Furthermore, we will revisit our 
interpretation of the reimbursement regulation as it applies to this 
case.
    Accordingly, based on our finding that the respondents have failed 
to satisfactorily rebut the presumption of reimbursement established in 
the eleventh review of this order, we preliminarily presume that 
antidumping duties to be assessed on twelfth-review entries will be 
reimbursed as well. Therefore, in accordance with our regulations, we 
deducted from EP and CEP the amount of the antidumping duty that we 
preliminarily found for Cinsa and ENASA for this review period.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of POS cookware by Cinsa and ENASA to 
the United States were made at less than normal value (NV), we compared 
EP or CEP to the NV, as described in the ``Export Price and Constructed 
Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice.
    Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2), we compared the EPs or CEPs of 
individual U.S. transactions to the weighted-average NV of the foreign 
like product where there were sales made in the ordinary course of 
trade at prices above the cost of production (COP), as discussed in the 
``Cost of Production Analysis'' section, below.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all 
products produced by Cinsa and ENASA covered by the description in the 
``Scope of the Review'' section, above, to be foreign like products for 
purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. 
We compared U.S. sales to sales made in the home market within the 
contemporaneous window period, which extends from three months prior to 
the U.S. sale until two months after the sale. Where there were no 
sales of identical merchandise in the home market made in the ordinary 
course of trade to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to 
sales of the most similar foreign like product made in the ordinary 
course of trade. In making the product comparisons, we compared 
individual cookware pieces with identical or similar pieces, and 
cookware sets to identical or similar sets. Within these groupings, we 
matched foreign like products based on the physical characteristics 
reported by the respondents in the following order: quality, gauge, 
cookware category, model, shape, wall shape, diameter, width, capacity, 
weight, interior coating, exterior coating, grade of frit (a material 
component of enamel), color, decoration, and cover, if any.

Export Price and Constructed Export Price

    For certain sales made by Cinsa, we calculated EP in accordance 
with section 772(a) of the Act, because the subject merchandise was 
sold directly to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States 
prior to importation and because CEP methodology was not otherwise 
indicated. We based EP on packed prices to unaffiliated purchasers in 
the United States. We made deductions from the starting price, where 
appropriate, for billing adjustments, U.S. and foreign inland freight, 
U.S. and Mexican brokerage and handling expenses, and U.S. duty in 
accordance with section 772(c)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.402(a). We 
reclassified pre-sale warehousing expenses, that were incorrectly 
reported by the respondents as movement expenses, as factory overhead 
expenses, based on information in the questionnaire response and in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(e)(2). We also deducted the amount of 
antidumping duties reimbursed to CIC by Cinsa and ENASA, consistent 
with our reimbursement finding discussed above. (See Calculation 
Memorandum dated November 1, 1999) (Calculation Memo).
    For the CEP sales made by Cinsa and ENASA during the POR, we 
calculated CEP in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, because 
the subject merchandise was first sold by CIC in the United States. We 
reclassified as CEP certain sales sold by U.S. agents that Cinsa 
reported as EP sales, because the limited information on the record 
indicates that the merchandise was first sold (or agreed to be sold) by 
CIC after importation into the United States. See Calculation Memo for 
further details. We excluded ENASA's sample sales from the margin 
calculation, in accordance with NSK, Ltd. v. United States, 115 F.3d 
965, 975 (Fed. Cir. 1997). We based CEP on packed prices to 
unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made deductions from 
the starting price, where appropriate, for billing adjustments, 
discounts, U.S. and foreign inland freight, U.S. and Mexican brokerage 
and handling expenses, and U.S. duty in accordance with section 
772(c)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.402(a). We reclassified pre-sale 
warehousing expenses, that were incorrectly reported by the respondents 
as movement expenses, as a factory overhead expenses, based on 
information in the questionnaire response and in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.401(e)(2). We recalculated respondents' reported inventory carrying 
costs because respondents did not use the Department's standard 
methodology to report these expenses in their questionnaire response. 
See Calculation Memo.
    We made further deductions, where appropriate, for credit, 
commissions, repacking expenses, warehousing expenses, and indirect 
selling expenses that were associated with economic activities 
occurring in the United States pursuant to section 772(d)(1) of the Act 
and 19 CFR 351.402(b). For those home market sales for which the 
payment date was not reported, we calculated credit based on the 
average number of days between shipment and payment using the sales for 
which payment information was reported. We recalculated CIC's indirect 
selling expenses to include bad debt and depreciation expenses. For 
purposes of calculating the indirect

[[Page 60420]]

selling expense ratio, we also reallocated certain of CIC's total 
expenses pertaining only to the CEP sales over the total sales value 
excluding the value of EP sales. See Calculation Memo. We performed 
this reallocation because CIC performs limited sales-related functions 
with respect to EP sales and equal allocation of all CIC expenses 
across all U.S. sales in which CIC is involved would disproportionately 
shift these costs from CEP to EP sales. Finally, we made an adjustment 
for profit in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act. We also 
deducted the amount of antidumping duties to be reimbursed to CIC by 
Cinsa and ENASA, consistent with our reimbursement finding discussed 
above. See Calculation Memo.

Normal Value

    Based on a comparison of the aggregate quantity of home market and 
U.S. sales, we determined that the quantity of the foreign like product 
sold in the exporting country was sufficient to permit a proper 
comparison with the sales of the subject merchandise to the United 
States, pursuant to section 773(a) of the Act. Therefore, we based NV 
on the price (exclusive of value-added tax) at which the foreign like 
product was first sold for consumption in the home market, in 
accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, as noted below.

Level of Trade and CEP Offset

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent 
practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at 
the same level of trade (LOT) as the EP or CEP transaction. The NV LOT 
is that of the starting-price sales in the comparison market or, when 
NV is based on CV, that of the sales from which we derive selling, 
general and administrative (SG&A) expenses and profit. For EP, the U.S. 
LOT is also the level of the starting-price sale, which is usually from 
the exporter to an unaffiliated U.S. customer. For CEP, it is the level 
of the constructed sale from the exporter to an affiliated importer, 
after the deductions required under section 772(d) of the Act. To 
determine whether NV sales are at a LOT different from EP or CEP, we 
examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the 
chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated 
customer. If the comparison-market sales are at a different LOT, and 
the difference affects price comparability, as manifested in a pattern 
of consistent price differences between the sales on which NV is based 
and comparison-market sales at the LOT of the export transaction, we 
make an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. For CEP 
sales, if the NV level is more remote from the factory than the CEP 
level, and there is no basis for determining whether the difference in 
the levels between NV and CEP affects price comparability, we adjust NV 
under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEP offset provision). See 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain 
Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa, 62 FR 61731 
(November 19, 1997).
    In this review, Cinsa and ENASA reported that comparison-market and 
CEP sales were made at different LOTs, and that comparison-market sales 
were made at a more advanced LOT than were Cinsa's sales to CIC in the 
United States. The respondents requested that the Department make a CEP 
offset in lieu of an LOT adjustment, as they were unable to quantify 
the price differences related to sales made at the different LOTs. 
Respondents made no claim for differences in LOT between comparison-
market and EP sales.
    Cinsa and ENASA reported four channels of distribution in the home 
market: (1) Direct sales to customers from the Saltillo plant, (2) 
sales shipped from their Mexico city warehouse, (3) sales shipped from 
their Guadalajara warehouse, and (4) sales shipped to discount stores. 
In analyzing the data in the home market sales listing by distribution 
channel and sales function, we found that the four home market channels 
did not differ significantly with respect to selling functions. Similar 
services were offered to all or some portion of customers in each 
channel. Based on this analysis, we find that the four home market 
channels of distribution comprise a single LOT.
    Cinsa made both EP and CEP sales in the U.S. market during the POR, 
while ENASA made only CEP sales in the U.S. market. The EP sales were 
made by the exporter to the unaffiliated customer, who received the 
merchandise at the border between Mexico and the United States (FOB 
Laredo, Texas). As Cinsa did not provide the selling function 
information necessary to evaluate LOT(s) associated with EP sales in 
response to the Department's questionnaire, we have not performed a LOT 
analysis for purposes of making a LOT adjustment for any differences 
between comparison-market and EP sales.
    All CEP sales were made through the same distribution channel: By 
the Mexican exporter to CIC, the U.S. affiliated reseller, who then 
sold the merchandise directly to unaffiliated purchasers in the United 
States. The same selling functions/services were provided by Cinsa and 
ENASA to all customers in this distribution channel. Therefore, we 
preliminarily determine that all CEP sales constitute a single LOT in 
the United States.
    To determine whether sales in the comparison market were at a 
different LOT than CEP sales, we examined the selling functions 
performed at the CEP level, after making the appropriate deductions 
under section 772(d) of the Act, and compared those selling functions 
to the selling functions performed in the home market LOT.
    In the comparison market, Cinsa and ENASA sold subject merchandise 
to their affiliated sales organization, COMESCO, which then resold the 
POS product to unaffiliated customers. In the United States, Cinsa sold 
its and ENASA's subject merchandise to its affiliate, CIC, which then 
sold the subject merchandise directly to unaffiliated purchasers. 
Therefore, we compared the selling functions and the level of activity 
associated with Cinsa's sales to CIC with the sales by COMESCO to 
unaffiliated purchasers in the Mexican market. We found that several of 
the functions performed in making the starting price sale in the 
comparison market either were not performed in connection with sales to 
CIC (e.g., market research, order solicitation, after sale services/
warranties, and advertising), or were only performed to a small degree 
in connection with sales to CIC (e.g. inventory maintenance), thus 
supporting respondents' contention that different LOTs exist between 
comparison-market and CEP sales.
    These differences also support the respondents' assertion that the 
comparison-market merchandise is sold at a more advanced LOT (see the 
Preamble to the Department's Regulations, 62 FR 27295, 27371 (May 19, 
1997)) (``Each more remote level must be characterized by an additional 
layer of selling activities, amounting in the aggregate to a 
substantially different selling function.'') Furthermore, many of the 
same selling functions that are performed at the comparison-market LOT 
are performed, not at the CEP LOT, but by the respondents' U.S. 
affiliate. Based on this analysis, we preliminarily conclude that the 
comparison-market and CEP channels of distribution are sufficiently 
different to determine that two different LOTs exist, and that the 
comparison-market sales are made at a more advanced LOT than are the 
CEP sales.
    As there is no comparison-market LOT that is comparable to that in 
the

[[Page 60421]]

United States, we have no basis for determining whether the difference 
in LOTs affects price comparability. Therefore, we made a CEP offset to 
NV. In accordance with section 773(a)(7) of the Act, we calculated the 
CEP offset as the lesser of the following:
    1. The indirect selling expenses on the comparison-market sale, or
    2. The indirect selling expenses deducted from the starting price 
in calculating CEP.

Cost of Production Analysis

    The Department disregarded certain sales made by Cinsa and ENASA 
for the period December 1, 1996, through November 30, 1997 (the most 
recently completed review of Cinsa and ENASA), pursuant to a finding in 
that review that sales were made below cost. Thus, in accordance with 
section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, there are reasonable grounds to 
believe or suspect that respondents Cinsa and ENASA made sales in the 
home market at prices below the cost of producing the merchandise in 
the current review period. As a result, the Department initiated 
investigations to determine whether the respondents made home market 
sales during the POR at prices below their COP within the meaning of 
section 773(b) of the Act.

A. Calculation of COP

    We calculated the COP on a product-specific basis, based on the sum 
of Cinsa's and ENASA's cost of materials and fabrication for the 
foreign like product, plus amounts for home market SG&A and packing 
costs in accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act. Because Cinsa 
and ENASA reported monthly costs, we created an annual average COP on a 
product-specific basis.
    We relied on COP information submitted by Cinsa and ENASA, except 
in the following instances where it was not appropriately quantified or 
valued: (1) Frit prices from an affiliated supplier did not approximate 
fair market value prices; therefore, we increased Cinsa's and ENASA's 
frit prices to account for the portion of the reported cost savings to 
affiliated parties which was not due to market-based savings; (2) we 
recalculated Cinsa's depreciation expenses to account for idle assets; 
(3) we excluded Cinsa's and ENASA's negative interest expense; (4) for 
sales reported without COP data, we assigned the weighted-average COP 
reported for other sales in the database; and (5) we reclassified pre-
sale warehousing expenses, that were incorrectly reported by the 
respondents as movement expenses, as factory overhead expenses.

B. Test of Home Market Prices

    We compared the weighted-average, per-unit COP figures for the POR 
to home market sales of the foreign like product, as required by 
section 773(b) of the Act, in order to determine whether these sales 
were made at prices below the COP. In determining whether to disregard 
home market sales made at prices below the COP, we examined whether: 
(1) within an extended period of time, such sales were made in 
substantial quantities; and (2) such sales were made at prices which 
permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. 
On a product-specific basis, we compared the COP (net of selling 
expenses) to the home market prices, less any applicable movement 
charges, rebates, discounts, and direct and indirect selling expenses.

C. Results of COP Test

    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C), where less than 20 percent of the 
respondent's sales of a given product were at prices less than the COP, 
we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because we 
determined that the below-cost sales were not made in ``substantial 
quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of the respondent's sales of a 
given product during the POR were at prices less than the COP, we 
disregarded the below-cost sales where such sales were found to be made 
at prices which would not permit the recovery of all costs within a 
reasonable period of time (in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of 
the Act).
    The results of our cost tests for Cinsa and ENASA indicated for 
certain home market models, less than twenty percent of the sales of 
the model were at prices below COP. We therefore retained all sales of 
these models in our analysis and used them as the basis for determining 
NV. Our cost tests also indicated that for certain other home market 
models more than twenty percent of home market sales within an extended 
period of time were at prices below COP and would not permit the full 
recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. In accordance 
with section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we therefore excluded the below-cost 
sales of these models from our analysis and used the remaining sales as 
the basis for determining NV.

Price-to-Price Comparisons

    For both of the respondents, we calculated NV based on the VAT-
exclusive, home market gross unit price and deducted, where 
appropriate, inland freight, and early payment discounts in accordance 
with section 773(a)(6) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.401. We reclassified 
pre-sale warehousing expenses, that were incorrectly reported by the 
respondents as movement expenses, as a factory overhead expenses, based 
on information in the questionnaire response and in accordance with 19 
CFR 351.401(e)(2).
    For comparisons to Cinsa's EP sales, we made a circumstance-of-sale 
adjustment, where appropriate, for differences in credit expenses 
pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410(c). 
For comparisons to Cinsa's and ENASA's CEP sales, we also deducted from 
NV credit expenses, commissions, and the lesser of comparison-market 
indirect selling expenses and the indirect selling expenses deducted 
from CEP (the CEP offset) pursuant to section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act 
and 19 CFR 351.412(f). For those comparison-market sales for which the 
payment date was not reported, we calculated credit based on the 
average number of days between shipment and payment using the sales for 
which payment information was reported. We made adjustments to NV for 
differences in packing expenses. We also made adjustments to NV, where 
appropriate, for differences in costs attributable to differences in 
the physical characteristics of the merchandise, pursuant to section 
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411.

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions in accordance with section 773A of the 
Act based on the official exchange rates in effect on the dates of the 
U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the 
weighted-average dumping margins for the period December 1, 1997, 
through November 30, 1998, are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Manufacturer/exporter                 Period            Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cinsa................................      12/1/97-11/30/98        16.89
ENASA................................      12/1/97-11/30/98        54.59
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 60422]]

    We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties 
to this proceeding within five days of the publication date of this 
notice. See 19 CFR 351.224(b). Any interested party may request a 
hearing within 30 days of publication. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). If 
requested, a hearing will be held 44 days after the publication of this 
notice, or the first workday thereafter.
    Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the 
respective case briefs and rebuttal briefs. Case briefs from interested 
parties and rebuttal briefs, limited to the issues raised in the 
respective case briefs, may be submitted not later than 30 days and 37 
days, respectively, from the date of publication of these preliminary 
results. See 19 CFR 351.309(c) and (d). 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. Parties are also encouraged to provide a summary of the 
arguments not to exceed five pages and a table of statutes, 
regulations, and cases cited.
    The Department will issue the final results of these administrative 
reviews, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any 
written briefs or at the hearing, if held, not later than 120 days 
after the date of publication of this notice.
    Interested parties who wish to request a hearing or to participate 
if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant 
Secretary for Import Administration, Room B-099, within 30 days of the 
date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) The 
party's name, address and telephone number; (2) the number of 
participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. See 19 CFR 
351.310(c).

Assessment Rates

    The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department 
will issue appropriate appraisement instructions directly to the 
Customs Service upon completion of this review. The final results of 
this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties 
on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review 
and for future deposits of estimated duties. We will instruct the 
Customs Service to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries 
covered by this review if any importer-specific assessment rate 
calculated in the final results of this review is above de minimis. For 
assessment purposes, we intend to calculate importer-specific 
assessment rates for the subject merchandise by aggregating the dumping 
margins calculated for all U.S. sales examined and dividing this amount 
by the total entered value of the sales examined. In calculating these 
importer-specific assessment rates, we will take into account the 
amount of the reimbursement calculated on sales during the POR. See 
Calculation Memo for details.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash 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 the 
final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 
751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for the reviewed 
companies will be those established in the final results of this 
review; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not 
listed above, 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 these reviews, a prior review, or the original 
less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the manufacturer is, the 
cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent 
period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash 
deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to 
be 29.52 percent, the ``All Others'' rate made effective by the LTFV 
investigation. These requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect 
until publication of the final results of the next administrative 
review.

Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a preliminary 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 these review periods. Failure to comply 
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This administrative review and notice is published in accordance 
with sections 751(a)(1) of the Act and CFR 351.221.

    Dated: November 1, 1999.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-29059 Filed 11-4-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P